Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013

[Title]

I. INTRODUCTION:

Paragraph 1 [Introduce the topic/subject matter]

 Prison reforms have been the subject matter of discussion and

decisions rendered by the Court from time to time over the
last 35 years. Article 21 through varied interpretations
includes the rights to live with dignity and in human
conditions. This extends to prisoners also.
 In a letter turned PIL, the SC has acknowledged the need for
prisons reforms by setting up a committee to monitor the
same.
 In this case comment, the author shall analyse whether this
judgment is progressive in terms of prison reforms.

II. Case Summary:

 In 2013 former CJ RC Lahoti, wrote a letter to CJI
relating to the disturbing conditions in prisons. He drew
attention to the inhuman conditions prevailing in 1382
prisons in India. The same was suo moto registered as a
PIL.
 The Social Justice Bench on 13th March, 2015 passed
an Order requiring the Union of India to furnish
information relating to issue of over-crowding in
prisons and improving the living conditions of
prisoners.
 The order dated 24th April, 2015 made a reference to
the high percentage of under trial prisoners and the total
number of prisoners as on 31st December, 2013.
 After considering the submissions of Centre and State
Governments the Bench observed that overcrowding in
jails continues. Prisoners, like all human beings,
deserve to be treated with dignity.
 The court referred to prior legal developments/
recommendations made in the area of prison reforms
and observed that there was a dire necessity to improve
despite earlier efforts.
 Finally the Bench issued the following Directions:
 Committee will be set up to review previous manuals
and provide recommendations on prison reforms.
 Committee to also examine violence, need for open
prisons and provisions for medical facilities among
other things.
 Committee to visit prisons/ interact with authorities.
 III. DEVELOPMENT IN LEGAL FRAMEWORK PRIOR TO THIS
CASE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRISON REFORMS IN

BRIEF.

-Indian Cases.
Right of prisoners

1. The protection under Article 21 is also available to those who

have been convicted of any offense.

Right against illegal detention

1. In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal1, the

Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the
Central and the State investigating authorities in all cases of
arrest and detention.
2. The petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice
drawing his attention to certain news items published in the
Telegraph and the Indian express, regarding deaths in police
lockups and custody and this letter was treated as a writ
petition by the Court.
3. The court not only issued the guidelines but, also went to the
extent that any failure by the officials to comply to such
guidelines would not only subject them to departmental
actions but would also amount to contempt of Court.

Right to Legal Aid

1
 1. It has been held, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State
of Bihar,2 that right to free legal aid at the cost of the State to
an accused who cannot afford legal services for reasons of
poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation is a part of
fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution3.
2. In the case of Khatri vs. the State of Bihar4, it has also been
held that the trial court is under the obligation to inform the
accused of his right to free legal aid.

Right to speedy trial

 The Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically

guarantee speedy trial nor it has the Indian Constitution
guaranteed under any of the Fundamental Rights but the
Indian Judiciary in the case of Hussianara Khatoon vs. the
State of Bihar, has made it settled decision that the right to
speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

Right to compensation

1. A new judicial trend has manifested a new trend of providing

compensation. In the case of Rudul Shah vs. the State of

4
 Bihar5, the petitioner was kept in jail for 14 years even after
his acquittal.
2. The Supreme Court held that under Article 21, the petitioner
is entitled to compensation against the State.
3. Cases by other jurisdictions having persuasive value6:

IV. DISCUSSION
 The judgment delivered by the court in the present
case can be labelled as progressive and extremely
pertinent in the light of on-going prison violations.
 Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted as
right to life means more than mere animal existence, 7
this proposition extends not only to civilians but also to
prisoners.
 Clearly, the declaration that inhuman conditions in
prisons violate fundamental rights has not done justice
to the victims. The same proposition was held in the
same of Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr.8
 The setting up of a committee to monitor violence and
over crowing in prisons can be terms as a watch dog
over the government and prison authorities.

6
https://thewire.in/rights/india-prisons-uk-vijay-mallya

7
Add case name
8