NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN

LAW

CASE ANALYSIS

KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS V. UNION OF INDIA

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

SATYAM PRATAP DEO DR. K. SHYAMLA

SEMESTER: 3rd ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
ROLL NO. 1373 CONSTITUTION LAW
SECTION: ‘A’

1|Page
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4
FACT..........................................................................................................................................4
ISSUE.........................................................................................................................................5
ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................................5
PETITIONER.........................................................................................................................5
RESPONDENT......................................................................................................................5
JUDGMENT..............................................................................................................................6
LEGAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS IN INDIA.........................................................................6
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT...........................................................................................9
MEDIA THE FOURTH PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY............................................................10

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my profound gratitude for the invaluable support and guidance received
during the Constitution case analysis. The expertise and insights offered have been
instrumental in enhancing the depth and quality of this analysis. The contributions have not
only enriched the content but have also provided a more comprehensive perspective on the
subject matter.

Working on this project has been an enriching experience, and the mentorship of Dr. K.
SHYAMLA, CONSTUTIONAL LAW provided has played a pivotal role in making this
analysis insightful and well-rounded. I am genuinely thankful for the unwavering dedication
to academic excellence and commitment to this project, which has resulted in a more
profound understanding of the subject matter. My heartfelt thanks go out to this mentor for
continuous encouragement and support.

I also want to express my gratitude to my friends for their assistance in completing this case
analysis. Their support and contributions have been invaluable in bringing this project to
fruition

3|Page
INTRODUCTION
This case is one of the most important in the field of the rights of undertrial inmates. In this
case, the apex court of the country describes that the right to life extends to jail inmates
unconditionally. As this right is very essential and every citizen has the right to life. Article 21
of the constitution talks about this right. In this case one journalist was detained by the state
police of Uttar Pradesh. The health condition of the journalist was not good and he was not
provided proper treatment by the Uttar Pradesh Government. So he file the writ petition for
release and the court in this case give him relief and stated that right to life is one of the very
fundamental right which no one can snatch without reasonable cause. As we know that
condition of jail in our country is very poor and there is lack of proper health facility in the
jail. There is so many problems like unhealthy living condition, overcrowding, and lack of
basic necessity like sanitation and hygiene. So this case is important for extending the rights
of undertrial inmates, as they have not been convicted yet, hence they have all the right to
live a good life. In India basically, more than 54% of the inmates are undertrial and they are
deprived the basic necessities in jail. So, this case once again ignited the issue of the rights of
jail inmates, which was ignored for a long time. Since huge population in the jail of our
country is is under trail inmates and in them also the maximum weightage of youth. So, it is
the duty of the state to provide the basic facilities to these inmates. As, our constitution
guarantees every citizen the right to life. So, this case somehow tries to make the life of
inmates better.

FACT
Sidhique Kappan a journalist and a member of the Kerala Union of Journalists went to
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh to cover the heinous crime of rape and murder of a young girl. While
he was traveling toward Hathras he was detained by the police of the Uttar Pradesh
Government. He alleged that the police detained him without serving any notice or order as
given under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has been charged under sections
17 and 14 of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act. While he was in jail he contracted covid-
19. Then the petitioner association i.e. Kerala Union of Working Journalism filed a writ
petition for release of Kappan. As, Sidhique was suffering from various diseases like
diabetes, heart ailment, blood pressure. He was also injured because he fell in the bathroom.
His health condition was very poor. So, the writ was instituted under article 32 of the
constitution, to seek release of the Sidhique. The association further alleges that the Jail

4|Page
authorities are not providing the proper health facilities to the Sidhique and his health is
deteriorating day by day. It was further alleged by the petitioner that since Sidhique was
going to cover the heinous crime which happened in the state of Uttar Pradesh and due to fear
of criticism in the media the government detained his journalist without any reasonable cause.

ISSUE
1. Whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for the release of the journalist?
2. Whether the fundamental right to life extends to the under-trial accused?

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Journalist, Sidhique Kappan was
detained unlawfully without properly following the procedure established by law, hence his
detention is unlawful. The petitioner argued for the interim release on the grounds of the
deteriorating health condition of its journalist. The counsel further provided the health report
of the journalist in which it was clearly mentioned that he was suffering from COVID-19 and
he also got some physical injuries, as he fell in the bathroom. The counsel relied on Article 21
of the constitution of India which talks about the right to life. And, they further argued that
this right extends also to undertrial inmates. He further pleaded that keeping in mind the
condition of jail in our country where not even the basic facilities are provided how can we
suppose that Sidhique will be given such facilities? As, he was suffering from some harsh
health conditions which required a better health facility. Therefore, he will be granted interim
relief so that he can get better treatment.

