“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
v. Delhi Administration, 1978)
INTRODUCTION
A prison, jail or correctional
facility is a place in which individuals are physically confined or detained
and usually deprived of a range of personal freedom. These institutions are an
integral part of the criminal justice system of a country. There are various
types of prisons such as those exclusively for adults, children, female,
convicted prisoners, under-trial detainees and separate facilities for mentally
ill offenders. In this chapter, “prisons” refer to only adult correctional
facilities. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal punishment that may be
imposed by the state for the commission of a crime or disobeying its rule. The
objective of imprisonment varies in different countries and may be:
a) punitive and for incapacitation,
b) deterrence, and
c) rehabilitative and reformative
Whenever
we try imagining a typical jail in our country, the picture which comes to our
mind is not exactly charming. News reports often bring into light the
ignominious behavior of police with the incarcerated. Gloomy atmosphere, bad
food, inadequate medical facilities are some of the basic problems faced by the
prisoners.
Every convict has been conferred
with certain rights by the constitution of India so that his life as a prisoner
is dignified and comfortable. Though these rights are must for every convicted
person to maintain and balance his mental status as a human being, the
inefficiency of our law enforcement system prevents prisoners from enjoying
these rights. But NGOs in our country are working for this cause with
considerable results. If these agencies keep working with this pace they will
definitely be able to make a mark. But the citizens must be aware themselves so
as to what rights one can enjoy if they get locked up unfortunately.
What is a prison?
A prison is a place
in which people are physically confined and usually deprived of their
personal freedoms. Imprisonment is a
legal penalty that may be
imposed by the state for the commission
of a crime
by convicted or suspected criminals. Prisons may be used for internment of those not
charged with a crime. Prisons may also be used as a tool of political repression to detain political
prisoners, prisoners of conscience, and "enemies
of the state".
Who are Prisoners?
A prisoner, also known as an inmate, is a person
who is deprived of liberty against their will. This can be by confinement,
captivity, or by forcible restraint. The term applies particularly to those on
trial or serving a prison sentence.
A criminal suspect who has been charged with or is likely to be charged with criminal offense may be held on remand in prison if he or she is denied or unable to meet conditions of bail, or is unable or unwilling to post bail. A criminal defendant may also be held in prison while awaiting trial or a trial verdict. If found guilty, the accused will be convicted and may receive a custodial sentence requiring imprisonment.
Conditions
of prisoners in prisons of India
Torture
Torture in the lock-ups is routine.
Attorneys who regularly defend those who have been held in such lock-ups
described to us the frequency of the "third degree", a term commonly
used in India to cover practices that are fairly described as torture as ranging
from far more than half of all detainees to virtually all detainees.
One of the small civil liberties
groups in India, the People's Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR) in New Delhi, published a brief report in October 1990 on deaths in police
custody in that city. Most of the cases cited in the report came to the PUDR's
attention because of newspaper accounts. In a city with less than one percent
of the national population, the report enumerates 48 deaths in police custody
from 1980 to 1989, most of them of persons under the age of 30. The PUDR
alleges that "most of these people died due to severe beating and
prolonged torture. Naked or semi-naked men are a common sight in police
lock-ups.
It is this process of torture,
regular and systematic, whose end product is sometimes death, as in the case of
these unfortunate 48 people in Delhi. The report also cites the findings of
other civil liberties groups in other parts of India which also generally based
their reports on press accounts.
The Purposes of Torture
In some countries, police torture of detainees is intended primarily to coerce a confession or to obtain a guilty plea. Where torture is a tool of political repression, a principal purpose is to force the victim to name others who may be involved in some real or imaginary conspiracy. Though coercing confessions or forcing defendants to name accomplices may be factors in India, this does not explain the extent of mistreatment in custody in India.
Probably the most widely known
episode of police brutality to detainees in India occurred in 1980 in the town
of Bhagalpur in Bihar. Journalists discovered that the police in Bhagalpur had
blinded 31 prisoners by poking their eyes with bicycle spokes and weaving
needles, and then pouring on acid.[1]
A 1989 report on custodial deaths by
a civil liberties group in West Bengal, the Association for the Protection of
Democratic Rights, asserts that "To everyone it appears quite natural that
the police should beat up any arrested person."
The Class System in the Prisons
Perhaps the most prominent fact from
India's colonial past is the classification scheme for prisoners. The
directives laid down in Prison Act, 1894 are still operational. Inmates are
divided into three categories, A, B, and C, which really collapse into two: A
and B inmates are persons who “by social status, education and habit of life
have been accustomed to a superior mode of living. Habitual prisoners may be
included in this class by order of the Inspector General of Prisons.” Category
C is the residual category consisting of “prisoners who are not classified in
class A and B.” In effect, those of high class and caste, those with property
or lineage or education, are set apart from the poor, the uneducated, the low
caste. It is not what you have done but who you are.
