National Judicial Academy Regional Judicial Conference

Organised by High Court, Madras, Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy and The National Judicial Academy

24. 2.2 !2 to 2". 2.2 !2 Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai RIGHTS OF PRISONERS AND CONVICTS UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATON

by

Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Judge, High C u!t, M"d!"s

INTRODUCTION#
The $ast decade has %itnessed an increasing consciousness about the desirability o& $rison re&orms, 't is no% being recogni(ed that a re&ormati)e $hiloso$hy and a rehabilitati)e strategy must &orm a $art o& $rison *ustice. The Su$reme Court o& 'ndia, by inter$reting Article 2! o& the Constitution, has de)elo$ed human rights *uris$rudence &or the $reser)ation and $rotection o& $risoners rights to maintain human dignity. Although it is clearly mentioned that de$ri)ation o& Article 2! is *usti&iable according to $rocedure established by la%, this $rocedure cannot be arbitrary, un&air or unreasonable. 'n a celebrity case +Mane,a -andhi .s. /nion o& 'ndia., !0123, the A$e4 Court o$ened u$ a ne% dimension and laid do%n that the $rocedure cannot be arbitrary, un&air or unreasonable. Article 2! im$osed a restriction u$on the state %here it $rescribed a $rocedure &or de$ri)ing a $erson o& his li&e or $ersonal liberty. This %as &urther u$held +5rancis Coralie Mullin ). The Administrator, !02!3 6Article 2! re7uires that no one shall be de$ri)ed o& his li&e or $ersonal liberty e4ce$t by $rocedure established by la% and this $rocedure must be reasonable, &air and *ust and not arbitrary, %himsical or &anci&ul8. Any )iolation o& this right attracts the $ro)isions o& Article !4 o& the Constitution, %hich enshrines right to e7uality and e7ual $rotection o& la%. 'n addition to this, the 7uestion o& cruelty to $risoners is also dealt %ith, s$eci&ically by the 9rison Act, !204 and the Criminal 9rocedure Code +C:9C3. Any e4cess committed on a $risoner by the $olice authorities not only attracts the attention o& the legislature but also o& the *udiciary. The 'ndian *udiciary, $articularly the Su$reme Court, in the recent $ast, has been )ery )igilant against )iolations o& the human rights o& the $risoners. :ole $layed by the *udiciary The need &or $rison re&orms has come into &ocus during the last three to &our decades. The Su$reme Court and the High Courts ha)e commented u$on the de$lorable conditions $re)ailing inside the $risons, resulting in )iolation o& $risoner srights. 9risoners; rights ha)e become an im$ortant item in the agenda &or $rison re&orms. The 'ndian Su$reme Court has been acti)e in res$onding to human right )iolations in 'ndian *ails and has, in the $rocess, recognised a number o& rights o& $risoners by inter$reting Articles 2!, !0, 22, <2, <1 and <0A o& the Constitution in a $ositi)e and humane %ay. The Hon;ble Su$reme Court o& 'ndia by inter$reting Article 2! o& the Constitution has de)elo$ed H:

Juris$rudence &or the $reser)ation and $rotection o& $risoners right to human dignity. Although it is clearly mentioned that de$ri)ation o& Article 2! is *usti&iable according to $rocedure established by la%, this $rocedure cannot be arbitrary, un&air or unreasonable. ARE CONVICTS DENUDED OF FUNDAMENTA RI!"TS#$ 't is no more o$en to debate that con)icts are not %holly denuded o& their &undamental rights. Ho%e)er, $risoner;s liberty is in the )ery nature o& things circumscribed by the )ery &act o& his con&inement. His interest in the limited liberty le&t to him is then all the more substantial con)iction &or a crime does not reduce the $erson into a non=$erson %hose rights are sub*ect to the %hims o& the $rison administration and there&ore, the im$osition o& any ma*or $unishment %ithin the $rison system is condition u$on the obser)ance o& $rocedural sa&eguards +Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 16753. 'n the said decision, Justice >.A.>esai, s$ea,ing &or himsel&, the Hon;ble Chie& Justice o& 'ndia and t%o Hon;ble Judges obser)ed that a con)ict is in $rison under the order and direction o& the Court and the Court has, there&ore, to stri,e a *ust balance bet%een the dehumani(ing $rison atmos$here and the $reser)ation o& inter)al order and disci$line, the maintenance o& institutional security against esca$e, and rehabilitation o& the $risoners. Article 2! guarantees $rotection o& li&e and $ersonal liberty. Though couched in the negati)e it con&ers the &undamental right to li&e and $ersonal liberty. 'n Maneka andhi versus !nion o" India, AIR 1978 SC 579, Justice ?hag%ati obser)ed that i& a la% de$ri)ing a $erson o& $ersonal liberty and $rescribing a $rocedure &or that $ur$ose %ithin the meaning o& Article 2! has to stand the test o& one or more o& the &undamental rights con&erred under Article !0, %hich may be a$$licable in a gi)en situation, e4hyo$thesis it must also be liable to be tested %ith re&erence to Article !4. Justice ..:. @rishna 'yer in Charles So#ra$ v% Su&dt%, Central 'ail, AIR 1978 SC 151(, obser)ed that im$risonment does not s$ell &are%ell to &undamental rights although, by a realistic re=a$$raisal, Courts %ill re&use to recogni(e the &ull $ano$ly o& $art ''' en*oyed by &ree citi(ens. 5urther, obser)ed that the a4iom o& $rison *ustice is the Court;s continuing duty and authority to ensure that the *udicial %arrant %hich de$ri)es a $erson o& his li&e or liberty is not e4ceeded, sub)erted or stulti&ied. 't is a sort o& solemn co)enant running %ith the $o%er to sentence. :e&erring to the decision o& Su$reme Court in Rustom Co)vas$ee Coo&er v% !nion o" India, AIR 197* SC 1+18, and Menaka andhi, it %as obser)ed that 9risoner;s retain all rights en*oyed by &ree litigants e4ce$t those lost necessary as an incident o& con&inement, the rights en*oyed by $risoner;s under Article !4, !0 and 2! though limited, are not static and %ill rise to human heights %hen challenging situation arise. The Su$reme Court in Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration, ,198*- + SCC (88, obser)ed 69risons are built %ith stones o& la%8, and sort beho)es the Court to insist that, in the eye o& la%, $risoners are $ersons, not animals and $unish the de)iant 6guardians8 o& the $rison system %here they go berser, and de&ile the dignity o& the human inmate. 9rison houses are $art o& 'ndian earth and the 'ndian Constitution cannot be held at bay by Jail o&&icials 6 dressed in a little, brie& although %hen $art ''' is in)o,ed by a con)ict. 5or %hen a $risoner is traumati(ed, the constitution su&&ers a shoc,. The Su$reme Court &urther held that the Court has $o%er and res$onsibility to inter)ene and $rotect the $risoner against may ho%, crude beha)iour. DIRECTIVES ISSUED TO %RISON STAFF#$ At this stage, %e may re&er to the directi)es gi)en to the state and $rison sta&& +See Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration, ,198*- + SCC (883 #= ,i- Aa%yers nominated by the >istrict Magistrate, Sessions Judge, High Court and the Su$reme Court %ill be gi)en all &acilities &or inter)ie%s, )isits and con&idential communication %ith $risoners sub*ect to disci$line and security considerations. This has roots in the

)isitatorial and su$er)isory *udicial role. The la%yers so designated shall be bound to ma,e $eriodical )isits and record and re$ort to the concerned court results %hich ha)e rele)ance to legal grie)ances. ,ii- Bithin the ne4t three months, -rie)ance >e$osit ?o4es shall be maintained by or under the orders o& the >istrict Magistrate and the Sessions Judge %hich %ill be o$ened as &re7uently as is deemed &it and suitable action ta,en on com$laints made. Access to such bo4es shall be a&&orded to all $risoners. ,iii- >istrict Magistrates and Sessions Judges shall, $ersonally or through surrogates, )isit $risons in their *urisdiction and a&&ord e&&ecti)e o$$ortunities &or )entilating legal grie)ances, shall ma,e e4$editious en7uiries thereinto and ta,e suitable remedial action. 'n a$$ro$riate cases re$orts shall be made to the High Court &or the latter to initiate, i& &ound necessary, habeas action. +i)3 't is signi&icant to note the Tamil Nadu 9rison :e&orms CommissionCs obser)ations # 6<2. !". rievan.e /ro.edure # D This is a )ery im$ortant right o& a $risoner %hich does not a$$ear to ha)e been $ro$erly considered. The rules regulating the a$$ointment and duties o& non=o&&icial )isitors and o&&icial )isitors to the $risons ha)e been in &orce &or a long time and their $rimary &unction is Eto )isit all $arts o& the *ail and to see all $risoners and to hear and en7uire into any com$laint that any $risoner may ma,e;. 'n $ractice, these rules ha)e not been )ery e&&ecti)e in $ro)iding a &orum &or the $risoners to redress their grie)ances. There are a &e% non=o&&icial )isitors %ho ta,e u$ their duties conscientiously and listen to the grie)ances o& the $risoners. ?ut most o& them ta,e this a$$ointment solely as a $ost o& honour and are some%hat reluctant to record in the )isitorsC boo, any grie)ance o& a $risoner, %hich might cause embarrassment to the $rison sta&&. The *udicial o&&icers )i(. the Sessions Judge and the Magistrates %ho are also e4=o&&icio )isitors do not discharge their duties e&&ecti)ely.8 Be insist that the *udicial o&&icers re&erred to by us shall carry out their duties and res$onsibilities and ser)e as an e&&ecti)e grie)ance mechanism. +)3 No solitary or $uniti)e cell, no hard labour or dietary change as $ain&ul additi)e, no other $unishment or denial o& $ri)ileges and amenities, no trans&er to other $risons %ith $enal conse7uences, shall be im$osed %ithout *udicial a$$raisal o& the Sessions Judge and %here such intimation, on account o& emergency, is di&&icult, such in&ormation shall be gi)en %ithin t%o days o& the action. &UASI ' MANDATES#$ 5urther, the Su$reme Court s$elled out &our 7uasi=mandates#= +a3 The State shall ta,e early ste$s to $re$are in Hindi, a $risonerCs handboo, and circulate co$ies to bring legal a%areness home to the inmates. 9eriodical *ail bulletins stating ho% im$ro)ements and habilitati)e $rogrammes are brought into the $rison may create a &ello%shi$, %hich %ill ease tensions. A $risonersC %all$a$er, %hich %ill &reely )entilate grie)ances %ill also reduce stress. All these are im$lementary o& Section "! o& the 9risons Act.

