LONGISH TERM PAPER I

ON

THE RIGHTS OF PRISIONERS

SUBMITTED
BY

Ms. DEEPIKA.J.SAKHARE
Ist Year LL.M.

GUIDE

Ms. DEEPALI PATIL

Asst Prof

POST GRADUATION TEACHING DEPARTMENT OF LAW

(SEMESTER I NOVEMBER,2011)
 DECLARATION

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE LONGISH TERM PAPER-I ENTITLED THE RIGHTS
OF PRISIONERS SUBMITTED BY ME IS THE RECORD OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY
ME DURING SEMESTER- I OF FIRST YEAR LL.M. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2011-12 UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MISS. DEEPALI PATIL, ASSTT
PROFESSOR AND HAS NOT FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE WARD OF ANY DEGREE,
DIPLOMA, ASSOCIATE SHIP, FELLOWSHIP, TITLES IN THIS OR ANY OTHER
UNIVERSITY OR OTHER INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING. I FURTHER
DECLARE THAT THE MATERIAL OF THIS L.T.P. IS MY ORIGINAL WORK AND I
HAVE NOT COPIED ANYTHING FROM ANY REPORT OF THIS NATURE. THE
MATERIAL OBTAINED FROM OTHER SOURCES HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED IN
THIS RESEARCH WORK.

PLACE: PUNE (Ms. DEEPIKA J. SAKHARE)

DATE: / / 2011
 CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE LONGISH TERM PAPER-2 ENTITLED THE RIGHTS
OF PRISIONERSSUBMITTED BY Ms. DEEPIKA.J.SAKHARE, IS THE RECORD OF
WORK CARRIED OUT DURING SEMESTER I OF FIRST YEAR LL.M. COURSE FOR
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-12 UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND GUIDANCE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE SYLLABUS PRESCRIBED BY UNIVERSITY OF PUNE.

PLACE: PUNE (Miss. DEEPALI. T .PATIL)

DATE: / /2011 Asst Prof
GUIDE
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank my Principal Mr. Rasheed Shaikh for giving an
opportunity to undertake this research work and successfully accomplishing the same.

I would like to thank my guide Asst Prof Miss. Deepali Patil, & Head of the
Department (HOD) Dr. Payal Thaorey for their valuable guidance and for being a solvency of
inspiration and encouragement, enabling the research work and to complete research work
successfully.

Last but not the least; the researcher would like to thank all the background supporters,
who have spent their valuable time to support me throughout the studies of Research & its
accomplishment.

Dated : ,November,2011 (Ms. DEEPIKA.J. SAKHARE)

 ABBREVIATIONS USED

A I R. --- ALL INDIA REPORTERS

JT-------- JUDGMENT TODAY
SC--------SCHEDULED COURT
S C C----SUPREME COURT CASES
S C R----SUPREME COURT REPORTER
HRC--- HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
UDHR- UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
 INDEX
No Contents Page
No
1 I
Introduction

1.1Aims and Objectives of Research

1.2Significance Of Study

1.3Research Problem

1.4Hypothesis

1.5Research Methodology

2 CHAPTER NO 1

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEWS OF PRISION REFORMS IN INDIA

1.1. First Jail Reform Committee

1.2. Second Jail Reform Committee
1.3. Fourth Jail reform Committee
1.4. Prison Act of 1894
1.5. Jail Reform Committee of (1919-1920)
3 CHAPTER NO 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2.1 Enlightenment on various Rights of Prisoners- in brevity

2.2 Rights of Prisoners under Indian Constitution.
2.2.1 No discrimination between prisoners
2.2.2 Freedom of speech and expression
2.2.3 Protection from double jeopardy
2.2.4 Life and personal liberty
 a) Speedy trial
b) Solitary confinement
c) Handcuffing and bar fetters, torture
d) Against inhuman treatment
e) Meet friends and consult lawyer
f) Reasonable wages in prison
2.2.5 Rights guaranteed under Art 22(1) and (2)
2.3 RIGHTS OF PRISONERS UNDER OTHER
STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
2.3.1. National commission for women on Custodial Justice for
Women

2.3.2 Under various prisons Acts

2.3.3 Rights of Non-citizens.

4 CHAPTER No 3

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AFTER THE LANDMARK DECISION OF

SUNIL BATRAS CASE.

a) Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration-1978-in brevity.

b) Judicial Activism.
5 CHAPTER No 4

CUSTODIAL TORTURE

6 CHAPTER NO..5

PRISON REFORMS IN THE PRESENT LEGAL SYSTEM

5.1 All India Jail Manual Committee(1957-1959)

5.2 All India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-1983)

7 CHAPTER NO.6

COMPRATIVE ANALYSIS

7 CHAPTER No 7

I. CRITICISM
II. CONCLUSION
III. SUGGESTION
 II
BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

(a) List of Cases

(b) List of Statutory Documents

SECONDARY SOURCES

(a) List of Text book

(b) List of Web Sites Referred
 INTRODUCTION

All human beings are born equal and endowed by their creator with some basic rights.
These basic rights are mainly right to life, and liberty, but if any person doesnt comply with
the ethics of the society then that person is deprived of these rights with punishment 1 and this
is known to be a criminal and the person who is punished shall be consider as a prisoner.
Therefore the prisoner means in the simplest sense the offender who commits an offence
punishable by law. As the function of the state is to maintain peace in the society it is
necessary that the criminals shall be kept away from the society, therefore the place where
the criminals are kept away from the society such place is known as prison. The term
prison consists of rooms which are known as cell and the criminals who kept in prison are
known as prisoners. The prisoners are of two types one is men prisoner and another is
women prisoner and there is separate prisons made for men and women.
The rights of civil and military prisoners are governed by both national and international law.
International conventions include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
the Unit Nations' Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.

