25 Judicial Pronouncements on Rights of Prisoners in India

Prof. Abhishek Sudhir

Table of Contents

Learning Outcomes
Introduction (Voice Over)
Judicial Pronouncements on Rights of Prisoners in India
Summary

1. Learning Outcomes

After studying this chapter, the student will:

Understand how Indian Judiciary has shaped the law dealing with rights of prisoners;
Have an appreciation for the efforts of judiciary which has zealously guarded the rights of the prisoners over the decades.

2. Introduction (Voice Over)

The State is under an obligation for protecting the human rights of its citizens as well as to protect the society at large, and is authorized to do so. To protect the citizens from any possible abuse of this authority, they are given certain basic privileges recognized by the Constitution of India as Rights. Elevation of such claims to the status of Rights, gives the citizens the capacity to evoke the power of the Judiciary to protect themselves against violation of such rights, as well as to seek redressal for their restitution.

The Indian freedom struggle played a crucial role in initiating the process of identifying certain rights for the prisoners. After independence, the Constitution of India conferred a number of fundamental rights upon citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of personal liberty and thereby prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment to any person whether (s)he is a national or foreigner.

Article 21. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty; “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

3. Judicial Pronouncements on Rights of Prisoners in India

The Supreme Court of India, by interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution, has developed human rights jurisprudence for the preservation and protection of prisoners’ rights to maintain human dignity. Although it is clearly mentioned that deprivation of Article 21 is justifiable according to procedure established by law, this procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. In the celebrated case (Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India., 1978), the Apex Court opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. This was further upheld (Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, 1981) “Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful”.

Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, which enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law. In addition to this, the question of cruelty to prisoners is also dealt with, specifically by the Prison Act, 1894 and the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC). Any excess committed on a prisoner by the police authorities not only attracts the attention of the legislature but also of the judiciary. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in the recent past, has been very vigilant against violations of the human rights of the prisoners.

Maneka Gandhi’s case was a landmark in Indian jurisprudence. The Maneka principle was extended to prison conditions and particularly to the plight of under-trials. A series of news items appeared in “The Indian Express” about the continued incarceration of under-trials in Bihar Jails. Some of them were never produced before the courts. Some others had spent more time in jails as under-trials than the maximum penalty that could be imposed upon them if they were convicted of the offences they were charged with. The Supreme Court in the Writs of Habeas Corpus for under-trials stated that:

“..There can be little doubt after the dynamic interpretations placed by this court on Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India that a procedure which keeps such large number, of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conflict with the requirement of the Article.”

The need for prison reforms has come into focus during the last three to four decades. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have commented upon the deplorable conditions prevailing inside the prisons, resulting in violation of prisoner’s rights. Prisoners’ rights have become an important item in the agenda for prison reforms.

The Indian Supreme Court has been active in responding to human right violations in Indian jails and has, in the process, recognised a number of rights of prisoners by interpreting Articles 21, 19, 22, 32, 37 and 39A of the Constitution in a positive and humane way. Given the Supreme Courts’ overarching authority, these newly recognised rights are also binding on the State under Article 141 of the Constitution of India which provides that the Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Following are the reasons cited in various case laws for which prisoner’s rights were recognised and upheld by the Indian judiciary:

“Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess”- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration., 1978).
“Like you and me, prisoners are also human beings. Hence, all such rights except those that are taken away in the legitimate process of incarceration still remain with the prisoner. These include rights that are related to the protection of basic human dignity as well as those for the development of the prisoner into a better human being” (Charles Sobhraj vs. Superintendent, 1978).
If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he/she ceases to be a human being and that he/she can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitutes human dignity.
It is increasingly being recognised that a citizen does not cease to be a citizen just because he/she has become a prisoner.
The convicted persons go to prisons as punishment and not for punishment (Jon Vagg., 1994) Prison sentence has to be carried out as per the court’s orders and no additional punishment can be inflicted by the prison authorities without sanction (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration., 1978).
Prisoners depend on prison authorities for almost all of their day to day needs, and the state possesses control over their life and liberty, the mechanism of rights springs up to prevent the authorities from abusing their power. Prison authorities have to be, therefore, accountable for the manner in which they exercise their custody over persons in their care, especially as regards their wide discretionary powers.
Imprisonment as punishment is now rethought of as rehabilitative’ punishment. This involves a philosophy that individuals are incarcerated so that they have an opportunity to learn alternative behaviours to curb their deviant lifestyles. Correction, therefore, is a system designed to correct those traits that result in criminal behaviour. The rehabilitative model argues that the purpose of incarceration is to reform inmates through educational, training, and counselling programmes. This development and growth requires certain human rights without which no reformation takes place.
Disturbing conditions of the prison and violation of the basic human rights such as custodial deaths, physical violence/torture, police excess, degrading treatment, custodial rape, poor quality of food, lack of water supply, poor health system support, not producing the prisoners to the court, unjustified prolonged incarceration, forced labour and other problems observed by the apex court have led to judicial activism (NHRC).
Overcrowded prisons, prolonged detention of under trial prisoners, unsatisfactory living condition and allegations of indifferent and even inhuman behaviour by prison staff has repeatedly attracted the attention of critics over the years. Unfortunately, little has changed. There have been no worthwhile reforms affecting the basic issues of relevance to prison administration in India. (Justice A N Mulla Committee, 1980-83)

