[i]In Indian development, Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration was a revolutionary judgment given by a constitutional bench preserving the Fundamental Rights of the prisoners by invoking Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution for guarding against the wretched environment of the jail.

[ii]INTRODUCTION

The researchers aim is to analyze the Rights of prisoners as it in the recent past has been a cause celebre therefore the Apex Court has been very cautious regarding this issue because Article 21 endows Right to Life and Personal liberty which is the spine of the constitution and Judiciary has used this article several times in order to safeguard the victims of Human Rights Violation. This manuscript aspires to notify the privileges that even a prisoner being a citizen of the country is entitled to, with the analysis of various other judgments that have occurred all through these years but much of the efforts of the Judiciary has proved to be futile as there are still many prisons where the rights of an accused are compromised.

[iii]BRIEFING

On December 20 1979, the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration recognized the urgent need for prison reform. Sunil Batra a prisoner in Tihar Jail, New Delhi wrote a letter to the Supreme Court regarding the inhuman conditions in prison. Batra brought to notice an incident where a jail warden pierced a baton into the anus of a prisoner. The court led by Justice Krishna Iyer took cognizance of this letter making clear that technical and legal niceties are no impediments for a habeas corpus petition. In some ways this case recognized for the first time public interest litigation as a tool to protect constitutional rights of the voiceless. The Sunil Batra ruling along with the Judgments of Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979) and Anil Yadav vs State of Bihar brought to the public sphere the urgent need to address the issues of access to courts, right to speedy trial and prison reforms. Again in 2013, former Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti wrote a letter to the Supreme Court bringing to notice a story in Dainik Bhaskar that highlighted the inhuman conditions existing in 1382 prisons. The Supreme Court of India took cognizance of this letter. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice R.K. Aggarwal reading the contents of the letter expressed exasperation at the fact that for 35 years the judiciary has recognized the need for creating more human conditions in prison. And yet nothing seems to have changed. Nevertheless, the court continued to strive for change, the bench raised the problem of overcrowding in prisons. NCRB data of 2013 shows that Muslims, SC and ST populations constitute nearly 39 percent of prison population. These groups account for 53 percent of the under trial prisoners in various jails. Several of the under trials are uneducated and economically backward having no access to legal aid.

The Bench also brought to light the fact that the 13th Finance commission had allocated Rs. 609 crores for improvement of prison conditions. However, 19 states are yet to receive grants. And where grants have been received utilization remains a problem. Keeping this fact in view the court also directed that Director General and Inspector General of police should ensure proper utilization of funds so living conditions of prisoners progresses.

In recent times attempts have been made by the political class to deal with the issue of overcrowding. In 2002 the “modernization of prisons” plan was passed by the Centre where Rs 1800 crores were allocated to build additional prisons and improve the quality of life of under trials. In the year 2005, the Central Government amended section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to deal with the increasing number of under trials in prisons. The amendment stated that if an accused is detained for more than half the maximum period of imprisonment associated with the crime, he/she has the right to be released on the presentation of a personal bond.

[iv]FACTS

The appellant, Batra was found guilty by the sessions court of the offence of murder and was awarded capital sentence in January 1977. Till then he was a ‘B’ Class prisoner eligible for certain amenities. After the death penalty was pronounced, the prison superintendent striped him off of the ‘B’ Class facilities and locked him up in a single cell with a small walled yard attached beyond the view of other human beings except the jail guards and formal visitors who visited in discharge of their official duties and few callers on rare occasions. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court which dismissed the appeal. He also challenged in the High Court his quasi-solitary confinement but without success. Thereafter he filed the present petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India under Article14,19, and 21.

The petitioner Sobraj has been in custody since 1977 having been arrested in a hotel along with three of his foreign companions. His Interpol dossier is stated to be terrible and his exploits include jail break and grave crimes. He had been continuously subjected to torturesome bar fetters for 24hrs, every day of the month, for nearly two years. In a petition under Article 32 he complained against the persistence of bar fetters under Section 56 of the Prisons act, 1894.

[v]JUDGEMENT

As Per Chandrachud, Fazl Ali, Singhal and Desai

It is no more open for debate that convicts are not wholly denuded of their fundamental rights. Prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights. The Hands-off doctrine was completely abolished.

The court has to strike a just balance between dehumanizing prison atmosphere and the preservation of internal order and discipline, the maintenance of institutional security against escape and the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Id section 30(2) of the Prison act enables the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement on a prisoner under death sentence, not as a consequence of violation of prison discipline but on the sole and solitary ground that the prisoner in one under death sentence of death, the provision would offend Article 14,19, and 20. Further if by imposing solitary confinement, there is total deprivation of camaraderie amongst co-prisoners, comingling and talking, which would offend article 21.

It is clear that section 30(2) does not empower the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement in the sense in which that word is understood in the Punjab Jail Manual.

Under Section 30(2) the expression ‘such prisoner shall be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners’ has a restricted meaning. Furthermore, the expression “prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a prisoner whose sentence of death has become final and conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled

[vi]CONCLUSION

Judiciary has an important watchdog role to play in ensuring that fundamental rights are not denied even to a group as politically powerless as prisoners. Yet, it is reasonable to wonder whether the courts and Congress went too far in cutting back on inmates’ rights in the 1980s and 1990s. The deference that is reflected in both the Supreme Court opinions and in the PLRA is unlike that given to any other department of government. Ironically, deference has been granted to the very institution that, because of its all-controlling nature, poses a greater risk of abuse than virtually any other institution of government. The opposition to the current deferential doctrine was well expressed by Justice Brennan who wrote that a high level of deference to prison officials is not justified. Justice Brennan explained, “The Constitution was not adopted as a means of enhancing the efficiency with which government officials conduct their affairs, nor as a blueprint for ensuring sufficient reliance on administrative expertise. Rather it was meant to provide a bulwark against infringements that might otherwise be justified as necessary expedients of governing” (O’Lone v. Estate of Shabbaz, 482 U.S. 342, 356). In the years ahead, these factors might compel the courts and the legislative branch to extend greater protections to prisoners’ rights than is the case currently. With so many hundreds of thousands of Americans going into and coming out of prison every year, the well-being of the larger society demands no less.

[vi] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778810/

 About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Mr. Prakhar Bharadwaj, law student from Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida and was an Intern at MyLawman. He can be reached at prakharbharadwaj207@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.

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here