1.1 Aims and Objectives:-

Many experts believe that the main objective of prison is to bring the offenders back to
the mainstream of the society, in other words to reform the criminals and make them able to

1
WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 live in society peacefully. Our father of the nation namely Mahatma Gandhi also took efforts
to reform the criminals According to him Hate the crime and not the criminal
The Indian socio-legal system is based on non- violence, mutual respect and human
dignity of individual. If a person commits any crime it does not mean that by committing a
crime, he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life
which constitutes human dignity.
Therefore our Indian legal system provides equal rights to men as well as to women and
same applies in case when they go behind the bars i.e. for imprisonment in prison. These
rights are most essential rights to accomplish the purpose of punishment. The ultimate
purpose of punishment is to send them in prison for reformation. Therefore prisoner can only
be reformed by providing them certain rights in prison such as right to food, right to read
books, novels, news papers, and right to move free in jail in particular period, right to take
education etc. and therefore it is the duty of the state to provide these rights to the prisoners.
Therefore with these Paras researcher concludes that the criminals are kept in jail for
reformation so that they will become able to live in society peacefully. Therefore for
accomplish these objects they have provided basic right for their reformation which are very
essential.

1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY AND SCOPE OF WORK:-

a) Significance of study:-
The topic of research is Constitutional Rights of Prisoners-Recent Judicial Trends
Researcher choose this topic to study, analyze the rights, standard living conditions
guaranteed to the prisoners as per prison manual, constitution of India. And real conditions of
prisoners in the prison and what are the judicial trend in respect of these rights. Power vested
in the authority and misuse of it by the authorities.
Being put behind the bars is one thing, but being subjected to physical and verbal torture,
abuse by jail guards make impact on human rights. Too many complaints on human rights
violation of detainees in the prisons from across the country, so this topic which researcher
has chosen of Constitutional Rights of Prisoners-Recent Judicial Trends is of more
importance.
What are the rights available to the prisoners in the prison?it has to be studied in the
light of various covenants, convention, writs and fundamental rights guaranteed by
Constitution of India along with decisions of Supreme Court.
 b) Scope of Work:-

The Scope of Work of this research is as under:

a. To study the constitutional status of prisoners. Rights available to them along with the
decisions of Supreme Court and failure of state machinery to guarantee those rights in
the prison.
b. To critically analyses the availability and real implementation of rights of prisoner
which leads to violation of those rights.
c. To study various rights available to the prisoners under the Criminal Procedure Code,
Constitution of India, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and International
Covenant on civil and political rights.
d. The movements for rights of prisoners are based on the principle that prisoners even
though they are deprived of liberty, are still entitled to basic human rights.
e. Critically analyses the arbitrary action of jail guards with the prisoners.

1.3 Research Problem:-

Under the Indian Constitution,there are various rights which are guaranteed to the
Prisoners,but the Prisoners suffers from custodial violence. Their rights are often violated by
the Prison Authorities.

1.4 Hypothesis:-

The Indian Constitution has given various rights to the Prisioners but these rights are
often violated by the Prison Authorities by mis-using their powers.

1.5 Research Methodology:-

For this longish term paper researcher followed the doctrinal research methodology. In
that researcher used various text books, law journals, articles, and cases and also used on-
line study material.
 CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL OVER-VIEW OF PRISON REFORMS IN INDIA

Prison system means the administration of jail it means that management of jail
authority about the prisoner. As the purpose of the punishment is to reform the criminal,
the criminals are kept in prisons which are away from the society and this place is known
as prison. Prison system is existed in India from the ancient time. Before independence
the prisoners were treated as a slave, they usually exploited by jail authority but after
independence several reforms are made and basic rights are given to the prisoners and
thereby lots of development have taken place in the jail system. In the ancient period the
attitude to prisons, prisoners and punishment was brutal and barbaric. Recognition of the
human being in the convicted offender is an idea that has been accepted after a long
struggle with the state. In order to fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem and the
parameters relevant to reforms in the context of human rights, it would be desirable to
look at the evolution of prison administration over the years.
Until the late 18th century, prisons were used as debtors prisons. They imprisoned
debtors who could to pay off their creditors. Different countries imprisoned debtors who
could not pay off their creditors. Different countries imprisoned debtors; delinquent
juvenile, etc jails were mostly dark, overcrowded and filthy. All types of prisoners were
herded together with no separation of men and women, young and old, convicted and un
convicted, sane and insane. In India various committees, commissions were set up, they
published their reports, submitted to Governments on the prison conditions in Indian
therefore various prison reforms2 were suggested in the Indian prison system.

2
Refer K.P.Malic and Dr.K.C.Rawal,Law and social transformation in India,Allahabad 2007,1st edition page 412
 Before independence the Conditions of the prisoners were harsher than animals.
There was no uniform code to give punishment. The meaning of the punishment itself
was to crush the prisoner. Jailors were normally cruel persons. But in 1835, some though
arose for in the hope of prisoner reformation. In 1835, First Commission (Lord McCauley
Commission) was appointed, who recommended the abolition of outdoor labour, general
introduction of indoor work, better classification of convicts, careful separation of untried
prisoners, the institution of central or convict prisons, and the regulation of prison system
generally by employment of inspectors of prisons were the main recommendations of this
report.

1.1) First Jail Reform committee

Due to the efforts of Lord McCauley the first jail reform committee was constituted,
which recommended that a central jail should be constituted, and in these jails such prisoners
should be kept who are undergoing imprisonment for more than one year. These jails should
be in position to keep 1000 prisoners at a time. In every state a Prison Inspector should be
appointed, who can inspect from time to time the administration of the jails in the State.