Overcrowding
In the late 1950s, an
Indian government commission, the All India Jail Committee, observed:
Almost all over India overcrowding
in prisons has become a common problem. In some prisons the cells and barracks
which were originally meant for accommodating inmates have been converted into
store-rooms, godowns, work-shops, etc. The original authorized accommodation of
an institution is thus slowly shrinking whereas the daily average population
and the total admission indicate a steady increase. As a consequence,
overcrowding has assumed the proportions of a major problem for the
Correctional Administration.[2]
Medical and Health Care
Many of the Indian
prisons have poor sanitary facilities. The All
India Committee on Jail Reforms of 1980-83 stated:
“Flush latrines are available in a
very few prisons. In most of the prisons open basket-type latrines are still in
use. Proper ratio of latrines to prisoners is not being maintained. Latrine and
urinal facilities in barracks/dormitories for use at night are very inadequate.
As a result, they overflow during the night. In most of the prisons latrines
have not been provided in cells; only pots are kept there for answering calls
of nature. A perpetual stinking smell pervades the atmosphere of most of the
prisons.”[3]
Even consignment to the prison
hospital is not such a great boon to prisoners as “there are not proper
buildings for the hospitals and subordinate clinical staff is not provided.”
Also, he writes, “The other conspicuous aspect of the health services is the
total neglect of the mental health of the prisoners.” The prisons lack any qualified personnel
psychiatrists, psychologists or even social workers to deal with the mental
health problems of the inmate population.
Punishment in the Prisons
Though punishment cells and
punishment wards are used in the Indian prisons, as in prisons worldwide,
another system of punishment seems as prevalent, or more prevalent in India.
That is the use of physical restraints. The various jail manuals provide for
these restraints.
Women in the Prisons
Though there are some separate
prisons for women in India, most of the accounts we were able to obtain about
women prisoners referred to sections in large prisons for men in which women
are confined. This comports with the findings of a National Expert Committee on Women Prisoners which was established
in 1987 by Margaret Alva, then Minister of State for Human Resources in the
government of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. According to this body, separate
institutions are available for only about one quarter of the women in prisons; the
rest are housed in sections of prisons for men. Some of the women in prisons
are convicts and under trials like the men. We also heard accounts of two other
categories of female inmates of the prisons: women held in protective custody;
and women referred to in India as “non-criminal lunatics.” A March 31, 1990
expose of conditions in the female non-criminal lunatic section of Presidency
Jail in The Statesman, a leading newspaper of Calcutta, reported six deaths
over a four year period due to malnutrition; repeated episodes of sexual
harassment of the inmates, some of whom are mentally retarded, including the
rape of a girl outside the prison where she had been taken on the pretext of a
court appearance and the sale of another girl to a brothel; and the corruption
of the wardens through the pilferage and sale of items intended for the use of
the inmates such as hair oil, soap and medicines.[4]
Every convict has been conferred with
certain rights by the constitution of India so that his life as a prisoner is
dignified and comfortable. Though these rights are must for every imprisoned
person to maintain and balance his mental status as a human being, the
inefficiency of our law enforcement system prevents prisoners from enjoying
these rights. Following are the rights conferred upon a prisoner:-
1. Right to be lodged appropriately
based on Proper Classification.
2. Special Right of young prisoners to
be segregated from adult prisoners.
3. Rights of women prisoners.
4. Right to a healthy environment.
5. Right to bail.
6. Right to speedy trial.
7. Right to free legal services.
8. Right to basic needs such as
food, water and shelter
9. Right to have interviews with
one’s Lawyer.
10. Right against being detained for
more than the period of sentence imposed by the court.
11. Right to protection against
being forced into sexual activities.
12. Right against arbitrary use of
handcuffs and fetters.
13. Right against torture, cruel and
degrading punishment.
14. Right not to be punished with
solitary confinement for a prison offence.
15. Right against arbitrary prison
punishment.
16. Right to air grievances and to
effective remedy.
17. Right to evoke the writ of
habeas corpus against prison authorities for excesses.
18. Right to be compensated for
violation of human rights.
19. Right to visits and access by
family members of prisoners.
20. Right to write letters to family
and friends and to receive letters, magazines, etc.
21. Right to rehabilitation and
reformative programmes.
22. Right in the context of
employment of prisoners and to prison wages.
23. Right to information about
prison rules.
24. Right to emergency and
reasonable health care.