Rights of the prisoners have been expressed under the Indian Constitution as well as Indian laws governing prisons. The Supreme Court and High Court rulings have played a crucial role in enumerating the rights of prisoners.

A land mark judgment by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer enumerated basic human rights of the prisoners. Mr. Sunil Batra had written a letter from Tihar Jail, Delhi to the Supreme Court providing information about the torture and inhuman conditions of the prison. This case has become a landmark case in prison reforms (Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration, 1980) This case recognized the various rights of prisoners in the most comprehensive manner. The judgement held that: “No prisoner can be personally subjected to deprivation not necessitated by the fact of incarceration and the sentence of the court. All other freedoms belong to him to read and write, to exercise and recreation, to meditation and chant, to comforts like protection from extreme cold and heat, to freedom from indignities such as compulsory nudity, forced sodomy and other such unbearable vulgarity, to movement within the prison campus subject to requirements of discipline and security, to the minimal joys of self-expression, to acquire skills and techniques. A corollary of this ruling is the Right to Basic Minimum Needs necessary for the healthy maintenance of the body and development of the human mind. This umbrella of rights would include: Right to proper Accommodation, Hygienic living conditions, Wholesome diet, Clothing, Bedding, timely Medical Services, Rehabilitative and Treatment programmes”

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (I) the practice of keeping undertrials with convicts in jail was regarded by the Supreme Court as inhumane. The Court held that it offended the test of reasonableness in Article 19 and fairness in Article 21. The punishment of solitary confinement like Sobhraj case, was regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution by stating that liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share company with co-prisoners, if substantially curtailed by keeping a prisoner in solitary confinement, would be violative of Article 21, unless the curtailment has the backing of law. The Court also held that bar-fetters make a serious inroad on the limited personal liberty which a prisoner is left with and therefore before such erosion can be justified it must have the authority of law. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (II) (AIR 1980 SC 1579) In Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (II), in furtherance of Prison reforms, the Judges set out guidelines to be prescribed and followed which were as follows:

The State shall take early steps to prepare in Hindi, a Prisoner’s Handbook and circulate copies to bring legal awareness home to the inmates.
Periodical jail bulletins stating how improvements and habilitative programmes are brought into the prison may create a fellowship which will ease tensions.
A prisoner’s wall paper, which will freely ventilate grievances, will also reduce stress. All these are to implement Section 61 of the Prisons Act.
The State shall take steps to keep up to the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners recommended by the United Nations, especially those relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity, community contact and correctional strategies.

The Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison Manual total overhaul, even the model manual being out of focus with healing goals. A correctional-cum-orientation course is necessitous for the prison staff inculcating the constitutional values, therapeutic approaches and tension-free management. The prisoners’ rights shall be protected by the court by its writ jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this jurisdiction viable, free legal services to the prisoner programmes shall be promoted by professional organisations recognised by the court such as Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court) Society. The District Bar shall, we recommend, keep a cell for prisoner relief.

The Supreme Court has given a new dimension to the writ of habeas corpus by its judgment in Sunil Batra ‘II’ vs. Delhi Administration. While the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra I v. Delhi Administration, had crystalized the legally enforceable rights of a prisoner, the later decision in Sunil Batra II has radicalized the procedure for the enforcement of the rights of the prisoners.

The habeas corpus writ was traditionally used for securing the release of a person detained illegally. It is a favored remedy because of its simplicity, non-technicality and the priority which is given to its hearing by courts. Sunil Batra II lays down the important principle of law that a writ of habeas corpus is available not only to secure the release of a prisoner illegally detained but also to regulate the conditions and manner of detention of a person whose detention is lawful. Thus a speedy and simple remedy is available to prisoners to seek redress of their grievances about the manner of their detention.

The prisoners now have an important forum for the enforcement of their rights. As all the grievances could formerly be aired only through the prison-hierarchy, very few prisoners voiced any complaints for fear of retaliation. The very existence of the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus would be a deterrent to jail authorities and could prevent arbitrary and capricious action.

In another recent landmark judgment in the case of “Francies Corale Mullin vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & others”, the Supreme Court explained the ingredients of personal liberty under Article 21. The case arose out of the rights of a detainee under COFEPOSA to have an interview with his family members and lawyers. The meeting with family members was restricted to one a month and the lawyer could be met only in the presence of an officer of the customs department. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and liberty included his right to live with human dignity and therefore a detainee would be entitled to have interviews with family members, friends and lawyers without these severe restrictions.