1.2) Second Jail Reform Committee

In the year of 1862, second jail reform committee was constituted. This committee
suggested improvement of living accommodation, cloths and food of prisoners, medical
officers and medical facilities at every central jail. Classification of the criminals and made
the provisions of 15% solitary confinement at every central jail. Besides these third, fourth
and fifth committees also were constituted on the reformation on jail administration and
different recommendations were given by them and accepted by the governments.
Second commission of jail management made specific recommendation regarding the
accommodation, improvement in diet, clothing, bedding, and medical care of the prisoners,
and for the appointment of Medical officers in jails, minimum required space for one
prisoner as 54 sq.ft. And 640 cubic ft., and separation of female and children from adults.

1.3) Fourth Jail Commission1888

 Jail Commission made an exhaustive inquiry into all matters connected with jail
administration. It was of the opinion that uniformity could not be achieved without enactment
of a single Prison Act. It also recommended the setting up of jail hospitals.
1.4) Prison Act of 1894

The prisons Act, 1894, was passed which is based on 1888 jail commissions report and is
still governing the management and administration of prisons in India. This Act, as it is, was
based on deterrent principles concerned more with prison management than with the
treatment of prisoners and gave more consideration to prison offences and punishments than
to their effect.

Some important merits of the Act are as: (a) in this act uniformity was given to all the
prisoners. (b) Steps were taken for the classification of the prisoners. (c) Flogging was
stopped and nature of punishment changed.

1.5) Indian Jail Committee of (1919-20)

An Indian Jail Committee was constituted headed by Sir Alexander Cardio. This
committee studied the jails in the country and abroad and concluded that in Indian Jails,
improvement was only required in the field of food, health and labour, not in any other field.
This committee wrote that, When the prisoners are in jails they should not be only thought
to have stopped the commission of offence in future but, affect then to reform their character.
It is our 2nd principle, which we understood that should be accepted. With the Indian Jail
Committee 1919-20 in 1919, the Government of India Act was introduced, according to
which prison was made the subject of the state, due to which speed of the reformation of the
jail went down and today the position of the jails is different in every State.

1.6) Jail Reform Committee, 1946

A Committee was constituted in the year 1946 for the jails. This committee gave the
suggestions as:
1) The child offenders should be treated differently.
2) Modern jails should be constructed and
 3) The classification of the offenders should be scientific:
a) Child offenders, b) adult offenders, c) women offenders,
d) Casual offenders, e) habitual offenders f) mentally diseased offenders and
g) Handicapped offenders.

CHAPTER-II

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2.1 Enlightenment on various Rights of Prisioners- in brevity :-

1. Right to be lodged appropriately based on Proper Classification.
2. Special Right of young prisoners to be segregated from adult prisoners.
3. Rights of women prisoners.
4. Right to healthy environment.
5. Right to bail.
6. Right to speedy trial.
7. Right to free legal services.
8. Right to basic needs such as food, water and shelter

9. Right to have interviews with ones Lawyer.

10.Right against being detained for more than the period of sentence imposed by the court.
11.Right to protection against being forced into sexual activities.
12.Right against arbitrary use of handcuffs and fetters.
13.Right against torture, cruel and degrading punishment.
14.Right not to be punished with solitary confinement for a prison offence.
15.Right against arbitrary prison punishment.
16.Right to air grievances and to effective remedy.
17.Right to evoke the writ of habeas corpus against prison authorities for excesses.
18.Right to be compensated for violation of human rights.
19.Right to visits and access by family members of prisoners.
20.Right to write letters to family and friends and to receive letters, magazines, etc.
21.Right to rehabilitation and reformative programmes.
22.Right in the context of employment of prisoners and to prison wages.
23.Right to information about prison rules.
24.Right to emergency and reasonable health care. .

2.2 RIGHTS OF PRISONERS UNDER VARIOUS LAWS

2.2.1.RIGHTS OF PRISONERS UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUION:

The Constitution of India guarantees various rights to human beings majority of them are
fundamental rights and judiciary plays a significant role to protect these rights in the light of their
various decisions. These rights are guarantees and protected by the judiciary a particularly by the
Supreme Court to both the prisoners i.e. women as well as men. Prison jurisprudence recognizes
that prisoners i.e. women as well as men. Prison jurisprudence recognizes that prisons should not
lose all their rights because of imprisonment. Yet, there is a loss of rights within custodial
institutions, which continue to occur. Let us discuss the rights which are guaranteed by the
constitution of India along with the decisions of the Supreme Court which are given as follows:-

No Discrimination between prisoners

After 14 of Constitution of India provides for the equal treatment to the prisoners under
the same circumstances and consequently bars arbitrary classification or biased preferred special
treatment amongst them. This article says that there shall not be any discrimination in the jail
between the prisoners punished with rigorous imprisonment irrespective whether he is rich of
poor and from good family background or criminal background all would have to undergo the
Same kind of compulsory work. In view of Article 14 of the constitution of India the different
punishment for the same kind of offence is also bad in law therefore the court in the case Mithu
vs. State of Punjab3.
The petitioner challenged the validity of section 303 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section
303 says that if a person under a sentence of life imprisonment in jail commits a murder, he must

3
AIR 1983 SC 473
be awarded sentence of death. Whereas section 302 provides that if a person commits murder he
may be punished with the death sentence or the sentence of life imprisonment. The courts have
discretionary power to award any one of the two punishments in a case of section 302. This
discretionary power is not given of section 303 is arbitrary and not justifiable because death
sentence in section 303 is mandatory, while the same is discretionary in section 302 for the same
offence, i.e. murder. The Supreme Court agreed with arguments of the Petitioner, and struck
down section 303 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore with view of above provision, the researcher concludes that the protection of
Article 14 i.e. Equality before law and Equal protection of law is also applicable to the men as
well as women prisoners in the jail, therefore shall not be any discrimination between prisoners
on the grounds of rich prisoner and poor prisoner as well as family background of prisoners.
Thereby all the prisoners should be treated equally in the jail.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