+b3 The State shall ta,e ste$s to ,ee$ u$ to the Standard Minimum :ules &or Treatment o& 9risoners recommended by the /nited Nations, es$ecially those relating to %or, and %ages, treatment %ith dignity, community contact and correctional strategies. 'n this latter as$ect, the obser)ations %e ha)e made o& holistic de)elo$ment o& $ersonality shall be ,e$t in )ie%. ,.- The 9risons Act needs rehabilitation and the 9rison Manual total o)erhaul, e)en the Model Manual being out o& &ocus %ith healing goals. A correctional=cum=orientation course is necessitous &or the $rison sta&& inculcating the constitutional )alues, thera$eutic a$$roaches and tension=&ree management. ,d-% The $risonersC rights shall be $rotected by the court by its %rit *urisdiction $lus contem$t $o%er. To ma,e this *urisdiction )iable, &ree legal ser)ices to the $risoner $rogrammes shall be $romoted by $ro&essional organisations recognised by the court such as &or e4am$le. 5ree Aegal Aid +Su$reme Court3 Society. The >istrict ?ar shall, %e recommend, ,ee$ a cell &or $risoner relie&. S%EED( TRIA #$ The $rimary interest o& the Criminal Justice system is to entrance society;s rights to sanction acti)ities harm&ul to the $ublic order and thereby $unish o&&enders to $re)ent &uture misconducts. The Su$reme Court in se)eral decision held that the e4$ression 6 $rocedure established by la%8 in Article 2! en)isages an e4$editious $rocedure. There&ore, a $rocedure in %hich the trial %as unduly delayed &or no &ault o& the $etitioner %as held to be an anti=thesis o& an e4$editious $rocedure, termed as a blatant dilatory $rocedure, shoc,s *udicial conscience and casts a )ery sad re&lection on the *udicial system +see Sada Shiv Manohar /arkar vs% State o" Maharastra, 1998 Crl% 0' +755 3. The right to s$eedy criminal trial is one o& the most )aluable &undamental rights guaranteed to a citi(en under the Constitution, %hich right is integral $art o& right to li&e and liberty guaranteed under Article 2!. 'n 1artar Sin2h vs% State o" /un$a#, ,199(- + SCC 569, it %as obser)ed#= The conce$t o& s$eedy trial is read into Article 2! as an essential $art o& the &undamental right to li&e and liberty guaranteed and $reser)ed under our Constitution. The right to s$eedy trial begins %ith the actual restraint im$osed by arrest and conse7uent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage o& in)estigation, in7uiry, trial, a$$eal and re)ision so that any $ossible $re*udice that may result &rom im$ermissible and a)oidable delay &rom the time o& the commission o& the o&&ence till it consummates into a &inality, can be a)erted. 'n this conte4t, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee o& s$eedy trial is $ro$erly re&lected in Section < 0 o& the Code o& Criminal 9rocedure. O& course, no length o& time is $er se too long to $ass scrutiny under this $rinci$le nor the accused is called u$on the sho% the actual $re*udice by delay o& dis$osal o& cases. On the other hand, the court has to ado$t a balancing a$$roach by ta,ing note o& the $ossible $re*udices and disad)antages to be su&&ered by the accused by a)oidable delay and to determine %hether the accused in a criminal $roceeding has been de$ri)ed o& his right o& ha)ing s$eedy trial %ith unreasonable delay %hich could be identi&ied by the &actors D +!3 length o& delay, +23 the *usti&ication &or the delay, +<3 the accusedCs assertion o& his right to s$eedy trial, and +43 $re*udice caused to the accused by such delay. Ho%e)er, the &act o& delay is de$endent on the circumstances o& each case because reasons &or delay %ill )ary, such as delay in in)estigation on account o& the %ides$read rami&ication o& crimes and its designed net%or, either nationally or internationally, the deliberate absence o& %itness or %itnesses, cro%ded doc,ets on the &ile o& the court etc.

'n A#dul Rahman Antula3 vs% R%S%4a3ak, ,1995- 1 SCC 555, the Constitution ?ench laid do%n the &ollo%ing $ro$ositions intended to ser)e as guidelines#= +!3 5air, *ust and reasonable $rocedure im$licit in Article 2! o& the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried s$eedily. :ight to s$eedy trial is the right o& the accused. The &act that a s$eedy trial is also in $ublic interest or that it ser)es the social interest also, does not ma,e it any the less the right o& the accused. 't is in the interest o& all concerned that the guilt or innocence o& the accused is determined as 7uic,ly as $ossible in the circumstances. +23 :ight to s$eedy trial &lo%ing &rom Article 2! encom$asses all the stages, namely the stage o& in)estigation, in7uiry, trial, a$$eal, re)ision and re=trial. That is ho%, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to ta,e a restricted )ie%. +<3 The concerns underlying the right to s$eedy trial &rom the $oint o& )ie% o& the accused are# +a3 the $eriod o& remand and $re=con)iction detention should be as short as $ossible. 'n other %ords, the accused should not be sub*ected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration $rior to his con)ictionF +#3 the %orry, an4iety, e4$ense and disturbance to his )ocation and $eace, resulting &rom an unduly $rolonged in)estigation, in7uiry or trial should be minimalF and +.3 undue delay may %ell result in im$airment o& the ability o& the accused to de&end himsel&, %hether on account o& death, disa$$earance or non= a)ailability o& %itnesses or other%ise. +43 At the same time, one cannot ignore the &act that it is usually the accused %ho is interested in delaying the $roceedings. As is o&ten $ointed out, 6delay is a ,no%n de&ence tactic8. Since the burden o& $ro)ing the guilt o& the accused lies u$on the $rosecution, delay ordinarily $re*udices the $rosecution. Non=a)ailability o& %itnesses, disa$$earance o& e)idence by la$se o& time really %or, against the interest o& the $rosecution. O& course, there may be cases %here the $rosecution, &or %hate)er reason, also delays the $roceedings. There&ore, in e)ery case, %here the right to s$eedy trial is alleged to ha)e been in&ringed, the &irst 7uestion to be $ut and ans%ered is D %ho is res$onsible &or the delayG 9roceedings ta,en by either $arty in good &aith, to )indicate their rights and interest, as $ercei)ed by them, cannot be treated as delaying tactics nor can the time ta,en in $ursuing such $roceedings be counted to%ards delay. 't goes %ithout saying that &ri)olous $roceedings or $roceedings ta,en merely &or delaying the day o& rec,oning cannot be treated as $roceedings ta,en in good &aith. The mere &act that an a$$licationH$etition is admitted and an order o& stay granted by a su$erior court is by itsel& no $roo& that the $roceeding is not &ri)olous. .ery o&ten these stays are obtained on e4 $arte re$resentation. +I3 Bhile determining %hether undue delay has occurred +resulting in )iolation o& :ight to S$eedy Trial3 one must ha)e regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature o& o&&ence, number o& accused and %itnesses, the %or,load o& the court concerned, $re)ailing local conditions and so on D %hat is called, the systemic delays. 't is true that it is the obligation o& the State to ensure a s$eedy trial and State includes *udiciary as %ell, but a realistic and $ractical a$$roach should be ado$ted in such matters instead o& a $edantic one.