Laws
governing the rights of prisoners in India
(1)
Rights under Constitution of India,
1950
Some rights have been given in
Indian Constitution which provides protection to prisoners. The Indian
Constitution provides four basic principles to provide the criminal; justice
system, viz. presumption of innocence, protection against double jeopardy, etc.
The provisions are this way-
1) Article 14: The state shall not deny to any person equality before
law or equal protection of law within the territory of India.
2) Article 20: Art. 20(1) makes it clear that no person shall be
convicted of an offence except for violating a ‘law in force’ at the time of
commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty
greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the
time of the commission of the offence.
3) No person shall be prosecuted and
punished for the some offence more than once.
4) No person accused of any offence
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
(2)
Right of Prisoners under Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973
Some rights of prisoners has been
given in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
They are as follows:-
1) Sec. 173(1) - Every investigation shall be completed without
unnecessary delay.
2) Sec. 167(2) -The Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded may
authorize the detention of the accused for a term not exceeding fifteen days.
3) Sec. 167(5) - If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons
case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the
date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping
further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the
investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the
interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of
six months is necessary.
4) Sec. 167(6) - Where any order stopping further investigation into
an offence has been made, the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an
application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the
offence ought to be made, he may vacate the order made and direct further
investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with
regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.
5) Sec. 250(1) - If accusation is made without reasonable ground, the
Court may award compensation to the accused.
The order to award compensation may be made in his order of acquittal.
It is upon the accused to seek civil or criminal redress against the
complainant.
6)
Sec. 304(1)
- This section provides that where in a trial before the Court the accused is
not represented by the pleader or where the accused has no sufficient means to
engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the
expense of the State.
7) Sec. 363(1) - When the accused is sentenced to
imprisonment, a copy of the judgment shall be given to him free of cost
immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment.
8) Sec. 389(1) - this section provides for right
of appeal to the convicted person and power of the appellant Court arises when
the appeal is filed, when the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for a
certain period and files appeal before the High Court with prayer of suspension
of his sentence, the Court may suspend his sentence or grant bail for reasons
to be recorded.
9) Sec. 436(1) - Where a person who is arrested is not accused of a
non-bailable offence or detained without warrant by the police officer, no
needless impediments should be placed in the way of his being admitted to bail.
(3) Prison Act, 1894 -
The Prison Act of 1894 providers
certain provision on prisoners’ rights which are as follows-
1) Sec. 27, Separation of Prisoners-
(a) In a prison containing female,
as well as male prisoners, the females shall be imprisoned in separate
buildings, or separate parts of the same buildings;
(b) Separation of young inmates from
adults;
(c) Separation of unconvicted from
convicted in criminal prisons;
(d) Separation of prisoners of civil
matters from that of criminals.
2) Sec. 29, Solitary Confinement- No cell shall be used for solitary
confinement unless it is furnished with the means enabling the prisoner to
communicate on time with a n officer of the prison, and every prisoner so
confined in a cell for more than twenty-four hours shall be visited at least
once a day by the Medical Officer or Medical Subordinate.
3) Sec. 33, Supply of clothing and bedding to civil and unconvicted
criminal prisoners-
Every civil prisoner and
non-convicted criminal prisoner unable to provide himself with sufficient
clothing and bedding shall be supplied by the Superintendent with such clothing
and bedding as may be necessary.
4) Sec. 39, Hospital. - In
every prison a hospital or proper place for the reception of sick prisoners
shall be provided.
5) Sec. 56, Confinement in
irons. - Whenever the Superintendent considers it necessary (with reference
either to the state of the prison or the character of the prisoners) for the
safe custody of any prisoners that they should be confined in irons, he may,
subject to such rules and instructions as may be laid down by the Inspector
General with the sanction of the State Government, so confine them.
6) Sec. 57, Confinement of
prisoners under sentence of transportation in irons. - (1) Prisoners under
sentence of transportation may, subject to any rules made under section 59[5], be
confined in fetters for the first three months after admission to prison.
7) Sec. 58, Prisoners not to be
ironed by Jailer except under necessity.— No prisoner shall be put in irons
or under mechanical restraint by the Jailer of his own authority, except in
case of urgent necessity, in which case notice thereof shall be forthwith given
to the superintendent.
(4)
Jail Committee on Prisoners’ Rights
The Jail Reforms Committee 1980-83 has also made recommendations
regarding prisoners’ rights and the Committee appears to be influenced by
judicial pronouncements on the various issues. The Committee has recommended
the incorporation of following rights-
1) Right to Human dignity,
2) Right to minimum needs,
3) Right to communication,
4) Right to access to law,
5) Right against arbitrary prison
punishments,
6) Right of meaningful and Gainful
employment,
7) Right to be released on due date.
