AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN

AMITY LAW SCHOOL

Constitutional Law- II

CASE PRESENTATION
Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration
1978 AIR 1675

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Mukti Jaiswal Kashvi Katewa
Asst. Professor BBA-LLB (H)
Amity law School Semester-4
Rajasthan A21521518004
 CONSTITUTIOAL LAW
Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration [1978 AIR 1675]
Kashvi Katewa1

INTRODUCTION:
Solitary Confinement is a form of imprisonment distinguished by living in a single cell with little or no
meaningful contact to other inmates, strict measures to control contraband, and the use of additional
security measures and equipment. It is specifically designed for disruptive inmates who are security
risks to other inmates, the prison staff, or the prison itself. It is mostly employed for violations of
discipline, such as murder, hostage-taking, deadly assault, and rioting. However it is also used as a
measure of protection for inmates whose safety is threatened by other inmates.

Solitary Confinement has received severe criticism for having detrimental psychological effects and to
some extent in some cases, constituting torture. According to a 2017 review study, “a robust scientific
literature has established the negative psychological effects of solitary confinement, leading to an
emerging consensus among correctional as well as professional, mental health, legal and human rights
organisations to drastically limit the use of solitary confinement”.

FACTS:
Twin writ petitions were filed by Sunil Batra and Charles Sobraj.The appellant Batra was found guilty by
the session’s 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 Article 14, 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 torture some 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.

1
BBA-LLB (H) Semester 4
ISSUES:
Whether Section 30(2) and 56 of the PRISONS ACT are violative of a prisoners rights under Article 14,
19, and 21?

Prisoners under sentence of death: (2) Every such person shall be confined in a cell apart from all other
prisoners, and shall be placed by day and by night under the charge of a guard.2

Confinement in irons: Whenever the superintendent considers it necessary (with reference either to the
state of the prison or the character of the prisoners) for safe custody of any prisoners that they should be
confined in irons, he may, subject to such rules and instructions as may be laid down by the Inspector
General with the sanction of the [State Government], so confine them.3

JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court of India, 30th August, 1978.

Original Jurisdiction: Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1979 under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court in the judgement observed the following:

 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 dehumanising 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 and or voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure.
As the prisoner in not be kept in solitary confinement and the custody under section 30(2) would
2
Section 30(2) Prisons Act
3
Section 56 Prisons Act
 preclude detention in solitary confinement, there is no question of imposing a second punishment
and hence the provision is not violative of Article 20.
 The challenge under section 21 is not permissible as once the obnoxious element is erased out, and
then it cannot be said that the provision is arbitrary and violative of section 30(2).
 Classification according to the sentence for the security purposes is valid and therefore section
30(2) does not violate Article 14.
 Restriction imposed under 30(2) is not violative of article 19.

2nd Petition

 The section 30 is valid if read humanistic by interpretation. It is well settled that if certain
provisions of law are construed in one way will be consistent with the constitution, and if another
interpretation would render it unconstitutional, the court would lean in favour of the former
construction. The provision is out of tune with current penological values and should be revised by
fresh legislation.
 Affirmed the interpretation given by his brother judges on the interpretation of expression ‘under
sentence of death’ under section 30(2).
Per Krishna J. (Concurring)
 Section 56 to be held valid humanistically read by interpretation. The section is to be tamed and
tried by the rule of law and shall not turn dangerous by making the prison an imperium in imperio.
The superintendents power should be pruned and subject to some restriction.

CONCLUSION:
The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the treatment of the human beings which offends human
dignity, imposes avoidable torture and reduces the man to level of beast would certainly be arbitrary
and can be questioned under Article 19. Putting bar fetters for an unusually long period, without due
regard of the safety of the prisoner and the security of the prison would certainly be not justified under
Section 56. Particularly, it would be so when medical opinion is that bar fetters should be removed.
Since the bar fetters of the petitioner have been removed, as a result of an interim order of the court the
question of re-imposing would not arise until and unless the requirements delineating above and
safeguards provided are observed.

Through this judgement the court restricts the harsh and inhuman treatment given to the prisoners in
jail and also at the same time aims at maintaining the law, order and discipline in the jail. So this
judgement has a dual effect on both the prisoners as well as the prison authorities and gives a clear
interpretation of section 30(2) and 56 of the Prisons Act.