+"3 Jach and e)ery delay does not necessarily $re*udice the accused. Some delays may indeed %or, to his ad)antage. As has been obser)ed by 9o%ell, J. in Barker 6it cannot be said ho% long a delay is too long in a system %here *ustice is su$$osed to be s%i&t but deliberate8. The same idea has been stated by Bhite, J. in !%S% ). 6)ell<2 in the &ollo%ing %ords# E... the Si4th Amendment right to a s$eedy trial is necessarily relati)e, is consistent %ith delays, and has orderly e4$edition, rather than mere s$eed, as its essential ingredientsF and %hether delay in com$leting a $rosecution amounts to an unconstitutional de$ri)ation o& rights de$ends u$on all the circumstances.; Ho%e)er, inordinately long delay may be ta,en as $resum$ti)e $roo& o& $re*udice. 'n this conte4t, the &act o& incarceration o& accused %ill also be a rele)ant &act. The $rosecution should not be allo%ed to become a $ersecution. ?ut %hen does the $rosecution become $ersecution, again de$ends u$on the &acts o& a gi)en case. +13 Be cannot recogni(e or gi)e e&&ect to, %hat is called the Edemand; rule. An accused cannot try himsel&F he is tried by the court at the behest o& the $rosecution. Hence, an accusedCs $lea o& denial o& s$eedy trial cannot be de&eated by saying that the accused did at no time demand a s$eedy trial. '& in a gi)en case, he did ma,e such a demand and yet he %as not tried s$eedily, it %ould be a $lus $oint in his &a)our, but the mere non=as,ing &or a s$eedy trial cannot be $ut against the accused. J)en in /SA, the rele)ance o& demand rule has been substantially %atered do%n in Barker22 and other succeeding cases. +23 /ltimately, the court has to balance and %eigh the se)eral rele)ant &actors D Ebalancing test; or Ebalancing $rocess; D and determine in each case %hether the right to s$eedy trial has been denied in a gi)en case. +03 Ordinarily s$ea,ing, %here the court comes to the conclusion that right to s$eedy trial o& an accused has been in&ringed the charges or the con)iction, as the case may be, shall be 7uashed. ?ut this is not the only course o$en. The nature o& the o&&ence and other circumstances in a gi)en case may be such that 7uashing o& $roceedings may not be in the interest o& *ustice. 'n such a case, it is o$en to the court to ma,e such other a$$ro$riate order D including an order to conclude the trial %ithin a &i4ed time %here the trial is not concluded or reducing the sentence %here the trial has concluded D as may be deemed *ust and e7uitable in the circumstances o& the case. +! 3 't is neither ad)isable nor $racticable to &i4 any time=limit &or trial o& o&&ences. Any such rule is bound to be 7uali&ied one. Such rule cannot also be e)ol)ed merely to shi&t the burden o& $ro)ing *usti&ication on to the shoulders o& the $rosecution. 'n e)ery case o& com$laint o& denial o& right to s$eedy trial, it is $rimarily &or the $rosecution to *usti&y and e4$lain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty o& the court to %eigh all the circumstances o& a gi)en case be&ore $ronouncing u$on the com$laint. The Su$reme Court o& /SA too has re$eatedly re&used to &i4 any such outer time=limit in s$ite o& the Si4th Amendment. Nor do %e thin, that not &i4ing any such outer limit ine&&ectuates the guarantee o& right to s$eedy trial. +!!3 An ob*ection based on denial o& right to s$eedy trial and &or relie& on that account, should &irst be addressed to the High Court. J)en i& the High Court entertains such a $lea, ordinarily it should not stay the $roceedings, e4ce$t in a case o& gra)e and e4ce$tional nature. Such $roceedings in High Court must, ho%e)er, be dis$osed o& on a $riority basis.

The Judgment in A#dul Rahman Antula3 case, along %ith t%o other cases in common case and :.C.>eo Sharma %as e4amined by a Constitution ?ench and it %as obser)ed that the o$inion in A#dul Rahman Antula3 .ase78 +i3 5air, *ust and reasonable $rocedure im$licit in Article 2! o& the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried s$eedily +ii3 right to s$eedy trial &lo%ing &rom Article 2! encom$asses all the stages, namely the stage o& in)estigation, in7uiry, trial, a$$eal, re)ision and re=trial. +iii3 %ho is res$onsible &or the delay and %hat &acts ha)e been contributed to%ards delay are rele)ant &actors. Attendant circumstances, including nature o& the o&&ence, number o& accused and %itnesses, the %or,=load o& the court concerned, $re)ailing local conditions and so on %hat is called systemic delays must be ,e$t in )ie%F +i)3 each and e)ery delay does not necessarily $re*udice the accused as some delays indeed %or, to his ad)antage.8 Therea&ter guidelines 2, 0, ! and !! ha)e been 7uoted. Then di&&erent ty$es o& trials ha)e been noticed. A&ter detailed discussion, the o$inions e4$ressed in the cases o& Common Cause and :.C.>eo Sharma %ere o)erruled &or the added reason that those ran contrary to A.:.Antulay;s decision and &urther that 69rescribing $eriods o& limitation at the end o& %hich the trial court %ould be obliged to terminate the $roceedings and necessarily ac7uit or discharge the accused, and &urther, ma,ing such directions a$$licable to all the cases in the $resent and &or the &uture amounts to legislation, %hich, in our o$inion, cannot be done by *udicial directi)es and %ithin the arena o& the *udicial la% ma,ing, $o%er a)ailable to constitutional courts, ho%soe)er liberally %e may inter$ret Articles <2, 2!, !4! and !42 o& the Constitution. The di)iding line is &ine but $erce$tible. Courts can declare the la%, they can inter$ret the la%, and they can remo)e ob)ious lacunae and &ill the ga$s but they cannot entrench u$on in the &ield o& legislation $ro$erly meant &or the AegislatureK..8 The directions regarding grant o& bail made in Common Cause and :.C.>eo Sharma ha)e not been commented u$on 6because di&&erent considerations arise be&ore Criminal Courts %hile dealing %ith termination o& trial or $roceedings and %hile dealing %ith right o& accused to be enlarged on bailKKK Be are deleting the directions made res$ecti)ely by t%o and three Judges ?ench o& this Court, %e should not e)en &or a moment, be considered as ha)ing made a de$arture &rom the la% as to s$eedy trial and s$eedy conclusion o& criminal $roceedings o& %hate)er nature and at %hiche)er stage be&ore any authority or CourtK..8 COM%ENSATION)DAMA!ES#$ The Su$reme Court in State o" Andhra /radesh vs% Challa Ramkrishna Redd3 ,5***- 5 SCC 715, and other series o& decisions obser)ed that &undamental rights, also includes basic human rights, %hich continue to be a)ailable to a $risoner and those rights cannot be de&eated by $leading old and archaic de&ence o& immunity in res$ect o& so)ereign acts %hich ha)e been re*ected by the Su$reme Court.'N this case the Su$reme Court u$held the order o& the High Court %hich a%arded damages to the state &or &ailing to establish and maintain *ails. The State %as claiming immunity under so)ereign &unction %hich %as re*ected by Su$reme Court. CRIMINA A* IN INDIA#$

Human :ights are uni)ersal. This means that human rights are so im$ortant that the international community has deemed that e)eryone has their, regardless o& %here they li)e, or their economic, social or $olitical situation. The criminal la% in 'ndia is contained in a number o& sources. The 'ndian 9enal Code o& !2" , together %ith other Aocal and S$ecial Aa%s such as the >o%ry 9rohibition Act !0"!, the 9rotection o& Ci)il :ights Act !0II, the 9re)ention o& 5ood Adulteration Act !0I4 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes +9re)ention o& Atrocities3 Act !020, the 9re=Conce$tion and 9re=Natal >iagnostic

Techni7ues Act !004, 9rotection o& Bomen &rom >omestic .iolence Act 2 I, and others outline %hat constitute criminal o&&ences under 'ndian Aa%. The 'ndia J)idence Act sets &orth the rules under %hich e)idence is admissible in 'ndian Courts. And the Code o& Criminal 9rocedure o& !01< +Cr9C3, outlines the $rocedural mechanisms &or $rosecuting criminal acts, $ro)iding &or the constitution o& criminal courts, the $rocedure &or conducting $olice in)estigations and arrests, and the $rocedure &or holding criminal trials and in7uiries. The a$$lication o& the Cr9C generally e4tends to all criminal o&&ences, and to the entire territory o& 'ndia, e4cluding the State o& Jammu and @ashmir, and some tribal areas +S.! Cr9C3. One o& the cardinal $rinci$les %hich has al%ays to be ,e$t in mind in our system o& administration o& criminal *ustice is that a $erson arraigned as an accused is $resumed to be innocent unless that $resum$tion is rebutted by the $rosecution by $roduction o& e)idence as may sho% him to be guilty o& the o&&ence %ith %hich he is charged. The burden o& $ro)ing the guilt o& the accused is u$on the $rosecution and unless it relie)es itsel& o& the burden, the Court cannot record a &inding o& guilt o& the accused. '& t%o )ie%s are $ossible one $ointing to the guilt o& the accused and the other to his innocence, the )ie% %hich is &a)ourable to the accused has to be acce$ted. D+,+-ASU ' DIRECTIONS#$ Bhile %e are on the sub*ect it is im$ortant to note directions issued by the Su$reme Court in D%1%Basu vs% State o" 9%B% AIR 1997 SC 619, %herein the Su$reme Court laid do%n the re7uirements to be &ollo%ed in all cases o& arrest or detention till legal $ro)isions are made in that beha)e as $re)enti)e measures#= Be, there&ore, consider it a$$ro$riate to issue the &ollo%ing re:uirements to be &ollo%ed in all cases o& arrest or detention till legal $ro)isions are made in that behal& as &reventive measures# +!3 The $olice $ersonnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation o& the arrestee should bear accurate, )isible and clear identi&ication and name tags %ith their designations. The $articulars o& all such $olice $ersonnel %ho handle interrogation o& the arrestee must be recorded in a register. +23 That the $olice o&&icer carrying out the arrest o& the arrestee shall $re$are a memo o& arrest at the time o& arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one %itness, %ho may either be a member o& the &amily o& the arrestee or a res$ectable $erson o& the locality &rom %here the arrest is made. 't shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date o& arrest. +<3 A $erson %ho has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a $olice station or interrogation centre or other loc,=u$, shall be entitled to ha)e one &riend or relati)e or other $erson ,no%n to him or ha)ing interest in his %el&are being in&ormed, as soon as $racticable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the $articular $lace, unless the attesting %itness o& the memo o& arrest is himsel& such a &riend or a relati)e o& the arrestee. +43 The time, $lace o& arrest and )enue o& custody o& an arrestee must be noti&ied by the $olice %here the ne4t &riend or relati)e o& the arrestee li)es outside the district or to%n through the Aegal Aid Organisation in the >istrict and the $olice station o& the area concerned telegra$hically %ithin a $eriod o& 2 to !2 hours a&ter the arrest. +I3 The $erson arrested must be made a%are o& this right to ha)e someone in&ormed o& his arrest or detention as soon as he is $ut under arrest or is detained.