It is one of the significant right or prisoner. The imprisonment or confinement do not

suspends all the freedoms and he can enjoy those freedoms as for as possible with the reasonable
restrictions of imprisonment. As imprisonment suspends the right to movement or residence
under article 19(1) (d) & (e), but right to property and the right to speech and expression up to
certain extent can be easily enjoyed. In the historic judgment in R. Rajgopal v. State of
Tamilnadu4.
The Supreme Court has held that the Government has no authority in law to impose a
prior-restraint upon a publication of defamatory material against its officials. Public authorities
who apprehend that they or their colleagues may be defamed could not prevent the press from
publication of such material, could take action for damages after the publication of such material
if they prove that the publication was based on false facts. The Court held that no action could be
initiated against the press if the publication was based on public records including court records.
In this case the condemned prisoner Auto Shankar who was convicted for six murders
and sentenced to death, had written his autobiography in jail. The autobiography depicted a close
nexus between the prisoner and several IAS, IPS and other officers, some of whom were indeed
his partners in several crimes. The court held that It is enough for the press to prove that he

4
(1994)6 SCC 632
acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for the press to prove that
what is published was true.
In another case Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India 5 the Supreme Court directed the
Superintendent of the Tihar to permit the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times Newspaper to
interview, Ranga and Billa, the two death sentence convicts, under Articles 19(1)(a) as they were
willing to be interviewed. The Jail authorities had refused the permission to the newspaper
representatives to interview the convicts. Supreme Court held that they can obtain information
from them when they voluntarily agree to give such information.
Thereby with the above provision regarding to the right of freedom of speech and
expression the researcher concludes that, mere being a criminal under the imprisonment in jail,
the prisoner shall not deprived his right to speech and expressed his own thoughts. He can also
give the interviews before the media though he is in jail.

Protection from double jeopardy

The term Double Jeopardy means an accused shall not be prosecuted in one offence
twice. This term is defined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which says that No
persons shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This clause
embodies the common law rule of nemo debet vis vexari which means that no man should be
put twice in peril for the same offence6.
In Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay7 the appellant brought some gold into India. He
did not declare that he had brought gold with him to the customs authorities on the airport. The
customs authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs act. He was later on charged for
having committed an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The appellant
contended that second prosecution was in violation of Article 20(2) as it was for the same
offence, i.e. for imparting gold in contravention of Government notification for which he had
already been prosecuted and punished as his gold had been confiscated by customs authorities.
The court held that the Sea Custom Authorities were not a court or judicial tribunal and the
adjudging of confiscation under the Sea Customs Act did not constitute a judgment of judicial

5
AIR 1982 SC 6.
6
Dr. J.N. Pandey,Constitutional Law of India Central Law Agency 2004 edition page no.207
7
AIR 1953 SC 325
character necessary to take the plea of double jeopardy. Hence the prosecution under the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act is not barred.
With the view of this right researcher concludes that protection of double jeopardy is
applicable when a person prosecuted twicely in the one offence before the court only. Therefore
as per the decision laid down in Maqbul Hussain the person can get the benefit of this provision
when he tried before the court and not before the tribunal.

Life and Personal Liberty:

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are the
convicts are not by mere reason of their conviction deprived of the entire fundamental rights
which they otherwise possess.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India says that: No person shall be deprived of his life
or liberty except according procedure established by law.
This smallest article has the greatest significance for those who cherish the ideals of
liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India the concept of liberty has received a
far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty
denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint; and has held that it encompasses those rights and
privileges which have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
by free men. The meaning of the term personal liberty was considered by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India8 and held that the expression personal liberty in Article 21 is
of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitutes the personal liberty
of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given
additional protection under Article 19 of the constitution. In the Kharak Singh vs. state of U.P. 9,
it was held that the expression life was not limited to bodily restraint of confinement to prison
only but something more than animal existence. In that case the petitioner Kharak Singh had
been charged in dacoity case but was released as there was no evidence against him. Under the
U.P. Police Regulations, the police opened a history-sheet for him and he was kept under police
survey surveillance which included secret picketing of his house by the police domiciliary visits
at night and verification of his movement and activities. The Supreme Court held that, the
domiciliary visit of the policemen was an invasion on the petitioners personal liberty. But life
as used here something more is meant than mere animal existence. Hence the police regulation

8
AIR 1978 SC 597
9
AIR 1963 SC 1295
authorizing domiciliary visits may plainly violative of Art. 21 as there was no law on which it
could be justified and it must be struck down as unconstitutional.
There with the above provision researcher concludes that the right to life enumerated
under Article 21 is also applicable to the convicts those are languishing in jail. And the word life
was not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only but something more than mere
animal existence. Therefore right to life includes following rights of prisoners including women
prisoners.

a) Speedy Trial :
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of a prisoner implicit in article 21 of the
Constitution. It ensures just, fair and reasonable procedure10. Speedy trial means the trial should
be concluded as early as possible there is no fixed prescribed period for completion of trial but it
should be completed within the period of prescribed punishment to an offence. Therefore the
speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice. This right is implicit in the broad sweep and
content of Art. 21 as interpreted in Manka Gandhis case No procedure which does not ensure a
reasonable quick trial can be regarded as a reasonable, just and fair.
In the case of Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar11, a shocking state of affairs in
regard to the administration of justice came forward. An alarmingly large number of men and
women, including children are behind the prison for years awaiting trial in the court of law. The
offences with which some of them were charged were trivial, which, even if proved would not
warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps a year or two, and yet these unfortunate
forgotten specimens of humanity were in jail, deprived of their freedom, for periods ranging
from three to ten years without as much as their trial having commenced.
The court while dealing with cases of under-trials who had suffered long incarceration
held that a procedure which keeps such large number of people behind bars without trial so long
cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the
requirement of Article 21.