Supreme
Court’s views on Prisoners’ Rights
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 Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh[6], the Court not only reduced the
sentence of the 28 years old appellant but also issued general directions to
the State Government. In a celebrity case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[7], 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 in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator[8], “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”. In the Menaka
Gandhi case, Justice Desai laid down five basic principles,
which are as follows-
1) Prisoners could not be wholly
denuded of all the Fundamental Rights, no iron curtain can be drawn between the
prisoners and the Constitution.
2) Prisoners’ liberty was
circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement.
3) Conviction of a person did not reduce
him to a non-person whose rights were at mercy of police administration and
could be punished only in accordance with rules.
4) Lawful imprisonment implied
necessary withdrawal of or limitation on some of prisoners’ fundamental Rights.
5) The question of prisoners’
Fundamental rights must be viewed against the background of modern reformist
theories of punishment.
Fair and Speedy Trial
Right to Fair and Speedy trial is
enshrined under Art.21 of the
Constitution. Conducting a fair trial is beneficial for those who are
accused of criminal offences and is the cornerstone of democracy. Conducting a
fair trial is beneficial both to the accused as well as the society. A
conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of
justice.[9] In the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal[10], SC said
that “speedy trial is an integral and
essential part of the Fundamental Right to Life and liberty enshrined in
Article 21”. The seriousness of offence is not sufficient to oust Art.21.
Long Pre-Trial Confinement
A very grievous aspect of
present-day administration of criminal justice is the long pre-trial
confinement of the accused persons. The poor persons have to languish in
prisons awaiting trial because there is no one to post bail for them. This
perpetrates great injustice on the accused person and jeopardizes his personal
liberty.[11] In Hussainara
Khatoon v. State of Bihar[12],
the SC said it is necessary that the law enacted by the legislature and as
administered by the Courts must radically change its approach to pre-trial
detention and ensure ‘reasonable, just and fair trail’ procedure which has
creative connotations.
Fetters
The Supreme Court in Charles
Sobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar[13]
said that “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”
Handcuffing
In the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi
Administration,[14]
the Supreme Court was of the view that the convicted persons go to prisons as punishment and not for punishment. Prison sentence has to
be carried out as per the court’s orders and no additional punishment can be
inflicted by the prison. 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. The SC has also declared
in Prem
Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration[15], that
handcuffing is prima facie “inhuman and therefore, unreasonable is over-harsh
and at the first flush arbitrary.” Accordingly, the Court has held that a rule
requiring every undertrial person accused of a non-bailable offence punishable
with more than 3 years’ prison term to be routinely handcuffed during transit
from prison to Court for trial violates Arts.14, 19 and 21. According to Krishna Iyer, J., Art.21 now “the
sanctuary of human values prescribes fair procedure and forbids barbarities,
punitive or processual.”
Torture in Police Custody
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.[16] In Sheela
Barse v. State of Maharashtra[17],
the SC has given directions to ensure protection against torture and
maltreatment of women in police lock-up. The SC also in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union
Territory of Delhi[18]
Supreme Court condemned cruelty or torture as being violative of Art.21 in the
following words, “…no procedure prescribed by law, which leads to such torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading element can never stand the test of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness it would be plainly unconstitutional and
void as being violative of Articles 14 and 21”.
Overcrowding
Overcrowded prisons, prolonged
detention of under-trial prisoners, unsatisfactory living conditions 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.[19]
Remedies
for violation of Prisoners’ Rights
For the violation of any of the
prisoners’ rights discussed above the legal as well as monetary remedies are
available.
Prisoners’ rights enshrined under
the Constitution as the Fundamental Rights and therefore the victim may
approach the High Court under Art.32 as
well as Supreme Court under Art.226 for justice. The prisoners’ rights are
also human rights as the prisoners even being a convict or accused are human
beings and citizens of the country and they have inalienable rights under the
Constitution, therefore, the victim may also approach the Non Government Organisations working for human rights as well as
the National Human Rights Commission.
The compensation may also be claimed
by the victim of violation of prisoners’ rights. There is no specific statute
for award of compensation to victims in India, it depends on case to case basis
and due to this prisoners highly suffer, in the case of Khatri v. State of Bihar[20],
infamously known as Bhagalpur Blinding case, where prisoners were blinded in prison
by the prison authorities, in absence of any appropriate law Supreme Court came
forward treating it to be a tort by the State, State argued that police acts
are sovereign function of State, therefore, if Government official is doing its
sovereign function it is not a wrong and principle of vicarious liability
should not be applied in cases of sovereign functions. SC rejected these two
argument and said life and liberty are Fundamental Rights of citizens and it
should be protected by state and if State violates it then compensation is to
be given to the victim.