+"3 An entry must be made in the diary at the $lace o& detention regarding the arrest o& the $erson %hich shall also disclose the name o& the ne4t &riend o& the $erson %ho has been in&ormed o& the arrest and the names and $articulars o& the $olice o&&icials in %hose custody the arrestee is. +13 The arrestee should, %here he so re7uests, be also e4amined at the time o& his arrest and ma*or and minor in*uries, i& any $resent on hisHher body, must be recorded at that time. The 6'ns$ection Memo8 must be signed both by the arrestee and the $olice o&&icer e&&ecting the arrest and its co$y $ro)ided to the arrestee. +23 The arrestee should be sub*ected to medical e4amination by a trained doctor e)ery 42 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the $anel o& a$$ro)ed doctors a$$ointed by >irector, Health Ser)ices o& the State or /nion Territory concerned. >irector, Health Ser)ices should $re$are such a $anel &or all tehsils and districts as %ell. +03 Co$ies o& all the documents including the memo o& arrest, re&erred to abo)e, should be sent to the 'lla7a Magistrate &or his record. +! 3 The arrestee may be $ermitted to meet his la%yer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. +!!3 A $olice control room should be $ro)ided at all district and State head7uarters, %here in&ormation regarding the arrest and the $lace o& custody o& the arrestee shall be communicated by the o&&icer causing the arrest, %ithin !2 hours o& e&&ecting the arrest and at the $olice control room it should be dis$layed on a cons$icuous notice board. MENTA "EA T"#$ The National Human :ights Commission +NH:C3 has e)ol)ed certain guidelines %ith regard to mentally ill $ersons, %ho ha)e been detained in $rison and the recommendations o& the NH:C are to the &ollo%ing e&&ect#= 'n order to $re)ent or to ensure early detection o& mental illness, all $risoners should be $ro)ided $sychiatric and $sychological counselling. 5or this $ur$ose, collaborations should be made %ith local $sychiatric, medical institutions and non=go)ernmental organisations. All *ails should be &ormally a&&iliated to a mental hos$ital. Central and district *ails should ha)e &acilities &or $reliminary treatment o& mental disorder. Sub=*ails should ta,e inmates %ith mental illness to $sychiatric &acilities. J)ery central and district *ail should ha)e ser)ices o& a 7uali&ied $sychiatrist %ho %ould be assisted by a $sychologist and a social %or,er trained in $sychiatry. Mentally ill $ersons, %ho are not accused o& a criminal o&&ence, should not be ,e$t or sent to $rison. They should be ta,en &or obser)ation to the nearest $sychiatric centre, or i& that is not a)ailable to the 9rimary Health Centre.

All those ,e$t in $rison %ith mental illness and under obser)ation o& $sychiatrist should be ,e$t in one barrac,. 9re)enti)e legal aid is re7uired to chec, the abuse o& la% and dum$ing o& the mentally ill in $risons. 't is necessary to ensure that no mentally ill $erson is unre$resented in court.

9re)ention o& Mental 'llness %ithin 9risons The state has a res$onsibility &or the mental and $hysical health o& the incarcerated. To $re)ent $eo$le &rom becoming mentally ill a&ter being sent to $rison, each *ail and detention centre should ensure that it $ro)ides the &ollo%ing &acilities# o An o$en en)ironment, la%ns, ,itchen gardens and &lo%er gardens. o >aily $rogrammes &or $risoners that reduce stress and de$ression including organised s$ort and meditation. o A humane sta&& that is not harsh# O&&icers o& the institution should not use &orce e4ce$t in sel&de&ence or attem$ted esca$e, 5orce i& used, should not be more than is strictly necessary. The concerned o&&icers must re$ort the incident immediately to the director o& the institution, 9rison o&&icers should be gi)en s$ecial $hysical training to enable them to restrain aggressi)e $risoners, and 9rison sta&& in direct contact %ith $risoners should not be armed +e4ce$t in s$ecial circumstances3. There should be e&&ecti)e grie)ance redressal mechanisms. At the time o& admission, e)ery $risoner should be $ro)ided %ith %ritten in&ormation +orally i& the $risoner is illiterate3 about the# regulations go)erning the treatment o& $risoners in his category, disci$linary re7uirements o& the institution, authorised methods o& see,ing in&ormation and ma,ing com$laints, and all other matters to enable him understand both his rights and his obligations. .isitors and corres$ondence %ith &amily and &riends should be encouraged. There must be o)ersight bodies including members o& the ci)il society to ensure the absence o& corru$tion and abuse o& $o%er.

Under$trial.)Con/ict. 01o 2ecome Mentally Ill in %ri.on The state has an a&&irmati)e res$onsibility to%ards an under=trial or a con)ict %ho becomes mentally ill %hile in $rison. The state must $ro)ide ade7uate medical su$$ort.

A$$ro$riate &acilities should be $ro)ided in state assisted hos$itals &or under=trials %ho become mentally ill in $rison. 'n case such $laces are not a)ailable, the state must $ay &or the same medical care in a $ri)ate hos$ital. Care should be $ro)ided until the reco)ery o& the under=trialHcon)ict. On com$letion o& the $eriod o& sentence &or a con)ict $risoner admitted to hos$ital &or $sychiatric care, his status in all records o& $rison and hos$ital should be recorded as a &ree $erson. He shall continue to recei)e treatment as a &ree $erson.

Mentally Ill Under$trial. Mentally ill under=trials should be sent to the nearest $rison ha)ing ser)ices o& a $sychiatric attached to a hos$ital. Jach under=trial should be attended to by a $sychiatrist %ho %ill send a $eriodic re$ort to the *udgeHmagistrate through the su$erintendent o& the $risons regarding the condition o& the indi)idual and his &itness to stand trial. Bhen the under=trial reco)ers &rom mental illness, the $sychiatrist should certi&y him as E&it to stand trial;. '& the trial is sus$ended e)en &or one day due to mental illness, a re$ort should be sent to the rele)ant district and sessions *udge as %ell as the magistrate on a 7uarterly basis i.e. e)ery < months. As soon as it comes to the notice o& the trial court that an under=trial is mentally ill and cannot understand the $roceedings against him, the court must &ollo% the $rocedure under Cha$ter LL. o& the Cr.9.C.

READIN! MATERIA TO %RISONERS#$ 5urther, the NH:C ha)e also $re$ared certain guidelines $ertaining to the reading material %hich ha)e to be $ro)ided to $risoners and the guidelinesHrecommendations are as &ollo%s#= Any restrictions im$osed on a $risoner %ith res$ect to reading materials must be reasonable. All $risoners should ha)e access to such reading materials as are essential &or their recreation or the nurturing o& their s,ills and $ersonality, including their ca$acity to $ursue their education %hile in $rison. J)ery $rison should ha)e a library &or use by all categories o& $risoners. The library should be ade7uately stoc,ed %ith both recreational and instructional boo,s and $risoners should be encouraged to ma,e use o& them. The materials in the library should be commensurate %ith the si(e and nature o& the $rison $o$ulation. >i)ersi&ied $rogrammes should be organised by $rison authorities &or di&&erent grou$ o& inmates. The educational and cultural bac,ground should be ,e$t in mind %hen de)elo$ing such $rogrammes. S$ecial attention should be $aid to the de)elo$ment o& suitable recreational and educational materials &or %omen $risoners or &or those %ho may be young or illiterate.

