Facts in Brief

The Petitioner, a convict under sentence of death lodged in Tihar Central Jail, came to know of a crime of torture practised upon another prisoner (Prem Chand), allegedly by a jail warder (Maggar Singh), as a means to extract money from the victim through his visiting relatives. This was complained of by the Petitioner to a Judge of the Supreme Court through a letter. The Court treated it as a petition within the fold of Article 32 of the Constitution.

The issues that persisted before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether the Court had the jurisdiction to consider a prisoner’s grievance that did not demand release, but complained — within the incarceratory circumstances — of ill-treatment and curtailment short of illegal detention?
• What were the broad contours of the fundamental rights, especially Articles 14, 19 and 21, which belong to a detainee sentenced by a Court?
• What judicial remedies were to be granted to prevent and punish their breach, and to provide access to prison justice?
• What prison reform perspectives and strategies should be adopted to strengthen, in the long run, the constitutional mandates and human rights imperatives?

Judgment

The Supreme Court declared that it had the jurisdiction to consider a prisoner’s grievance that did not demand release, but complained — within the incarceratory circumstances — of ill-treatment and curtailment short of illegal detention. The Court expressly noted that prisoners were also human beings, and that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison, although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration.

The Court held that it had the power and responsibility to intervene and protect the prisoner against mayhem — crude or subtle — and may use the writ of habeas corpus for enforcing in-prison humanism, and for forbidding harsher restraints and heavier severities than the sentence carries.

The Court held that the integrity of the physical person and mental personality was the most important right of a prisoner. Thereupon, the Court held that Prem Chand, the prisoner, had been tortured illegally, and the Superintendent could not absolve himself from responsibility even though he may not have been directly a party to it. The State was directed to take action against the erring officials. The Court also laid down guidelines to protect the rights of the prisoner, and to allow him a peaceful and respectful life without any room for torture inside the prison.

For the Common Man

Assuming a legislative role, and providing for the interests of prisoners, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the protection of the rights of prisoners. It also put forth the pressing need for prison reforms. Suggestions were given, such as the keeping of a grievance box, with the help of which free access was to be afforded to every inmate in each ward — the box being kept locked and sealed by the District Magistrate, and on his periodical visit, he alone, or his surrogate, was supposed to open the box, find out the grievances, investigate their merits, and take remedial action, if justified.

Various rules in relation to the Jail Manual were found to be insufficient as far as the protection of the convict’s rights were concerned. Stress was laid on the need for Courts to be dynamic and diversified in meeting out remedies to prisoners. Not merely the contempt power, but also the power to create ad hoc mechanisms and use the services of officers of justice was to be brought into play.

The problems prevailing in Tihar Jail — such as overcrowding, non-accommodation, etc. — were taken note of, and concerns were raised. A greater need was felt for expeditious prison reforms and the protection of the rights of prisoners. The Court thus stood tall in defending the rights of prisoners inside prisons.