Another land mark judgment pronounce by the judiciary is the right to compensation in cases of illegal deprivation of personal liberty. The Rudul Sah case (Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983) is an instance of breakthrough in Human Rights Jurisprudence. The petitioner Rudul Sah was detained illegally in prison for more than fourteen years. He filed Habeas Corpus before the court for his immediate release and, inter alia, prayed for his rehabilitation cost, medical charges and compensation for illegal detention. After his release, the question before the court was “whether in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32, could the court pass an order for payment of money? Was such an order in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right? There is no expressed provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life and personal liberty. But the judiciary has evolved a right to compensation in cases of illegal deprivation of personal liberty. The Court granted monetary compensation of Rs.35,000 against the Bihar Government for keeping the person in illegal detention for 14 years even after his acquittal. The Court departed from the traditional approach, ignored the technicalities while granting compensation.

The decision of Rudul Sah was important in two respects. Firstly, it held that violation of a constitutional right can give rise to a civil liability enforceable in a civil court and; secondly, it formulates the bases for a theory of liability under which a violation of the right to personal liberty can give rise to a civil liability. (Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983) The decision focused on extreme concern to protect and preserve the fundamental right of a citizen. It also calls for compensatory jurisprudence for illegal detention in prison.

In India, the courts have acknowledged and several judgments recognize a wide array of fundamental and other rights of prisoners. Following table enumerates the broad categories of rights, which are not exhaustive as this field is still developing and slowly evolving (Sreekumar R, 2003). These rights have been drawn from various case laws (Madhurima, 2009). Though these rights are articulated in the case laws, they do not reach the poor prisoners. There are still many rights that are not recognised by the Indian legal system.

RIGHTS OF PRISONERS

Right to be lodged appropriately based on Proper Classification.
Special Right of young prisoners to be segregated from adult prisoners.
Rights of women prisoners.
Right to healthy environment.
Right to bail.
Right to speedy trial.
Right to free legal services.
Right to basic needs such as food, water and shelter
Right to have interviews with one’s Lawyer.
Right against being detained for more than the period of sentence imposed by the court.
Right to protection against being forced into sexual activities.
Right against arbitrary use of handcuffs and fetters.
Right against torture, cruel and degrading punishment.
Right not to be punished with solitary confinement for a prison offence.
Right against arbitrary prison punishment.
Right to air grievances and to effective remedy.
Right to evoke the writ of habeas corpus against prison authorities for excesses.
Right to be compensated for violation of human rights.
Right to visits and access by family members of prisoners.
Right to write letters to family and friends and to receive letters, magazines, etc.
Right to rehabilitation and reformative programmes.
Right in the context of employment of prisoners and to prison wages.
Right to information about prison rules.
Right to emergency and reasonable health care.

In conclusion, various judgments passed by Indian courts suggest that they are sensitized to the need for doing justice to people to whom justice had been denied by a heartless society for generations (Mehta PL & Neena Verma, 1999). Although several judgments have recognized the rights of prisoners, these have resulted in few amendments to legislation. While judicial sensitivity and activism is appreciable, it must be borne in mind that the country’s criminal justice system still suffers from substantive and procedural deficiencies; once a citizen is arrested, even if on a relatively minor charge, he/she could be held in custody for years before his/her case comes up for trial. Those who are affluent are still being able to negotiate their way around the numerous obstacles that lie on the road to justice. For an ordinary citizen, an encounter with the law is very much the stuff of nightmares. There is a long course before the Indian judiciary to be followed in order to achieve the goal of social justice (Krishna Iyer VR, 1984).

Though various rights have been granted to prisoners, in reality, they do not reach the prisoners. An outstanding example is the right to speedy trial. A huge backlog of cases impedes the delivery of justice and this is a violation of the rights by the court itself. Similarly, free legal aid is an idealistic goal, but presently far from reality. Many of the prisoners do not know about the services and they are unable to utilize it.

4. Summary

From having almost nonexistent rights to prisoners having almost as many as rights as any other citizen of the country, we have come a long way and courts have been the catalyst in this process which has ensured that prisoners while serving their sentence do not lose their dignity as an individual and no excesses by authorities are inflicted upon them.

you can view video on Judicial Pronouncements on Rights of Prisoners in India

Reference

Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (2) SCC 96
Ramamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka ,1997 (2) SCC 642
Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 1977(3) SCC 287
Charles Sobraj Vs. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi , 1978 (4) SCC 104
http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/81nov/prisoner-rights.htm
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ngFvBswGWtkCX8HwZIXVeI/Supreme-Court-fiat-on-freeing-undertrials.html