RESPONDENT
The counsel appearing on behalf of the state government rejected the contention raised by the
petitioner and said that the journalist was lawfully arrested under section 107 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and FIR was also registered in Manth Police station under section 153A,
295A, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the counsel pleaded that the writ of
habeas corpus was not maintainable because, during the pendency of the proceeding, the wife
of the journalist had also applied for the immediate release of her husband. So, the issue
regarding the maintainability of the petition lost its significance. Counsel further argued that
since the filing of this writ petition, various developments took place like the formation of a

5|Page
charge sheet and the completion of the investigation report, which makes this court not
examine the present issue. The counsel further pleaded that since all the inmates get the same
treatment in jail so why should the petitioner be given special treatment? They further argued
that since he was charged under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) he shall not be
released because the nature of the allegation against him is so high. So, they lastly pleaded
before the court to reject the writ of the petitioner on the above-mentioned grounds.

JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner shall be provided the interim relief on his health
grounds. After listening to both parties the court comes to the conclusion that we are not
looking into the facts or merit of the case but limiting only to providing the necessary health
care to the accused. The court held that the proper procedures were followed and the accused
was produced before the jurisdictional court after arrest. Further court said that owing to the
serious health condition of the accused he should be granted relief to get better treatment in
either AIIMS or Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital or any other well-equipped hospital. The court
finally in this case held that the right to life is the most precious fundamental right which
extends unconditionally to even the undertrials. The court said that merely because other jail
inmates get the same treatment does not bar us from providing relief to the accused in the
present case. Lastly, court said that once the doctor certifies Sidhique Kappan to be fit to
discharge, then he would be immediately brought back to the jail in Mathura. And in the
meantime, he is at liberty to get adequate relief from the court to get bail or challenge the
proceedings or quashing of the chargesheet. So, finally, the court disposed off the writ
petition.

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS IN INDIA

Of course, the following is a condensed description of the legal rights that Indian inmates
enjoy under the Prisons Act of 1894:

1. Right to Adequate Accommodation (Section 4): According to the law, prisoners are entitled
to reside in buildings and cells that fulfill specific requirements. In order to preserve human
dignity, these standards address a wide range of topics, including housing, food, clothes,
hygienic practices, and medical services.

6|Page
2. Shelter for Excess Prisoners (Section 7): Temporary shelters should be set up to securely
house excess prisoners if a prison overpopulates and is unable to move inmates to another
facility. This holds true in the event of an epidemic breakout as well.

3. Medical Examination (Sections 24 and 26):

a) A Medical Officer is required to evaluate each prisoner and keep a file of their health,
injuries, and suitability for specific jobs.

b) A female matron may examine female inmates upon the Medical Officer's instruction.

c) Inmates cannot be transferred to another jail unless the Medical Officer certifies they are
well enough to avoid a risky transfer.

d) Unless the Medical Officer determines it is safe, prisoners cannot be discharged against
their will.

4. Care for Sick Prisoners (Section 37):

a) Prison guards are required to notify the jailer as soon as they become aware of a sick or
physically or mentally ill prisoner.

b) The Jailer is responsible for bringing such inmates to the notice of the Medical
Subordinate and implementing any directives from the Medical Officer or Medical
Subordinate concerning modifications to their disciplinary measures.

5. Hospital Facilities (Section 39): Every jail needs a hospital or a good facility to take care of
inmates who are ill.

6. Visits by Convicts and Undertrial Prisoners (Section 40): Under certain conditions and
limitations, prisoners—both convicted and awaiting trial—are permitted to see the
individuals they wish to meet. In the interest of justice, undertrial inmates may have private
meetings with their knowledgeable legal counsel.

Rights of prisoners identified by the All-India Committee on Jail Reforms (Mulla

Committee)

A. Right to Human Dignity:

1. The right to be treated as a person, not as a non-person, and as a human being.

7|Page
2. Safety from maltreatment by other prisoners or prison officials, either physically or
mentally.