 9risoners should generally be $ermitted to recei)e reading material &rom outside. Such material should be reasonable in 7uantity and not $rohibited &or reasons o& being obscene or tending to create a security ris,. Muotas should not be set arbitrarily &or reading materials. The 7uantity and nature o& reading material $ro)ided to a $risoner should ta,e into account his indi)idual needs. 'n assessing the content o& reading material, the su$erintendent o& the *ail should be guided by la%, and not e4ercise his discretion in an arbitrary manner. RI!"TS OF ACCUSED %ERSONS#= Though the to$ic is %ith regard to rights o& $risoners and con)icts, it %ould be necessary to also loo, into the rights o& accused $ersons. The e4$ression 6accused $erson8 cannotes a $erson against %hom e)idence is sought to be led in a criminal $roceeding. Against %hom an allegation has been made that he has committed an o&&ence or %ho is charged %ith an o&&ence. 'n terms o& Section 24 o& the J)idence Act, the e4$ression 6accused $erson8 includes a $erson %ho subse7uently becomes an accused and that he need not ha)e been accused o& an o&&ence %hen he made the con&ession in 7uestion +see State o" !ttar&radesh vs% Deoman !&adha3a3a, AIR 196* SC 11553. The $rotection o& Article 2 +<3 o& the Constitution becomes a)ailable to a $erson as soon as he is named as an accused either in a &irst in&ormation re$ort made under Section !I4 Cr9C or in a com$laint instituted against him in Court +see 4ara3anlal Bansilal vs% Mane.k /hiro; Mistr3, AIR 1961 SC 59-. An accused $erson shall ha)e the &ollo%ing rights, namely +i3 +ii3 +iii3 +i)3 +)3 +)i3 +)ii3 +)iii3 +i43 +43 +4i3 +4ii3 +4iii3 +4i)3 +4)3 +4)i3 +4)ii3 :ight to be in&ormed o& the grounds immediately a&ter the arrest. :ight &or medical e4amination :ight to be $roduced be&ore a Magistrate %ithin 24 hours o& his arrest :ight to consult a la%yer o& his choice :ight to be tried >uty o& the in)estigating authority to com$lete in)estigation and submit re$ort under Section !1< Cr9C :ight to get co$ies o& the documents and statements o& %itnesses relied on by the $rosecution :ight to ha)e notice o& the charges :ight to insist that e)idence be recorded in his $resence e4ce$t in s$ecial circumstances :ight &or his re7uest &or e4em$tion o& $ersonal attendance to be considered on its o%n merits :ight to test the e)idence by cross e4amination :ight to $roduce de&ence %itnesses :ight to not to be com$elled to be a %itness against himsel& :ight to be gi)en an o$$ortunity to e4$lain circumstances a$$earing in e)idence against him :ight to be heard about his sentence u$on con)iction $rotection against double *eo$ardy :ight to get co$y o& the *udgment %hen sentenced to im$risonment :ight to a$$eal in case o& con)iction

+4)iii3 +4i43

:ight not to be im$risoned u$on con)iction in certain circumstances +9robation o& O&&enders Act3 :ight to education

As noticed abo)e, a $risoner, be he a con)ict or under=trial or a detenue does not sei(e to be a human being. J)en %hen lodged in *ail his rights to li&e guarantee under the Constitution is $rotected. On being con)icted and de$ri)e o& his liberty in accordance %ith $rocedure established by la%, the $risoner still retained the residue o& constitutional rights. OVER CRO*DIN! IN %RISONS#$ The Su$reme Court %as concerned about o)er cro%ding o& $risons, it %as noticed that release on bail o& certain categories o& under=trial $risoners, %ho constitute the bul, o& $rison $o$ulation, has to result in lessoning the o)er ca$acity. 'n &act, the Aa% Commission o& 'ndia in its 12th re$ort has made recommendations, acce$tance o& %hich, %ould relie)e congestion in *ails and the suggestion includes liberali(ation o& conditions o& release on bail. SO ITAR( CONFINEMENT)-AR FETTERS#$ The Su$reme Court in Sunil Batra vs% Delhi Administration, ,1978- ( SCC (9(, held that Solitary con&inement %as )iolati)e o& the right to $ersonal liberty. The Su$reme Court again in a se$arate %rit $etition &iled by Sunil ?atra and Charles Sobhara*, t%o $riso=ners in >elhiCs Tihar *ail, made an e&&ort to humani(e *ail conditions. The 7uestion be&ore the Court %as# N>oes a $rison setting, i$so &acto, outla% the rule o& la%, loc, out the *udicial $rocess &rom the *ail gates and declare a long holiday &or human rights o& con=)icts in con&inement G And i& there is no total ecli$se %hat luscent segment is o$en &or *udicial *usticeG Sunil ?atra, sentenced to death had challenged his incarcera=tion in solitary con&inement and Charles Sobhra* had challenged his con&inement %ith bar=&etters. The Su$reme Court held that there is no total de$ri)ation o& a $risonerCs rights o& li&e and liberty. The Nsa&e ,ee$ingN in *ail custody is the limited *uris=diction o& the *ailer. NTo desort sa&e=,ee$ing into a hidden o$$ortunity to care the %ard and to traumati(e him is to betray the custodian o& la%, sa&e custody does not mean de$ri)ations, )iolation, banishment &rom the lanter barguet o& $rison li&e and in&lictionCs o& tra=)ails as i& guardianshi$ %ere best &ul&illed by ma,ing the %ard su&&er near insanity.N The court held that Sunil ?atraCs mercy $etition to the 9residentH-o)ernor had not been dis$osed o&& and ?atra %as not Nunder sentence o& death.N His solitary con&inement %as 7uashed. 'n the case o& Charles Sobh=raJ, it %as held that there %as no arbitrary $o%er to $ut an undertrial under bar=&etters. The discretion to im$ose NironsN is a 7uasi=*udicial decision and a $re)ious hearing is essential be&ore $utting a $risoners in &etters. The grounds &or im$osing &etters %ould be gi)en to each )ictim in his language. 't %as &urther laid do%n that no N&ettersN shall continue be=yond day time and a $rolonged continuance o& bar=&etters shall be %ith the a$$ro)al o& the Chie& Judicial Magistrate or a Sessions Judge. 'n the case o& Danial <% 9al.ott v% Su&erintendent, 4a2&ur Central /rison, the $etitioner %as $unished %ith solitary con&inement by the $rison authorities &or the commission o& a $rison o&&ence. The ?ombay High Court inter$reted Section 4" o& the 9risons Act !204 and obser)ed that the $rinci$les o& natural *ustice are to be adhered to by the Su$erintendent in such cases. The Su$erintendent must 6e4amine8 the $risoner himsel&Hhersel& and not rely on a readymade statement. The en7uiry is 7uasi *udicial in nature and includes the right o& the $risoner to be heard, to be &ully in&ormed and to cross= e4amine. The Su$erintendent must $ass a reasoned order a&ter &ollo%ing this 7uasi=*udicial $rocess. ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND INTERVIE*#$

The $risoners are entitled to access to in&ormation and inter)ie% %ith &amily members. 'n a recent landmar, *udgement in the case o& N5rancies Corale Mullin )s. the Administrator, /nion Territory o& >elhi O othersN, the Su$reme Court e4$lained the ingredients o& $ersonal liberty under Article 2!. The case arose out o& the rights o& a detainee under CO5J9OSA to ha)e an inter)ie% %ith his &amily members and la%yers. The meeting %ith &amily members %as restricted to one a month and the la%yer could be met only in the $resence o& an o&&icer o& the customs de$artment. The Su$reme Court ruled that the right to li&e and liberty included his right to li)e %ith human dignity and there&ore a detainee %ould be entitled to ha)e inter)ie%s %ith &amily members, &riends and la%yers %ithout these se)ere restrictions. E&UITA- E *A!ES#$ 't is im$erati)e that the $risoners should be $aid e7uitable %ages &or the %or, done by them. :emuneration, %hich is not less than the minimum %ages, has to be $aid to anyone %ho has been as,ed to $ro)ide labour or ser)ice by the state. The $ayment has to be e7ui)alent to the ser)ices rendered, other%ise it %ould be &orced labour %ithin the meaning o& Article 2< o& the Constitution . The is no di&&erence bet%een a $risoner ser)ing a sentence inside the $rison %alls and a &reeman in society. The Su$reme Court in State o" u$arat vs% <i2h Court o" u$arat, ,1998- 7 SCC +95, directed the State concerned to ma,e la% &or setting a $art a $ortion o& the %ages earned by the $risoners to be $aid as com$ensation to the deser)ing )ictims o& the o&&ence. A li&e con)ict does not ac7uire a right to be released $re=maturely, but i& the -o)ernment had &ramed a rule or made a scheme &or early release o& such con)icts, then those rules or Schemes %ill ha)e to be treated as guidelines &or e4ercising its $o%er under Article !"! o& the Constitution. Bhen an authority is called u$on to e4ercise its $o%er under Article !"! that shall be done consistent %ith the legal $osition and the -o)ernment $olicyHinstructions $re)alent at that time. 't %ould be use&ul to ta,e note o& the directions issued by the Su$reme Court in Common Cause vs% !nion o" India, ,1996- ( SCC ++, %ith regard to the release o& under=trial $risoners. %ARO E#$ The ne4t right &or a $risoner is to see, &or $arole. 9arole is not a sus$ension o& sentence and the con)ict continuous to be ser)ing the sentence des$ite grant o& $arole under the statute, rules, *ail manual or the -o)ernment orders. REMISSION#$ The State -o)ernments $o%er to grant remission or circumscribed under the Criminal 9rocedure Code or the $ro)isions o& the 9risons Act and the :ules made thereunder. 't has to be noted that com$letion o& the minimum $eriod does not con&er a right on the con)ict to claim remission. "AND CUFFIN!#$ 'n another case o& N9rem Shan,ar Shu,la .s. >elhi Administration,N the Su$reme Court struc, do%n the $ro)isions o& the 9an*ab 9olice rules %hich discrimina=ted bet%een the rich and the $oor $risoner in deter=mining %ho %as to be handcu&&ed. The Court also held that in the absence o& the escorting authority re=cording %hy the $risoner is being $ut under handcu&&s, the $rocedure o& handcu&&ing is a )iolation o& Article 2!. CONJU!A RI!"TS#$ 'n another recent decision by the 9un*ab and Haryana High Court %hile dealing %ith the $lea &or con*ugal rights by a cou$le in $rison has as,ed the 9un*ab go)ernment to clari&y %hether $risoners can ha)e the right to use arti&icial inseminationG The husband and %i&e both con)icted o& ,idna$$ing and murder +the