First case in India wherein SC
played an activist role is Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar[21] as
Rudal Shah was put in jail for 6 years without any chargesheet and was
illegally detained by Police, SC ordered compensation of about Rs. 35,000. In
1993 case of Neelabati Behera v. State of Orissa[22],
a 22 year old man was arrested on the ground of suspicion of theft and he
died in Police Station due to beating and body was thrown in the railway line.
The SC ordered the compensation of Rs.1,15,000. Further in the case of Kewalpati
v. State of U.P.[23],
the husband of the complainant was in jail and was killed by another prisoner.
The SC contended that right to life includes right to protection provided by
the State and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000. Further in the similar case
of Murti
Devi v. State of Delhi[24],
SC held that the prisoner died due to gross negligence of prison authorities
and compensation of Rs.2,50,000 was awarded to the complainant.
Therefore, the prisoners’ rights are a matter of basic human rights and Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. And being a citizen of the nation and being a human being, regardless of the offence they have committed or no matter what allegation they have suffered, they could not be denied of their basic and Fundamental Rights.
Organizations
or Administrative bodies working for Prisoners’ Rights
There are various organizations and
administrative bodies working for prisoners’ rights in India. Some of them are
hereby mentioned with there contact details and address-
●
Pragatisheel Sansthan, Daulatpur Pandeypur, Varanasi, Contact no.-
+91-9935551894, e-mail- pisvaranasi@gmail.com
●
VISION, Jagrati Rahi, Rajghat, Varanasi, Contact no.- +
91-9450015899, e-mail- jagritirahi@gmail.com
●
Manavata Abhiyan - free legal
aid to poor through lawyers- A-155, Shivalik, Near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi,
Office: 011-26681676, 26680072
●
India Vision Foundation -
vocational programmes in 49 jails in India- 2, Talkatora Lane
New Delhi 110 001
●
Society for the Protection of
Detainees’ and Prisoners’ Rights
●
National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi, PIN 110001, Contact No.- 011-23384012
●
Human Rights Documentation Centre, B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave
Extension 110029, New Delhi, India, Phone: +91 11 2619 27
● HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION, Head Office Address:-F-14, World of Mother Jai Ganesh Vision. Akurdi, Pune - 35. Maharashtra.
●
All India Committee on Jail Reform, 1980-83
●
All India Jail Manual Committee, 1957-59
●
Constitution of India, 1950
●
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
●
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administration, AIR 1981 SC 746
●
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
●
Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928
●
77th & 78th Law Commission Report
●
Maneka Gandhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 597
●
National Expert Committee
on Women Prisoners
●
National Human Right Commission Report, 1993
●
Peoples’ Union for Democratic Republic Report, October 1999
●
Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
●
Prison Act, 1894
●
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579
●
[1] Khatri and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1981 SC 928
(Order dated December 19, 1980).
[2] Report of the All India Jail Manual Committee, 1957-59, para 38.
[3] All India Committee, op. cit., Vol.I, pp. 74-75
[4] A March 31, 1990 article in the Calcutta newspaper, The Statesman,
“Tales of Horror From Presidency Jail.”
[5] Power of state government to make rules under
Prisons Act,1894
[6] AIR 1977 SC 1926:
1977 Cr LJ 1557: (1978) 1 SCR 153
[7] AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248
[8] AIR 1981 SC 746: (1981) 1 SCC 608
[9] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC
2378: (1999) 6 SCC 172
[10] AIR 1981 SC 1678: (1981) 3 SCC 610
[11] 77th and 78th report of
Law Commission
[12] AIR 1979 SC 1360: (1980) 1 SCC 93
[13] AIR 1978 SC 1514: (1978) 4 SCC 104
[14] AIR 1980 SC 1579: (1980) 3 SCC 488
[15] AIR 1980 SC 1535
[16] National Human Right Commission Report, 1993
[17] AIR 1983 SC 378 : (1983) 2 SCC 2256
[18] AIR 1981 SC 746
[19] Justice A.N. Mulla Committee, All India Jail
reform Committee,1980-83
[20] AIR 1981 SC 928 : (1981) 1 SCC 623
[21] AIR 1983 SC 1086
[22] AIR 1993 SC 1960
[23] (1995) 3 SCC 6
[24] (1998) 9 SCC 604
About the Author: This Article is prepared by Adv. Ayushi Gupta from MyLawman . She can be reached at ayushimylawman@gmail.com.
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments