Citation: 1978 AIR 1975
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No: 2202 OF 1977
Petitioner: Sunil Batra
Respondents- Delhi Administration
Decided On: 30/08/1978
Statues Referred:
- Constitution of India
- Prison Act, 1894
Bench:
Krishnaiyer, V.R., Chandrachud, Y.V, Fazalali,Syed Murtaza., Shingal P.N, Desai, D.A
Facts:
The petitioner Sunil Batra was a convict serving death sentence (pending appeal) at the Tihar Central Jail. He wrote a letter to the Judge of Supreme Court complaining about the torment and abuse by the Jail authorities and inmates.
The petitioner mentioned in his letter that the head warden Maggar Singh had ferociously assaulted him, due to which he suffered anal injury
The Supreme Court took recognition of matter by converting it into a habeas corpus proceeding and treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
In order get the thorough insight of the matter, hon’ble Court appointed Dr, YS Chital an Shri Mukul Mudgai as amicus curiae.
The findings of the amicus curiae was affirmative to the issues and facts as asserted by the petitioner
Issue:
Whether the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition of a convict.
Whether the fundamental rights under Article 14,19,21 were enjoyable by the convict.
Whether Section 30(2) and Section 56 of the Prison Act, 1894 violative of Article 14,21 of the Constitution of India.
Questions relating to amendment and reforms were raised with regard to future of Prison Act,1894
Contention by the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act 1894 does not empower the jail authorities to confine a prisoner under sentence of death(pending appeal or not conclusive or final) to be placed under solitary confinement.
Section 30 is violative pf Article 14 of the constitution of India. The Prison Manual does not lay dawn any provision as to the treatment of the hostile and safe prisoner and left it upon the arbitrary will of the jail authority as to who should be confined to solitary confined and who is not to confined leaving a room for inequality.
The petitioner stated that as matter of being a convict his fundamental rights were curtailed but not wiped away. That he cannot be deprived of Article 21 of the constitution as matter of being a convict because the expression life as used in Article 21 does not mean a mere animal existence.
Contention by the Respondent:
The respondent contended that lawful imprisonment leads to necessary withdrawal of certain fundamental rights as enjoyed by free persons. And that pison manual and regulation necessitate imposing such restriction.
The purpose of solitary confinement is to prevent the convicted person sentenced to death penalty, from inflicting self-harm or commit suicide or harm others or escape from execution of death penalt on the appointed day.
Section 30(2) of the Prison Act,1894 speaks about solitary confinement as a necessary ingredient in imposing jail discipline and so construed it cannot be regarded as violative of Article 14.
Anything done to the petitioner was in accordance with Section 46 of the prison Acr which empowers the Superintendent to inspect the prisoner and impose necessary punishment thereupon.
Judgement:
The Apex Court’s bench comprising Krishnaiyer, V.R., Chandrachud, Y.V, Fazalali,Syed Murtaza., Shingal P.N, Desai, D.A held as follows:-
The Court has the Supreme mandate under Article 32 ad 226 of the Constitution to take recognition of matter where fundamental rights are infringed. And that prisoners could also move to court when their fundamental right as remaining after conviction are anyway breached.
Hon’ble Court observed that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act although authorised the jail authority to keep the prisoner in solitary confinement but that does not give license to torture inmates.
But Section 30(2) was held to be not violative of Article 14 and 21 on the ground that prison might self-harm or inflict harm or commit suicide or escape execution on the appointed day. Hence it was necessary sometimes based upon the circumstances to solitary confine a prison awarded with death sentence.
But here the prisoner does not come under the ambit of Section 30(2) on the ground that his death sentence was not final and conclusive and that “We direct that until further orders of this Court the petitioner Sunil Batra will not be kept in ’confinement’ as contemplated by S. 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894.”
The prisoners need to be considered as human being even though being convicted and sentenced to death penalty. And that they possess the right to life and liberty guaranteed by the constitution under Article 21. They are not the slave of the State and not denuded of their fundamental rights.
Hon’ble Court observed that Section 56 of the Act though empowered the Superintendent to adopt required precaution to maintain jail discipline by putting prisoners in iron but that course of action could be adopted only when authorised by the local government or by the court and not at their own discretion. But held that it is intra vires of Article 14 and 21. The challenge failed.
The petition failed in part but won the battle in full.
On the question of reforms the Court expressed its concern about the harsh callous condition of the prison and hoped that State shall take early reforms . Jail Manuals are largely a hangover of the past, still retailing anachronistic provisions like whipping and the ban on the use of the Gandhi cap. Barbaric treatment of a prisoner from the point of view of his rehablitation and acceptance and retention in the mainstream of social life, becomes counterproductive in the long run.”
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court under the Constitution have the supreme authority to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen which includes prisoners as well.
Article 19( Right to freedom), Article 20(no conviction for no offence) and Article 21 ( protection of personal life and liberty) are all equally available to all human race.
Conclusion:
The case brought to the jurisdiction of the court the brutal, inhuman situation of the jails in India which were the gift of British Colonialism. Although the provision in question were held valid in accordance with constitution but interim relief was still granted to the petitioner which shows the empathic approach of the Hon’ble Court while dealing with such sensitive matters.
The Court ordered that Lawyers nominated by the District Magistrate, Session Judge, High Court and Supreme Court, shall pay a visit to the jails and submit their report to the concerned authority to take necessary steps.
Kaushal Agarwal.