husband ha)ing being granted death sentence and the %i&e ordered li&e im$risonment3 ha)e demanded con*ugal rights so that they can gi)e their &amily an heir. The basic contention here lies that till the $etitioners %ere ali)e and the husband not e4ecuted in line %ith the court;s orders, they had a right to li&e, %hich included the right to $ro$agate s$ecies and se4 li&e %as $art o& this right. 'nteresting conce$t this, es$ecially in light o& the gambit o& change %hich the Etraditional; 'ndian *udiciary is undergoing and %hen decided is sure to ha)e %ide rami&ications. ?ut it is surely going to be a long %ay be&ore the society is o$en to hang a Edo not disturb; sign outside $rison cells. The Court system in 'ndia is based on the Jnglish model, en&orcement o& Criminal Aa% is e4clusi)ely a state &unction. E!A AID#$ J&&ecti)e access to Justice re7uires that there is a systemati(ed mechanism o& legal aid in $lace Article 22 +!3 o& the Constitution entitles arrested $ersons to be re$resented by a legal $ractitioner. Conse7uently, the 9olice and the Magistrate be&ore %hom a detenue is $roduced must in&orm them o& the right to legal re$resentation. The $ro)ision o& legal aid is enshrined in Article <0A and comes %ithin the broad inter$retation o& Article 2!. Courts ha)e held that right to legal aid to be an essential ingredient o& reasonable, &air and *ust $rocedure +see <ussainara 1hatoon vs% <ome Se.retar3, State o" Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1+69-. 9ursuant to the directi)e under Article <0A o& the Constitution, the Aegal Ser)ices Authorities Act, has been enacted to $ro)ide &ree and com$etent legal ser)ice to the %ea,er sections o& society to ensure that o$$ortunities &or securing *ustice are not denied to any citi(en by reason o& economic or other disabilities. *OMEN %RISONERS#$ The Su$reme Court in Sheela Barse vs% State o" Maharashtra, ,198+- 5 SCC 96, de)ised number o& guidelines to ensure $rotection o& %oman $risoners#= +i3 Be %ould direct that &our or &i)e $olice loc,=u$s should be selected in reasonably good localities %here only &emale sus$ects should be ,e$t and they should be guarded by &emale constables. 5emale sus$ects should not be ,e$t in a $olice loc,=u$ in %hich male sus$ects are detained. The State o& Maharashtra has intimated to us that there are already three cells %here &emale sus$ects are ,e$t and are guarded by &emale constables and has assured the Court that t%o more cells %ith similar arrangements %ill be $ro)ided e4clusi)ely &or &emale sus$ects. +ii3 Be %ould &urther direct that interrogation o& &emales should be carried out only in the $resence o& &emale $olice o&&icersHconstables. +iii3 Bhene)er a $erson is arrested by the $olice %ithout %arrant, he must be immediately in&ormed o& the grounds o& his arrest and in case o& e)ery arrest it must immediately be made ,no%n to the arrested $erson that he is entitled to a$$ly &or bail. The Maharashtra State ?oard o& Aegal Aid and Ad)ice %ill &orth%ith get a $am$hlet $re$ared setting out the legal rights o& an arrested $erson and the State o& Maharashtra %ill bring out su&&icient number o& $rinted co$ies o& the $am$hlet in Marathi %hich is the language o& the $eo$le in the State o& Maharashtra as also in Hindi and Jnglish and $rinted co$ies o& the $am$hlet in all the three languages shall be a&&i4ed in each cell in e)ery $olice loc,=u$ and shall be read out to the arrested $erson in any o& the three languages %hich he understands as soon as he is brought to the $olice station. +iv3 Be %ould also direct that %hene)er a $erson is arrested by the $olice and ta,en to the $olice loc,=u$, the $olice %ill immediately gi)e intimation o& the &act o& such arrest to the nearest Aegal Aid Committee and such Aegal Aid Committee %ill ta,e immediate ste$s &or the $ur$ose o& $ro)iding legal assistance to the arrested $erson at State cost $ro)ided he is %illing to acce$t such legal assistance.

The State -o)ernment %ill $ro)ide necessary &unds to the concerned Aegal Aid Committee &or carrying out this direction. +v3 Be %ould direct that in the City o& ?ombay, a City Sessions Judge, to be nominated by the $rinci$al Judge o& the City ci)il court, $re&erably a lady Judge, i& there is one, shall ma,e sur$rise )isits to $olice loc,=u$s in the city $eriodically %ith a )ie% to $ro)iding the arrested $ersons an o$$ortunity to air their grie)ances and ascertaining %hat are the conditions in the $olice loc,=u$s and %hether the re7uisite &acilities are being $ro)ided and the $ro)isions o& la% are being obser)ed and the directions gi)en by us are being carried out. '& it is &ound as a result o& ins$ection that there are any la$ses on the $art o& the $olice authorities, the City Sessions Judge shall bring them to the notice o& the Commissioner o& 9olice and i& necessary to the notice o& the Home >e$artment and i& e)en this a$$roach &ails, the City Sessions Judge may dra% the attention o& the Chie& Justice o& the High Court o& Maharashtra to such la$ses. This direction in regard to $olice loc,=u$s at the district head7uarters shall be carried out by the Sessions Judge o& the district concerned. +vi3 Be %ould direct that as soon as a $erson is arrested, the $olice must immediately obtain &rom him the name o& any relati)e or &riend %hom he %ould li,e to be in&ormed about his arrest and the $olice should get in touch %ith such relati)e or &riend and in&orm him about the arrestF and lastly +vii3 Be %ould direct that the Magistrate be&ore %hom an arrested $erson is $roduced shall en7uire &rom the arrested $erson %hether he has any com$laint o& torture or maltreatment in $olice custody and in&orm him that he has right under Section I4 o& the Code o& Criminal 9rocedure, !01< to be medically e4amined. Be are a%are that Section I4 o& the Code o& Criminal 9rocedure, !01< undoubtedly $ro)ides &or e4amination o& an arrested $erson by a medical $ractitioner at the re7uest o& the arrested $erson and it is a right con&erred on the arrested $erson. ?ut, )ery o&ten the arrested $erson is not a%are o& this right and on account o& his ignorance, he is unable to e4ercise this right e)en though he may ha)e been tortured or maltreated by the $olice in $olice loc,=u$. 't is &or this reason that %e are gi)ing a s$eci&ic direction re7uiring the Magistrate to in&orm the arrested $erson about this right o& medical e4amination in case he has any com$laint o& torture or maltreatment in $olice custody. Cr+%+C$ IN-UI T SAFE!UARDS#$ The Criminal 9rocedure Code contains inbuilt $ro)isions to sa&eguard the rights o& accused. 'n this connection the attention o& the Magistrates is dra%n to Sections 4!, I , I4, !"1, < 4 and 4<1 +"3 o& the Criminal 9rocedure Code. The 7uestion o& e&&ecti)ely en&orcing these $ro)isions e)en in res$ect o& indigent and $oor $ersons has been considered in se)eral cases by the Su$reme Court. Attention is also dra%n to the amendment in Sec. !1" Cr.9.C. %herein $ro)ision has been made that in the case o& death or disa$$earance o& a $erson, or ra$e o& a %oman %hile in the custody o& the $olice, there shall be a mandatory *udicial in7uiry and in case o& death, e4amination o& the dead body shall be conducted %ithin t%enty=&our hours. C"I DREN OF *OMEN CONVICTS#$ 'n :.>./$adhyay )s. State o& A.9, A': 2 " SC !04", Su$reme Court considered the $light o& children o& %oman con)icts or under=trial %ho are &orced to li)e in *ails. Con&irming that children o& %oman $risoners should not be treated as under=trail or con)icts, the Su$reme Court issued the &ollo%ing guidelines#= A *ail must ha)e ade7uate &acilities &or $renatal and $ost=natal care &or &emale $risoners as %ell as their childrenF $regnant %omen in *ails should be able to gi)e birth outside the $rison &acility +e4ce$t in some e4treme cases3, so as to ensure that the ne%born is gi)en $ro$er care. Bithin the $risons, children should be able to ha)e access to &ood, shelter medical assistance %hen re7uired, education and a recreational s$ace. Bomen can ,ee$ their children %ith them until the children reach the age o& si4. Then they should be handed o)er to %el&are institutions maintained by the Social Bel&are >e$artment, $re&erably %ithin the same

city or to%n. The child can remain in such an institution until the mother is released or the child is ca$able o& earning a li)elihood. JUVENI ES IN CONF ICT *IT" A*#$ The Su$reme Court $layed an acti)e role in laying do%n guidelines &or the $ro$er treatment o& *u)eniles in con&lict %ith la%. :e&erence may be made to the obser)ations o& the Su$reme Court in <iralal Malli.k vs% State o" Bihar, AIR 1977 SCC 55+6 . The Su$reme Court in Sheela Barse vs% !nion o" India, AIR 1986 SC 177+, e4$ressly held that on no account should children accused o& o&&ences be detained in *ails. 't obser)ed #= 't is an elementary re7uirement o& any ci)ili(ed society and it had been so $ro)ided in )arious statutes concerning children that children should not be con&ined to *ail because incarceration in *ail has a dehumani(ing e&&ect and it is harm&ul to the gro%th and de)elo$ment o& children. The *udgment o& the Su$reme Court $rom$ted the enactment o& the Ju)enile Justice Act. IM%ORTANT ENACTMENTS#$ Bhile on the sub*ect it %ould be necessary to ac7uaint oursel)es concerning $risoners and their rights, namely, +i3 +ii3 +iii3 +i)3 +)3 +)i3 The 9risoners Act, !0 The 9risons Act, !204 The 9risoners +Attendance in Courts3 Act, !0II The Trans&er o& 9risoners Act, !0I The :e$atriation o& 9risoners Act, 2 < The :e$atriation o& 9risoners :ules, 2 4. %ith certain enactments