b) Solitary Confinement:
The significant right enumerated under Article 21 of constitution is right against solitary
confinement. The term solitary Confinement in a general sense means the separate confinement
of prisoner, with only occasional access of any other person, and that too only at the discretion of
the jail authorities. In strict sense it means the complete isolation of a prisoner from all human

10
M.P.Jain Constitutional Law of India,wadhawa,Nagpur ,edition2007 page no.1012
11
AIR 1979 SC 1360
society. In Sunil Batra (No.1) Vs. Delhi administration12. The important question raised before
the Supreme Court that was whether solitary confinement imposed upon prisoners who were
under sentence of death was violative of Article 21 of the constitution. The Honble Supreme
Court held that if solitary confined imposed there is total deprivation of comrade i.e., friendship
amongst co-prisoners comingling, and talking and being talked to, it would offend the article 21
of the constitution. The liberty to move to move, mix, mingle, talk, Share Company with co-
prisoners if substantially curtailed would be violative of Art. 21.
From this right the researcher concludes that solitary confinement means keep the person
away from other prisoner in lonely place in the prison therefore by virtue of Art. 21 as the human
being are not having only animal existence the punishment of solitary confinement is consider as
an unconstitutional and violative of Art.21 of the constitution.

c) Hand cuffing and bar fetters, torture:

This significant right implicit under Article 21 of the constitution of India with, an
arrested person or under-trial prisoner should not be subjected to handcuffing, bar fetters and
torture in the absence of justifying circumstances.
In the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration 13 , the petitioner was an
under-trial prisoner in Tihar jail. He was required to be taken from jail to magistrate court and
back periodically in connection with certain cases pending against him. The trail curt has
directed the concerned officer that while escorting him to the court and back handcuffing should
not be done unless it was so warranted. But handcuffing was forced on him by the escorts. He
therefore sent a telegram to one of the judges of Supreme Court on the basis of which the present
habeas corpus petition has been admitted by the court and held that Hand cuffing is prima facie
inhuman and, therefore unreasonable, is overharsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair
procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict irons is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant
to Art. 21. To handcuff to the accused is to hoop harshly and to push humiliatingly. The
minimum freedom of movement, under which a detainee is entitled to under Art.19, cannot be
cut down by the application of handcuffs. Handcuffs must be the last resort as there are other
ways for ensuring security. There must be a reasonable material, sufficiently to satisfy that there
is clear and present danger of escape of prisoner who is being transported by breaking out of
police control. Even when in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on prisoner; the
escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so.

12
AIR 1978 P.339
13
AIR 1980 SC 1535
 d) Against inhuman treatment :
Another significant right is implicit under the Art.21 is right against inhuman treatment in
the hands of police and jail authority.
In Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan14 the Supreme Court held that the use of third
degree method by police is violative of Art.21 and directed the Government to take necessary
steps to educate the police as to inculcate a respect for the human person.
In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra the court gave detailed instruction to concern
authorities for providing security and safety in police lock-ups and particularly to women
suspects. Female suspects should be kept in separate police lock-ups and not in the same in
which male accused are detained and should be guarded by female constables.
From this right researcher concludes that prisoners are protected from the inhuman
treatment in the hands of police and jail authority.

e) Meet friends and consult lawyer:

Another significant right is implicit under Art. 21 of the constitution about the prisoner is
right to meet friends and consult lawyer, this right is essential for the prisoner to defend his case
because without getting the information from the prisoner lawyer cannot defend his case.
Honble supreme court also explained this right.
In the case of Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court recognized the
right of the prisoners to be visited by their friends and relatives. The court favoured their visits
but subject to search and discipline and other security criteria. The court observed : Visits to
prisoners by family and friends are a solace in insulation, and only a dehumanized system can
derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates of this humane amenity.

f) Reasonable Wages in Prison

In the prison the prisoners has to do certain work as his part of conviction or in another
case the prisoner does the work voluntarily such as preparation of food to other criminals,
washing clothes washing articles etc. therefore when they worked in the jail minimum wages,
has to be paid to them and the payment has to be equivalent to the service rendered, otherwise it
would be forced labour within the meaning of Articles 23 of the Constitution. There is no
difference between a prisoner serving a sentence inside the prison walls and a freeman in the
society.

14
AIR 1981 SC 625
 In the case of Mahammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P.15, the court directed the state to take
into account that the wages should be paid at a reasonable rate. It should not be below minimum
wages, this factor should be taken into account while finalizing the rules for payment of wages to
prisoners, as well as to give retrospective effect to wage policy. In the case of Peoples Union for
Democratic rights v. Union of India, the Bench observed thus:
We are, therefore, of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another
or remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided him clearly
falls within the scope and ambit of the words forced labour under Article 23.
In the case of State of Gujarat v. Honble High Court of Gujarat, a delicate issue
requiring very circumspective approach mooted before the court. Whether prisoners, who are
required to do labour as part of their punishment, should necessarily be paid wages for such work
at the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages law. The court has before him appeals filed by
some State Governments challenging the judgments rendered by the respective High Court
which in principle upheld the contention that denial of wages at such rates would fringe on
infringement of the Constitution protection against exaction of forced labour.

