FACTS IN BRIEF :- The Petitioner, a convict under death sentence lodged in the Tihar Central Jail, came to know of a crime of torture practiced upon another prisoner (Prem Chand) allegedly by a jail warder (Maggar Singh) as a means to extract money from the victim through his visiting relations. This was complained 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 prisoners' grievance, not demanding release but, within the incarceratory circumstances, complaining 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 Court? What judicial remedies were to be granted to prevent and punish their breach and to provide access to prison justice?, and 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 prisoners' grievance, not demanding release but, within the incarceratory circumstances, complaining of ill-treatment and curtailment short of illegal detention. The Court expressly noted that the prisoners were also humans and 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 forbiddance of harsher restraints and heavier severities than the sentence carries.
The Court held that the integrity of physical person and mental personality as 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 erroneous officials. The Court also laid guidelines to protect the rights of the prisoner and allow him a peaceful and respectful life without any room for tortures inside the prison.
FOR COMMON MAN:- Assuming a legislative role, providing for the interest of the prisoners, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the protection of the rights of the prisoners. It also put forth the pressing need for prison reforms. Suggestions of the likes of keeping of a grievance box were given, with the help of which in each ward a free access was to be afforded to every inmate which 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. The stress was laid down on the need of the 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, and use the services of officers of justice was to be brought into play. The problems prevailing in the Tihar jail such as overcrowding, non-accommodation etc. were taken note of concerns were raised. A greater need was felt for expeditious prison reforms and protecting of the rights of the prisoners. Thus the Court stood tall in defending the rights of the prisoners inside prisons
0 Comments