INTRODUCTION

The case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others(1) shows out in our lawful history as a milestone judgment which is related to the rights of Prisoners. It was one of a kind in a large number of ways, in this case the petitioner was a convict of death penalty being. It exposed a serious issues, including the conflicts between different rights of Prisoners and the Prison Act,1874. Moreover, it uncovered the barbaric treatment of detainees, with many being liable to torment and sexual maltreatment. It went far in revealing insight to the disturbing way of treatment by jail officials towards the prisoners.

FACT OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a convict under death sentence, through a letter  to one  of the  Judges of  this Court alleged that torture was  practised       upon  another  prisoner by  a  jail warder, to  extract  money  from  the victim through his visiting relations.  The letter was converted into a habeas corpus proceeding.  The Court issued notice to the State and the concerned officials. It also appointed amicus curiae and authorised them   to visit the prison, meet the prisoner, see relevant documents  and interview  necessary witnesses so as to enable  them to  inform them selves about the surrounding circumstances and the scenario of events. The amicus curiae after visiting the jail and examining witnesses reported  that the prisoner sustained serious anal injury because            a rod  was  driven  into  that aperture  to inflict inhuman      torture and  that as  the bleeding  had not stopped, he  was removed  to the  jail hospital and later to the Irvin Hospital. It was also reported that the prisoner's explanation for the anal  rupture was an unfulfilled demand of the warder for money, and that attempts were made by the departmental officers  to hush up the crime by overawing the prisoner and  the jail doctor and offering a story that the injury was  either due     to a fall of self-infliction or due to piles.

ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER'S SIDE

  1. The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that a prisoner wears  the armour of basic freedom even behind bars  and in this the rights were violated.
  2. The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that the personal  liberty of  the person who is incarcerated is to a great extent curtailed by plaintive detention.
  3. The Counsellor argued that  liberty to move, mix, mingle,  talk,  share  company  with  co-prisoners,  was violated under Art.  21 of Constitution.
  4. The Counsellor on behalf of Petitioner argued that prison treatment which abandons the reformatory purpose and   practises  dehumanizing techniques  it is wasteful,  and irrational hovering on the hostile brink of unreasonableness, here the rights of the Petitioners were violated.

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT'S SIDE

The Counsellor on behalf of the Respondent denied the claim of the Petitioner and argued all the claims of petitioner shouldn't be considered.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

The Court cited the case of Dwarkanath v.  income Tax officer(2) and referred to  injustice, verging on inhumanity, emerges from hacking human  rights guaranteed  in Part III and the victim reaches the Court to intervene and relieve, the Court will be a functional futility as a constitutional instrumentality if it  does not go into  action until the wrong is righted. The court can issue  writs to  meet  the new challenges.

Further the Court cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(3) where the Court held the   prisoner wears  the armour of basic freedom even behind bars  and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will respond to his distress signals through 'writ' aid. The  Indian human      has a  constant companion-the  court armed with the Constitution.

In this case ,the Court held the prisoner, Prem Chand, has been tortured while in custody in the Tihar Jail. As a criminal case is in the offing or may be pending, it is not necessary in this proceeding to decide who is the person responsible for inflicting the torture. The Superintendent of the Jail is directed to ensure that no punishment or personal violence is inflicted on Chand by reason of the complaint made in regard to the torture visited on him, further stated  need for prison reform and the expeditious provision for adequate facilities enabling the prisoners, not only to be acquainted with their legal rights, but also to enable them to record their complaints and grievances, and to have confidential interviews periodically with lawyers nominated for the purpose by the District Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction subject, of course, to considerations of prison discipline and security. It is imperative that District Magistrate,, and Sessions Judges should visit the prisons in their jurisdiction and afford effective opportunity to the prisoners for ventilating their grievances and, where the matter lies within their powers, to make expeditious enquiry therein and take suitable remedial action. It is also necessary that the Sessions Judge should be informed by the jail authorities of any punitive action taken against a prisoner within two days of such action, the Court rejected  the 'hands-off' doctrine and ruled that fundamental  rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison  although they  may suffer shrinkage necessitated by  incarceration.   Our  Constitutional   culture  has       now crystallised  in  favour  of  prison  justice  and  judicial jurisdiction.

RATIO DECIDENDI

In this case, the rule of law upon which the judgement was announced is that the convict  is entitled to the          precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution that he  shall not  be deprived  of  his  life  or personal  liberty   except  according to   the   procedure established by law.The  greater the restriction, stricter should be the security of the Court, so that the prisoner is not subjected  to unnecessary  and  arbitrary  loss  of his remaining liberties.

CONCLUSION

The State should 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 should be protected by the court. To make this jurisdiction viable, free legal services to the prisoner programmes should be promoted by professional organisations recognised by the Court such as for e.g. Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court) Society. The District Bar should keep a cell for prisoner relief .One  cannot rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect, if we treat a man like an animal, then we  must expect him to act like one.

Endnotes

(1)AIR 1980 SC 1579

(2)[1965] 3  SCR 536

(3) [1979] 1 SCC 248

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Pallabi Paul, LLM student at Department of Law, Assam University. She can be reached at pallabipaulkxj@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