Right guaranteed under Art. 22(1) & (2):-

Clauses (1) (2) of Art. 22 guarantee four rights on a person who is arrested for any
offence under an ordinary law:-
I. The right to be informed as soon as may be of ground of arrest.
II. The right to consult and to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice.
III. The right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
IV. The freedom from detention beyond the said period except by the order of the Magistrate.

The above fundamental rights guaranteed to arrested person by clauses (1) (2) of Article
22 are available to both citizens as well as non-citizens and not to the person arrested and
detained under any law providing for preventive detention. In notable judgment in Joginder
Kumar v. State of U.P.16, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines governing arrest of a

15
AIR 1987 SC 568
16
(1994)4 SCC 260
person during the investigation. The Court has held that person is not liable to arrest merely on
the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the
opinion of the police officer effecting the arrest was necessary and justified.
From this right researcher concludes that, prisoner can enjoy this right before he send to
jail it means that, he enjoyed this right immediately after his arrest.

Free legal aid

The talk of human rights would become meaningless unless a person is provided with
legal aid to enable him to have access to justice in case of violation of his human rights. This a
formidable challenge in the country of Indias size and heterogeneity where more than half of the
population lives in far-flung villages steeped in poverty, destitution and literacy. Legal aid is no
longer a matter of charity or benevolence but is one of the constitutional rights and the legal
machinery itself is expected to deal specifically with it. The basic philosophy of legal aid
envisages that the machinery of administration of justice should be easily accessible and should
not be out of the reach of those who have to resort to it for the enforcement of their legal rights.
In fact legal aid offers a challenging opportunity to the society to redress grievances of the poor
and thereby law foundation of Rule of Law.
In India, judiciary has played an important role in developing the concept of legal aid
and expanding its scope so as to enable the people to have access to courts in case of any
violation of their human rights. In the case of M.H.Wadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the
Court held that the right to legal aid is one of the ingredients of fair procedure.
If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional
and statutory right of appeal, for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the court under
article 142 read with article 21 and 39-A of the Constitution, power to assign council for such
imprisoned individual for doing complete justice. Where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a
lawyer, on reasonable grounds such as indigence or incommunicado situation, the court shall, if
the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the sentence, and the ends of justice so required,
assign competent counsel for the prisoners defense, unless the prison refuse this lawyer.
The researcher from the above discussion concludes that, these rights are essential
provisions for the prisoner who are poor and does not able to engage the advocate. The duty casts
upon the state to provide free advocate to the prisoner through legal aid.
These above are the rights guaranteed under the constitution of India to the prisoner by
way of fundamental rights, and these rights are available and protected by the Supreme Court to
both the prisoners i.e. men and women prisoner. Along with the Supreme Court, other
organization, commission also took efforts to provide rights to the prisoners and thereby National
Commission for Women are suggested certain rights to the women prisoners.

RIGHTS OF PRISONERS UNDER OTH ER STATUTORY PROVISONS

National Commission for women on Custodial Justice for women

The report of the National Commission for Women on Custodial Justice for women,
(1993) have drawn attention towards the rights of women prisoner and thereby rights given by
the national commission for women are enumerated under the Jail Manual, these rights are
explained follows the following are some important aspects, many of which do not cast any
financial burden for their implementation:-

1. Women prisoners-like men-should be informed of their rights under the law.

2. Women constables should conduct searches.
3. Medical checkups of women prisoners or under trials should be done by women doctors
as soon as they come to prison.
4. Women prisoners should be allowed to contact their families and communicate with their
lawyers, women social workers, and voluntary organizations.
5. Women prisoners should be allowed to keep their children with them. Voluntary
organizations of women should be encouraged to be associated with women prisoners.
6. Separate jails should be provided for women.
7. Special prosecution officers should be available to present the case of women prisoners.

From these rights researcher comes to the conclusion that these rights are related only to
the women prisoners. These rights are also prescribed under the constitution of India.

Under various Prisons acts:-

Various rights have been guaranteed under various Acts viz. The Prisons Act, 1984, The
Prisons Act, 1900, etc. The rights can be mentioned as-
 I. There must be separation of prisoners as male or female prisoners, Un convicted or
convicted civil prisoners or criminal prisoners.
II. No cell shall be used for solitary confinement unless it is furnished.
Proper food, clothing and bedding should have to be provided to all prisoners, etc.

Rights of non-citizens.
All the rights which are available to a prisoner are also available to the non citizens.
Therefore with these rights it is correct to say that there shall not be any discrimination between
the citizens and non citizens under criminal jurisprudence. All the laws, rules made to the
criminals are applicable to the citizens as well as non citizens thereby all the rights given to them
are also applicable to them.
Thus these are the rights given to the prisoners under the constitution of India, criminal
procedure code, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under international covenant and under
the prison Act. Therefore the duty to provide these rights on the shoulder of State which consider
as an implementing authority.

CHAPTER-III

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AFTER LANDMARK DECISION IN SUNIL BATRAS CASE.

SUNIL BATRAS CASE IN BREVITY:-

Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration., 1978

The petitioner,Sunil Batra,a convict under death sentence, through a letter to one of the Judges
of this Court alleged that torture was practised upon another prisoner by a jail warder,to extract
money from the victim through his visiting relations. The letter was converted into a habeas
corpus proceeding. The Court issued notice to the State and the concerned officials. It also
appointed amicus curiae and authorised them to visit the prison, meet the prisoner, see relevant
documents and interview necessary witnesses so as to enable them to inform them selves about
the surrounding circumstances and the scenario of events. The amicus curiae after visiting the
jail and examining witnesses reported that the prisoner sustained serious anal injury because a
rod was driven into that aperture to inflict inhuman torture and that as the bleeding had not
stopped, he was removed to the jail hospital and later to the Irvin Hospital. It was also reported
that the prisoner's explanation for the anal rupture was an unfulfilled demand of the warder for
money, and that attempts were made by the departmental officers to hush up the crime by
overawing the prisoner and the jail doctor and offering a story that the injury was either due to a
fall of self-inflication or due to piles.
The Court admitted the appeal and held as under after admitting all the contentions of
the appellant.
The court also admitted the pressing need for prison reform and the expeditious
provision for adequate facilities enabling the prisoners, not only to be acquainted with their
legal rights, but also to enable them to record their complaints and grievances, and to have
confidential interviews periodically with lawyers nominated for the purpose by the District
Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction subject, of course, to considerations of prison
discipline and security. It is imperative that District Magistrate,, and Sessions Judges should
visit the prisons in their jurisdiction and afford effective opportunity to the prisoners for
ventilating their grievances and, where the matter lies within their powers, to make expeditious
enquiry therein and take suitable remedial action. It is also necessary 606 that the Sessions
Judge should be informed by the jail authorities of any punitive action taken against a prisoner
within two days of such action. A statement by the Sessions Judge in regard to his visits,
enquiries made and action taken thereon shall be submitted periodically to the High Court to
acquaint it with the conditions prevailing in the prisons within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Petition was allowed.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer opined a various precious statement which stands as under:-
Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights
which they otherwise possess.
A prison, jail or correctional facility is a place in which individuals are physically confined or
detained and usually deprived of a range of personal freedom. These institutions are an integral
part of the criminal justice system of a country. There are various types of prisons such as those
exclusively for adults, children, female, convicted prisoners, under-trial detainees and separate
facilities for mentally ill offenders. In this chapter, prisons refer to only adult correctional
facilities. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal punishment that may be imposed by the state
for the commission of a crime or disobeying its rule. The objective of imprisonment varies in
Different countries and may be: a) punitive and for incapacitation, b) deterrence, and c)
rehabilitative and reformative . In general, these objectives have evolved over time as shown in
the accompanying figure. The primary purpose and justification of imprisonment is to protect
society against crime and retribution. In current thinking, punitive methods of treatment of
prisoners alone are neither relevant nor desirable to achieve the goal of reformation and
rehabilitation of prison inmates. The concept of Correction, Reformation and Rehabilitation has
come to the foreground and the prison administration is now expected to function in a curative
and correctional manner (Karnataka Prisons 2009). Human rights approaches and human rights
legislations have facilitated a change in the approaches of correctional systems, and they have
evolved from being reactive to proactively safeguarding prisoners rights. The United Nations
has also provided several standards and guidelines, through minimal rules or basic principles in
the treatment of prisoners (United Nations 1977).
The State is under an obligation for protecting the human rights of its citizens as well as to
protect the society at large, and is authorized to do so. To protect the citizens from any possible
abuse of this authority, they are given certain basic privileges recognized by the Constitution of
India as Rights. Elevation of such claims to the status of Rights, gives the Suresh Bada Math,
Pratima Murthy, Rajani Parthasarthy, C Naveen Kumar, S Madhusudhan (2011). Minds
Imprisoned: Mental Health Care in Prisons. Publication, National Institute of Mental Health
Neuro Sciences, Bangalore.

Prisoners Rights: Some Landmark Judgments-JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

The past decade has witnessed an increasing consciousness about the desirability of prison
reforms, It is now being recognized that a reformative philosophy and a rehabilitative strategy
must form a part of prison justice.

The role of the Supreme Court in the past five years in introducing jail reforms has been
commendable. Its quest for prison justice is probably a result of its attempt to revive liberty after
extinguishing it in the Habeas Corpus case. In fact, the Supreme Court had commented in that
case during the emergency that the treatment meted out to the detainees was almost mater-nal.
The Supreme Court carried the ratio of the habeas Corpus case (ADM Jabalpur Vs. Shiv Kant
Shukla) that Article 21 is the sole repository of life and liberty and during the emergency when
liberty is suspended, due to the Presidential proclamation suspending Article 21, to the Prison
conditions, and held in Bhanudas's case that a detainee during emergency could not agitate for
better Jail Conditions and facilities.

Maneka Gandhi's case was a landmark in Indian jurisprudence. The Maneka principle was
extended to prison conditions and particularly to the plight of under-trials. A series of news items
appeared in "The Indian Express" about the continued incarceration of under-trials in Bihar Jails.
Some of them were never produced before the courts. Some others had spent more time in jails
as under-trials than the maximum penalty that could be imposed upon them if they were
convicted of the offences they were charged with. The Supreme Court in the Writs of Habeas
Corpus for under-trials stated that

"The information contained in these newspaper cuttings is most distressing and it is sufficient to
stir the conscience and disturb the equanimity of any socially motivated lawyer or judge. Some
of the under trial prisoners whose names are given in the newspaper cuttings have been in jail for
as many as 5, 7, or 9 years and a few of them for even more than 10 years without their trial
being begun. What faith can these lost souls have in a judicial system which denies them a bare
trial for so many years, and keeps them behind bars, not because they are guilty, but because they
are too poor to afford bail and the courts have no time to try them. There can be little doubt after
the dynamic interpretations placed by this court on Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India that a procedure which keeps such large number, of people behind bars without trial so
long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conflict with the
requirement of the Article."

It was with these observations that the Supreme Court directed the Bihar Government and the
Patna High Court to furnish to the Supreme Court details of criminal cases pending in Bihar and
their year wise breakup. The Supreme Court thereafter directed the release of such under-trials
who were in detention for a unduly long period.