3. The Indian Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights except when lawful conditions
of confinement require otherwise.

B. Right to Basic Minimum Needs: This refers to the right to have one's basic needs
satisfied, such as having access to enough food.

2. Availability of appropriate medical attention and treatment.

3. Pure and secure potable water.

4. Cleanliness in living arrangements and sanitation.

5. Sufficient bedding, clothes, and other necessities.

C. Right to Communication:
1. The freedom to speak with people outside of oneself.

2. The privilege of recurrent visits.

3. The right to use information and media to remain up to date on what's going on in the
outside world.

D. Right of Access to Law: 1. The right to know which laws apply to conditions of
imprisonment.

2. The right to obtain legal aid or to speak with lawyer of their choice.

3. The freedom to contact organizations providing legal services.

4. The right to legal information on rights to appeal, have convictions or punishments

modified, or have a review of the rulings.

5. The right to get all court records required for the review or appeals procedure.

6. The ability to voice personal objections and grievances to the appropriate authorities
during imprisonment

7. The ability to voice complaints and resolve rights breaches of inmates to government, jail,
and judicial authorities.

8|Page
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment of the court is worth appreciating as it will bring some change in the condition
of jail. In India out of 519093 lakh inmates, 414580 lakhs were undertrial. And the condition
of jail in our country is very poor. Due to the increase in the number of inmates the jail is
overcrowded. Condition is very poor, not even the basic human needs are provided in the jail.
The condition of jail is so poor that people develop chronic diseases. While concluding the
judgment court said that the right to life extends unconditionally to undertrial inmates. It
gives them the most essential right which was enshrined in our constitution. As article 21 is
very important as it talks about the protection of the right to life and no person shall be
deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law. The right to life is
a fundamental and universal right that cannot be abridged by any authority. In the present
case the court while giving interim relief to the journalist to get proper treatment, opens the
door for other inmates to get the same relief if they were subject to such discrimination. In
India, the jail authorities don’t care about the health conditions of the inmates and they are
forced to live in inhuman conditions. The inmates were treated like an animal. They were
forced to live in very crowded spaces where not even the basic human necessities were
available. Article 21 imposes the duty on the state to provide better health facilities to its
members, but in the present case, the state government is denying the journalist to get better
treatment which amounts to a violation of Article 21. To live a happy and prosperous life it is
essential that we have a healthy body and it can be achieved by getting proper healthcare
facilities and if these facilities are not provided or even if provided but stopped from getting
these benefits then it also amounts to the violation of article 21. As it was held in the case of
State of Punjab v. M.S Chawla that healthy body is an essential requirement to live a
fulfilling life. And it was established that the right to health and medical care fell under the
ambit of Article 21. So, keeping in view the ambit of Article 21 the Supreme Court has given
the judgment and it was an appreciating one. So, the point said by the court that the right to
life extends to under-trial inmates unconditionally is very important in the context of our jail
system where the authorities don’t fear violating these rights. Hence this judgment will be a
progressive step toward the betterment of life of the inmates.

9|Page
MEDIA THE FOURTH PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY
In the present case, the Uttar Pradesh government directly misused its power to destroy the
fourth pillar of democracy by detaining the journalist who went to cover the heinous rape
case in the district of Hatras. In a democratic country, it is very important to preserve the
media of the country because it is the media that shows the loopholes of the government. If
the government suppresses the question raised by the media, then it will lead to a totalitarian
form of government. During the current BJP government, there is a trend to detain journalists
who question the government or show some money laundering cases of its ministers. The
government is using its dominating power and use the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act) to put journalists behind bars. There is a trend of an increase in the number of UAPA
case against journalist who questions the government or tries to show the major faults of the
government. One of the major problems that journalists face in UAPA cases is that in such
cases it is very difficult to get bail. Once an individual is charged under UAPA then it is very
difficult for him to get relief. If these trends continue then the media will stop doing its work
and this will directly affect the democracy of a country. So, it is the duty of the third pillar of
democracy i.e. judiciary to put some bars on the unlimited and unlawful use of power by the
government to detain the media persons. There is a very recent case where the government
arrested the media persons of the newsgroup named Newsclick. In this, case also the
government imposed the UAPA on the journalist. The government is using its most powerful
weapon i.e, UAPA to suppress the fourth pillar of democracy

10 | P a g e