INTERNATIONA COVENANTS#$ 'ndia is a $arty to the 'nternational co)enant on ci)il and $olitical rights and the 'nternational co)enant on economic, social and cultural rights ado$ted by the -eneral Assembly o& the /nited Nation on !".!2.!0"". Though the Human :ights embodied in the co)enants %ere substantially $rotected by the Constitution there %as gro%ing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to human rights. There&ore, the -o)ernment re)ie%ed the e4isting la%s, $rocedures, system o& administration etc., and enacted the 9rotection o& Human :ights Act, !00< as an act to $ro)ide &or the Constitution o& a National Human :ights Commission, State Human :ights Commissions in States and Human :ights Courts &or better $rotection o& Human :ights and &or matters connected there%ith and incidental thereto. /nder Section < o& the Act, the Human :ights Courts are established &or $ro)iding s$eedy trial o& o&&ences arising out o& )iolation o& human rights. Section 2+d3 de&ines 6Human :ights8 to mean the rights relating to li&e, liberty, e7uality and dignity o& the indi)idual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the 'nternational Co)enants and en&orceable by Court in 'ndia. The -eneral Assembly o& the /nited Nations $roclaimed the uni)ersal declaration o& Human :ights as a common standard o& achie)ement &or all $eo$le and all nations to $romote the rights and &reedoms and by $rogressi)e measures.

UNIVERSA DEC ARATION OF "UMAN RI!"TS#$ The &ollo%ing Articles o& the /ni)ersal >eclaration o& Human :ights %ould be rele)ant#= 3a4 Article 5 All are e7ual be&ore the la% and are entitled %ithout any discrimination to e7ual $rotection o& the la%. All are entitled to e7ual $rotection against any discrimination in )iolation o& this >eclaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. 324 Article 6 No one shall be sub*ected to arbitrary arrest, detention or e4ile. P 3c4 Article 77 !. J)eryone charged %ith a $enal o&&ence has the right to be $resumed innocent until $ro)ed guilty according to la% in a $ublic trial at %hich he has had all the guarantees necessary &or his de&ence. 2. No one shall be held guilty o& any $enal o&&ence on account o& any act or omission %hich did not constitute a $enal o&&ence, under national or international la%, at the time %hen it %as committed. Nor shall a hea)ier $enalty be im$osed than the one that %as a$$licable at the time the $enal o&&ence %as committed. INTERNATIONA COVENANT ON CIVI AND %O ITICA RI!"TS#$ 'nternational Co)enant on Ci)il and 9olitical :ights !0"", agreed u$on certain Articles and the &ollo%ing %ould be rele)ant &or the $resent day to$ic#= Article 6 ! 2 < J)eryone has the right to liberty and security o& $erson. No one shall be sub*ect to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be de$ri)ed o& his liberty e4ce$t on such grounds and in accordance %ith such $rocedure as are established by la%. Anyone %ho is arrested shall be in&ormed, at the time o& arrest, o& the reasons &or his arrest and shall be $rom$tly in&ormed o& any charges against him. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought $rom$tly be&ore a *udge or other o&&icer authori(ed by la% to e4ercise *udicial $o%er and shall be entitled to trial %ithin a reasonable time or to release. 't shall not be the general rule that $ersons a%aiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be sub*ect to guarantees to a$$ear &or trial, at any other stage o& the *udicial $roceedings, and, should occasion arise, &or e4ecution o& the *udgment. Anyone %ho is de$ri)ed o& his liberty by arrest or detention shall been entitled to ta,e $roceedings be&ore a court, in order that court may decide %ithout delay on the la%&ulness o& his detention and order his release i& the detention is not la%&ul. Anyone %ho has been the )ictim o& unla%&ul arrest or detention shall ha)e an en&orceable right to com$ensation.

4 I

Article 78 ! !.All $ersons de$ri)ed o& their liberty shall be treated %ith humanity and %ith res$ect &or the inherent dignity o& the human $erson.

2 a. Accused $ersons shall, sa)e in e4ce$tional circumstances, be segregated &rom con)icted $ersons and shall be sub*ect to se$arate treatment a$$ro$riate to their status as uncon)icted $ersonsF b. Accused *u)enile $ersons shall be se$arated &rom adults and brought as s$eedily as $ossible &or ad*udication. The $enitentiary system shall com$rise treatment o& $risoners the essential aim o& %hich shall be their re&ormation and social rehabilitation. Ju)enile o&&enders shall be segregated &rom adults and be accorded treatment a$$ro$riate to their age and legal status.

<

Article 79 !. All $ersons shall be e7ual be&ore the Courts and tribunals. 'n the determination o& any criminal charge against him, or o& his rights and obligations in a suit o& la%, e)eryone shall be entitled to a &air and $ublic hearing o& a com$etent, inde$endent and im$artial tribunal established by la%. The 9ress and the $ublic may be e4cluded &rom all or $art o& a trial &or reasons o& morals, $ublic order +ordre $ublic3 or national security in a democratic society, or %here the interest o& the $ri)ate li)es o& the $arties so re7uires, or the e4tent strictly necessary in the o$inion o& the Court in s$ecial circumstances %here $ublicity %ould $re*udice the interests o& *usticeF but, any *udgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at la% shall be made $ublic e4ce$t %here the interest o& *u)enile $ersons other%ise re7uires or the $roceedings concern matrimonial dis$utes or the guardianshi$ o& children. 2. J)eryone charged %ith a criminal o&&ence shall ha)e the right to be $resumed innocent until $ro)ed guilty according to la%. <. 'n the determination o& any criminal charge against him, e)eryone shall be entitled to the &ollo%ing minimum guarantees, in &ull e7uality# +a3 To be in&ormed $rom$tly and in detail in a language %hich he understands o& the nature and cause o& the charge against him. +b3 To ha)e ade7uate time and &acilities &or the $re$aratin o& his de&ence and to communicate %ith counsel o& his o%n choosingF +c3 To be tried %ithout undue delayF +d3 To be tried in his $resence, and to de&end himsel& in $erson or through legal assistance o& his o%n choosingF to be in&ormed, i& he does not ha)e legal assistance, o& this rightF and to ha)e legal assistance assigned to him, in any case %here the interests o& *ustice so re7uire, and %ithout $ayment by him in any such case i& he does not ha)e su&&icient means to $ay &or itF +e3 To e4amine, or ha)e e4amined, the %itnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and e4amination o& %itnesses on his behal& under the same conditions as %itnesses against himF +&3 To ha)e the &ree assistance o& an inter$reter i& he cannot understand or s$ea, the language used in CourtF

+g3 Not to be com$elled to testi&y against himsel& or to con&ess guilt. 4. 'n the case o& *u)enile $ersons, the $rocedure shall be such as %ill ta,e account o& their age and the desirability o& $romoting their rehabilitation. I. J)eryone con)icted o& a crime shall ha)e the right to his con)iction and sentence being re)ie%ed by a higher tribunal according to la%. ". Bhen a $erson has by a &inal decision been con)icted o& a criminal o&&ence and %hen subse7uently his con)iction has been re)ersed or he has been $ardoned on the ground that a ne% or ne%ly disco)ered &act sho%s conclusi)ely that there has been a miscarriage o& *ustice, the $erson, %ho has su&&ered $unishment as a result o& such con)iction shall be com$ensated according to la%, unless it is $ro)ed that the non=disclosure o& the un,no%n &act in time is %holly or $artly attributable to him. No one shall be liable to be tried or $unished again &or an o&&ence &or %hich he has already been &inally con)icted or ac7uitted in accordance 1%ith the la% and $enal $rocedure o& each country. % EA -AR!AININ! IN INDIA#$ Cha$ter LL'A on E9lea ?argaining;, has been introduced in the Criminal 9rocedure Code through Criminal Aa% +Amendment3 Act, 2 I. This %as intended to reduce the delay in dis$osing criminal cases, the !I4th :e$ort o& the Aa% Commission &irst recommended the introduction o& E$lea bargaining; as an alternati)e method to deal %ith huge arrears o& criminal cases. This recommendation o& the Aa% Committee &inally &ound a su$$ort in Malimath Committee :e$ort. The -o)ernment had &ormed a committee, headed by the &ormer Chie& Justice o& the @arnata,a and @erala High Courts, Justice ..S.Malimath to come u$ %ith some suggestions to tac,le the e)er=gro%ing number o& criminal cases. 'n its re$ort, the Malimath Committee recommended that a system o& $lea bargaining be introduced in the 'ndian Criminal Justice System to &acilitate the earlier dis$osal o& criminal cases and to reduce the burden o& the courts. To strengthen its case, the Malimath Committee also $ointed out the success o& $lea bargaining system in /SA. Accordingly, the dra&t Criminal Aa% +Amendment3 ?ill, 2 < %as introduced in the $arliament. The statement o& ob*ects and reasons, inter alia, mentions that, The dis$osal o& criminal trials in the courts ta,es considerable time and that in many cases trial do not commence &or as long as < to I years a&ter the accused %as remitted to *udicial custody.. though not recogni(ed by the criminal *uris$rudence, it is seen as an alternati)e method to deal %ith the huge arrears o& criminal cases. The bill attracted enormous $ublic debate. Critics said it is not recogni(ed and against $ublic $olicy under our criminal *ustice system. The Su$reme Court has also time and again blasted the conce$t o& $lea bargaining saying that negotiation in criminal cases is not $ermissible. More recently in State o& /ttar 9radesh .. Chandri,a 2 Cr.A.J. <24+<2"3, The A$e4 Court held that 't is settled la% that on the basis o& $lea bargaining court cannot dis$ose o& the criminal cases. The court has to decide it on merits. '& the accused con&esses its guilt, a$$ro$riate sentence is re7uired to be im$lemented. The court &urther held in the same case that, Mere acce$tance or admission o& the guilt should not be a ground &or reduction o& sentence. Nor can the accused bargain %ith the court that as he is $leading guilty the sentence be reduced. >es$ite this huge hue and cry, the go)ernment &ound it acce$table and &inally section 2"I=A TO 2"I=A ha)e added in the Code o& Criminal 9rocedure so as to $ro)ide &or raising the $lea bargaining in certain ty$es o& criminal cases. Bhile commenting on this as$ect, the di)ision bench o& the -u*arat High Court obser)ed in State o& -u*arat .. Nat%ar Harchan*i Tha,or +2 I3 Cr. A.J. 20I1 that, The )ery ob*ect o& la% is to $ro)ide easy, chea$ and e4$editious *ustice by resolution o& dis$utes, including the trial o& criminal cases and considering the $resent realistic $ro&ile o& the $endency and delay in dis$osal in the administration o& la% and *ustice, &undamental re&orms are ine)itable. There should not be anything static. 't can thus be said that it is really a measure and redressal and it shall add a ne% dimension in the realm o& *udicial re&orms.

