| CITATION | 1983 AIR 378 1983 SCR (2) 337 1983 SCC (2) 96 1983 SCALE (1)140 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 15/02/1983 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | SHEELA BARSE |
| RESPONDENT | STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
| BENCH | BHAGWATI, P.N.BENCH:BHAGWATI, P.N.PATHAK, R.S.SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) |
INTRODUCTION
Sheela Barse is a distinguished activist and journalist, widely recognized for pioneering the advocacy of child rights in India. Her notable contributions include spearheading various public interest litigation cases presented before the Supreme Court of India. Among these cases was a complaint addressing incidents of custodial violence against women prisoners held in police lock-ups in Bombay.
FACTS
Sheela Barse, a freelance journalist, sought permission from the authorities at Maharashtra State Jail to conduct interviews with female inmates. The Inspector General of Prisons granted approval for the interviews. However, after the journalist commenced the interview process and began recording, the authorities withdrew the permission.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the abrupt revocation of permission, Sheela Barse filed a writ petition in court. She argued that as an Indian citizen, she had the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. During the court proceedings, the Inspector General of Prisons, in a counter affidavit, explained that the permission granted initially was revoked due to a violation of the terms.
According to the respondents, the Maharashtra Prison Manual rendered the permission invalid. They contended that the constitutional provisions cited by the journalist were not applicable in this context. The respondents asserted that the applicant did not have the right to conduct uncontrolled interviews or disseminate factual information and images in the media. Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of not pressuring detainees into interviews, highlighting the necessity for the detainee’s willingness before allowing any specific individual to conduct an interview.
ISSUE
Concerning the issue of Custodial Violence or assaults on female prisoners in prisons by police officers, did the constitutional courts in India recognize the provision of legal aid to indigent prisoners for the violation of fundamental rights while exercising their authority under Articles 39A, 21, 32, and 14 of the Indian Constitution?
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT
The petitioner asserted that the case involved custodial violence against female prisoners, underscoring the importance of legal assistance for the underprivileged. The petitioner emphasized the significance of guidelines for jail staff and police on providing legal aid to indigent inmates. This plea is framed as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is contended that the constitutional mandate, not only under Article 39A but also under Articles 14 and 21, necessitates legal representation for impoverished individuals who face arrest and the potential loss of life or personal freedom.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
The State of Maharashtra has been called upon to justify the rejection of the writ petition. The court deferred the hearing on the writ petition to allow the State of Maharashtra and other concerned parties to submit an affidavit responding to the allegations raised in the petitioner’s letter. This decision was made as it became apparent that, on the returnable date of the show cause notice, no affidavit had been filed on behalf of any party to whom the show cause notice was issued.
JUDGMENT
The court emphasized that providing legal assistance to the economically disadvantaged during arrests is integral to the principles outlined in Article 14, Article 19, and Article 39A of the Indian Constitution. In response to concerns about mistreatment of female prisoners in lockups, the court directed social workers to compile reports on any instances of ill-treatment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Inspector of Jail to establish ‘legal aid organizations’ at both High Court and District levels.
Additionally, the court provided specific directives to the Inspector General of Maharashtra Jail:
Compile a detailed list of all prisoners, categorizing them by gender and specifying the crimes they have been accused of.
Ensure that police officers maintain a list of lawyers appointed for the assistance of prisoners, with separate details for males and females, promoting awareness among prisoners about their legal representatives.
Facilitate the visitation of lawyers to meet with prisoners. The court also issued guidelines for the protection of female prisoners in lockups: Establish separate lockups exclusively for female prisoners, staffed by female police officers. Mandate that interrogations of female prisoners be conducted only in the presence of female officers. Inform the detainee about the grounds of arrest and the provision of bail. Ensure that a female suspect is searched by a female police officer only (as per Section 160(1) of CrPC). Prohibit the arrest of women prisoners after sunset and before sunrise.
CONCLUSION
The Honorable Court emphasized that denying prisoners access to legal representation would undermine the Right to Equality enshrined in Article 14 and jeopardize the Right to Life and Personal Liberty protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court urged contemplation of the plight of a prisoner confined in jail, lacking knowledge of where to seek help to assert innocence, defend constitutional or legal rights, or protect oneself from torture, ill-treatment, oppression, or harassment by custodians. Therefore, the court deemed it absolutely essential to make legal assistance available to all prisoners in jails, whether they are under-trial or convicted.
REFERENCES
Written by Mita Sarker an intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
