Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, of 1894 clearly states about Solitary Confinement by the prison authorities there is nothing about torturing the prisoners.
Brief facts of the case:
- The petitioner Sunil Batra was convicted of a death sentence at Tihar central jail he wrote a letter to the supreme court judge relating to the treatment which was given by the jail authorities.
- In the letter, Sunil Batra stated he was assaulted and tortured by the prison authorities. Due to that, he suffered an anal injury. He mentioned in the letter that these all acts were done for the sake of extracting money from the victim’s relatives. The letter which was written by the petitioner was revised into a Habeas Corpus proceeding and further refined as Public Interest Litigation.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Dr Ys Chintal and Shri Mukul Mudgai as Amicus Curiae and asked them to visit the prison and gather information relating to the issue.
- After collecting the information Amicus Curiae reported that the petitioner has sustained serious anal injury because of a rod. In that report, they mentioned that all acts were done because of the unfulfilled demand for money from the prison authorities.
- Prison authorities tried to cover up the matter by stating the injury which was sustained by the petitioner is due to piles but if we see at the actual scenario it was not.
Issues of the case are:
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the petition by a convict?
- Can convicted persons enjoy the Fundamental Rights under Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21?
- Whether Section 56 and Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, 1894 violative of the Constitution of India?
- Questions relating to Amendments which are to be taken in future relating to Prison Act, 1894?
The contention by Petitioner:
- Counsel on behalf of Petitioner argued that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, 1894 did not give any power to jail authorities to constrain a prisoner who was punished by death to be placed in a holding cell.
- Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner argued that Section 56 of the Prison Act, of 1894 is giving arbitrary power to the jail authorities and also argued that it is violative of Article 21.
These are the major contentions by the Petitioner.
The contention by the respondent:
- Counsel on behalf of Respondent argued that if a person is convicted then he/she cannot enjoy certain Fundamental Rights as a free person.
- And they also argued that Section 46 of the Prison Act, 1894 Authorises Superintendent to inspect and give necessary punishment.
- Counsel on behalf of the Respondent argued that prisoners who are punished with death are in such a way that they might do an act that will Endanger them so that’s why the petitioner was kept under Solitary Confinement.
Judgement:
- In the present case, Supreme Court held that jail authorities not having any right to torture or giving punishments to prisoners without the permission of the court.
- And Hon’ble Court held that Fundamental Rights were infringed in the present case.
- Hon’ble Court held that whenever Fundamental Rights were infringed people can directly knock on the doors of the Supreme Court and High Court by Article 32 and Article 226
- And held that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, of 1894 clearly states about Solitary Confinement by the prison authorities there is nothing about torturing the prisoners.
- Hon’ble Court held that even convicted people also have the Right to Life and Personal Liberty and it can be curtailed by the law.
- The court held that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, 1894 is not a violation of Article 14 there are certain circumstances where the prisoners should be kept under Solitary Confinement after giving the death punishment.
- Hon’ble Court held Section 56 of the Prison Act, 1894 states with the order of the court superintendent can take necessary safeguards by putting into irons.
Conclusion:
In this landmark, the judgement court held that lawyers need to be appointed by the District Magistrates, Sessions judge, High Court or Supreme Court for confidential communication with prisoners relating to treatment in a cell. And the court held that prison authorities shall not misinterpret the statutes some punishments require the permission of the court and that should be taken by the appropriate authorities. The court held prisoners should give the right to complain regarding the conditions in the prison and this concept was mainly highlighted in the present case.
Author,, Smrithin Maturi, Student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad, Semester 6