NARCOANA (SIS)%O (!RA%")-RAIN MA%%IN!#$ 'n Selvi =s State o" 1arnataka, ,5*1*- 7 SCC 56+, the Su$reme Court has declared Narcoanalysis, 9olygra$h test and ?rain Ma$$ing unconstitutional and )iolati)e o& human rights .. This decision is 7uite un&a)ourable to )arious in)estigation authorities as it %ill be a hindrance to &urtherance o& in)estigation and many alleged criminals %ill esca$e con)iction %ith this ne% $osition. ?ut the a$e4 court &urther said that a $erson can only be sub*ected to such tests %hen heHshe assents to them. The result o& tests %ill not be admissible as e)idence in the court but can only be used &or &urtherance o& in)estigation. Bith ad)ancement in technology cou$led %ith neurology, Narcoanalysis, 9olygra$h test and ?rain ma$$ing emerged as &a)ourite tools o& in)estigation agencies around the %orld &or eliciting truth &rom the accused. ?ut e)entually )oices o& dissent %ere heard &rom human rights organi(ations and $eo$le sub*ected to such tests. They %ere labelled as atrocity to human mind and breach o& right to $ri)acy o& an indi)idual. The Su$reme Court acce$ted that the tests in 7uestion are )iolati)e o& Article 2 +<3, %hich lays do%n that a $erson cannot be &orced to gi)e e)idence against himsel&. Court also directed the in)estigation agencies that the directi)es by National Human :ights Commission should be adhered to strictly %hile conducting the tests. These tests %ere $ut to use in many cases $re)iously, Arushi Tal%ar murder Case, Nithari ,illings Case, Abdul Telagi Case, Abu Salem Case, 9ragya Tha,ur +?omb blast Case3 etc being ones %hich generated lot o& $ublic interest. RI!"T TO %U- IC EM% O(MENT AFTER RE EASE#= The 7uestion &or debate %ould be %hether a con)icted $erson, a&ter release on ser)ing the $rescribed sentence has a right to be considered &or $ublic em$loyment, right not to be regarded as a con)ict and a right to be treated e7ually %ith other citi(ens %hen there is an o$en selection &or -o)ernment H $ri)ate *obs and a right to ha)e the stigma o& a 6con)ict8 remo)ed. 'n e)ery a$$lication &orm &or $ublic em$loyment, there is a column 6Bhether con)icted &or any o&&ence $re)iouslyG8 J7ually is another debatable issue as to %hether, a&ter ser)ing the sentence im$osed by Court, the issue o& con)iction can be held against an indi)idual $er$etuallyG CONC USION#$ Thus %e see that there is no doubt that it is the democratic legitimacy %hich characteri(es our era. Aiberty and &reedom are the elements o& $risoner;s human right and democracy. 'n so &ar as de)elo$ing countries are concerned it has to be obser)ed that must belie)e in democracy and human rights o& $risoners. QQQQQQQQQQQQ

Reference.#= 1- <uman Ri2hts and <umanitarian la) > Develo&ments in India and International 0a) South Asia <uman Ri2hts Do.umentation Centre ,SA<RDC5- <and Book o" <uman Ri2hts and Criminal 'usti.e in India > Se.ond 6dition > SA<RDC +- 0a) Relatin2 to /rote.tion o" <uman Ri2hts under the Indian Constitution and Allied 0a)s #3 'usti.e /alok Basu (- <uman Ri2hts and 'usti.e S3stem > Ash)an 1ant autam 5- Maneka andhi vs% !nion o" India > AIR 1978 SC 579 6- ?ran.is Coralie Mullin vs% @he Administrator !nion @erritor3 o" Delhi, ,1981- 1 SCC 6*8 7- Sunil Batra vs% Delhi Administration > AIR 1978 SC 1675 8- Charles So#ra$ vs Su&td% Central 'ail > AIR 1978 SC 151( 9- Rustom Co)vas$ee Coo&er vs% !nion o" India > AIR 197* SC 1+18 1*- Sada Shiv Manohar /arkar vs% State o" Maharastra > 1998 Crl% 0'% +755 11- A%R%Antula3 vs% R%S%4a3ak > ,1995- 1 SCC 555 15- State o" A%/% vs% Challe Ramakrishna Redd3 > ,5***- 5 SCC 715 1+- D%1%Basu vs% State o" 9%B > AIR 1997 SC 619 1(- State o" !%/ vs% Deoman !&adha3a3a > AIR 196* SC 1155 15- Ra$a 4ara3anlal Bansilal vs% Mane.k /hiro; Mistr3 > AIR 1961 SC 59 16- Danial <%9al.ott vs% Su&dt% 4a2&ur Central 8 ,1975- 7( BAM0R (+6 17- State o" u$arat vs% <i2h Court o" u$arat > ,1998- 7 SCC +95 18- Common Cause vs% !nion o" India > ,1996- ( SCC ++ 19- /rem Shankar Shukla vs% Delhi Administration ,198*- + SCC 556 5*- <ussainara 1hatoon vs% <ome Se.retar3, State o" Bihar > AIR 1979 SC 1+69 51- Sheela Barse vs% State o" Maharashtra, ,198+- 5 SCC 96 55- R%D%!&adh3ah vs% State o" A%/% > AIR 5**6 SC 19(6 5+- <iralal Malli.k vs% State o" Bihar > AIR 1977 SC 55+6 5(- Sheela Barse vs% !nion o" India > AIR 1986 SC 177+ 55- International Covenant on Civil and /oliti.al Ri2hts 56- International Covenant on 6.onomi., So.ial and Cultural Ri2hts 57- State o" !%/% vs% =%Chandrik, 5*** Crl 0' +8( ,+8658- State o" u$arat vs% 4at)ar <ar.hen$i @hakor > ,5**5- Crl 0' 5957 59- Selvi vs% State o" 1arnataka > ,5*1*- 7 SCC 56+ +*- 0a) and /ra.ti.e o" Ri2hts o" /risoners #3 Mr%A%Sira$udeen, Advo.ate +1- <uman =alues and <uman Ri2hts, #3 'usti.e D%M%Dharmadhikari +5- <umilit3, <umanit3 and <uman Ri2hts, Dr%'usti.e Shivara$ =%/atil% ++- Manual o" Instru.tions "or the uidan.e o" Ma2istrates in @amil 4adu issued #3 <i2h Court o" 'udi.ature at Madras% 34) /risonerBs Ri2hts @akin2 Seriousl3 #3 Saur#h 1othari > +rd Cear, B%B%A 00%B > 4ational 0a) !niversit3, 'odh&ur 8 htt&7DD)))%le2alservi.eindia%.omDarti.lesD&o%htm 35) /risoners Ri2hts7 Some 0andmark 'ud2ments 8 htt&7DD)))%&u.l%or2D"rom8ar.hivesD81novD&risoner8 ri2hts%htm 36) Ri2hts o" /risoners 8 htt&7DD)))%nimhans%kar%ni.%inD&risonD.ha&terE1* 8rEheE&risoners%&d" 37) <uman Ri2hts =iolations o" /risoners and Arrested /ersons in India 8 htt&7DD)))%la)is2reek%.omDhuman8ri2hts8violations8o" &risoners8and8arrested8&ersons8in8india 38) India7 9hether <uman Ri2hts o" /risoners stand sus&ended F in 8 htt&7DD)))%sa.)%netDarti.le11+(%html

39) /risonersB Ri2hts in India > Caveat Citivas7 /ro2en3 #e3ond Bars > Con$u2al Ri2hts o" /risioners > B3 San2arika Chakra#ort3 8 htt&7DD)))%divor.ela)3erindia%.omDu&datesD&risoners8ri2hts8in8india%html