The Supreme Court again in a separate writ petition filed by Sunil Batra and Charles Sobharaj,
two priso-ners in Delhi's Tihar jail, made an effort to humanize jail conditions. The question
before the Court was: "Does a prison setting, ipso facto, outlaw the rule of law, lock out the
judicial process from the jail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of con-victs in
confinement? And if there is no total eclipse what lucent segment is open for judicial justice?
Sunil Batra, sentenced to death had challenged his incarceration in solitary confinement and
Charles Sobhraj had challenged his confinement with bar-fetters.

The Supreme Court held that there is no total deprivation of a prisoner's rights of life and liberty.
The "safe keeping" in jail custody is the limited juris-diction of the jailer. "To desort safe-
keeping into a hidden opportunity to care the ward and to traumatize him is to betray the
custodian of law, safe custody does not mean deprivations, violation, banishment from the lanter
barguest of prison life and infliction's of tra-vails as if guardianship were best fulfilled by making
the ward suffer near insanity."

The court held that Sunil Batra's mercy petition to the President/Governor had not been disposed
off and Batra was not "under sentence of death." His solitary confinement was quashed. In the
case of Charles Sobh-raJ, it was held that there was no arbitrary power to put an under trial under
bar-fetters. The discretion to impose "irons" is a quasi-judicial decision and a previous hearing is
essential before putting prisoners in fetters. The grounds for imposing fetters would be given to
each victim in his language. It was further laid down that no "fetters" shall continue be-yond day
time and a prolonged continuance of bar-fetters shall be with the approval of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate or a Sessions Judge.

In another case of "Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration," the Supreme Court struck
down the provisions of the Punjab Police rules which discriminate-ted between the rich and the
poor prisoner in deter-mining who was to be handcuffed. The Court also held that in the absence
of the escorting authority re-cording why the prisoner is being put under handcuffs, the
procedure of handcuffing is a violation of Article 21

The court concluded with the observation: "We clearly declare and it shall be obeyed from the
Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jail
warder-that the rule regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house is
freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have
indicated earlier, will be restraints with irons to be justified before or after. We mandate the
judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner as a rule,
whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other 'irons' treatment, and if he has been, the
official concerned shall be asked to explain the ac-tion forthwith in the light of this judgment."

The Supreme Court has given a new dimension to the writ of habeas corpus by its judgment in
Sunil Batra 'll' vs. Delhi Administration. While the deci-sion of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Sunil Batra I vs. Delhi Admn. had crystalized the legally enforceable rights of
a prisoner, the later deci-sion in Sunil Batra II has radicalised the procedure for the enforcement
of the rights of the prisoners.

The habeas corpus writ was traditionally used for securing the release of a person detained
illegally. It is a favored remedy because of its simplicity, non-techni-cality and the priority which
is given to its hearing by courts. Sunil Batra II lays down the important princi-ple of law that a
writ of habeas corpus is available not only to secure the release of a prisoner illegally detain-ed
but also to regulate the conditions and manner of detention of a person whose detention is lawful.
Thus a speedy and simple remedy is available to prisoners to seek redress of their grievances
about the manner of their detention.

The prisoners now have an important forum for the enforcement of their rights. As all the
grievances could formerly be aired only through the prison-hierarchy, very few prisoners voiced
any complaints for fear of retaliation. The very existence of the remedy of a writ of habeas
corpus would be a deterrent to jail authorities and could prevent arbitrary and capricious action.

In another recent landmark judgment in the case of "Francies Corale Mullin vs. the
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & others", the Supreme Court explained the ingredof an
officer of the customs department. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and liberty
included his right to live with human dignity and therefore a detainee would be entitled to have
interviews with family members, friends and lawyers without these severe restrictions.

CHAPTER-IV

CUSTODIAL TORTURE.

CUSTODIAL TORTURE IN PRISONS:-

 The victims of prisons injustice, particularly those who are poor and helpless and cannot
afford legal representation have been protected against torture and harassment. A victim of
custodial torture can move court directly through a writ petition for protection of his fundamental
rights, specially the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Art 21of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court judicial activism for protecting the rights of prison inmates and detenues Courts
judicial activism for protecting the rights of prison inmates and detenues is discernible from a
series of cases decided by the Court. Thus in Prabhakar Pandurang Vs.State of Maharashtral
the Apex Court ruled that detention in prison cannot deprive the detenue of his fundamental
rights. In the same breathe; the Supreme Court in D.B.M.Patnaik Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh
held that mere detention is no ground for suspension of detenus fundamental rights. In its
historic judgment in Sunil BatraVs.Delhi administration, the Apex Court held that prisoners are
entitled to all fundamental rights which are consistent with their incarceration.
Emphasizing the need for humane treatment of prisoners and protection of their basic
rights, the UPREME Court in Sunil Batra observed as follows:-
Fundamental rights do not flee the persons as he enters the prison although they may suffer
shrinkage necessitated by incarceration.
Outlining the substantive and procedural rights to which the prisoners are entitled, the
Apex Court said.
Infliction may take many protean forms apart from physical assaults. Pushing the
prisoner into a solitary cell, denial of necessary amenity, and more dreadful sometimes, transfer
to a distant prison where visits or society of friends or relations may be snapped, allotment of
degrading labour, assigning him to a desperate or tough gang and the like, may be punitive in
effect. Every such affiliation or abridgment is an infraction of liberty or life in is wider sense
and cannot be sustained.

The Court concluded that torture is a tradition in many penal institutions. That is why as a
matter of policy, Articles 8 and 9 of the Declaration of the Protection of all persons from torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of punishment adopted by UN General
Assembly should be implemented by all nations.
In Hussainara khatoon, the Supreme Court observed that a procedure which does to make
legal services available to a poor under trial person cannot be regarded as just, fair and
reasonable and, therefore violative of the right to legal aid of the poor accused as contemplated
by Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Court in this case ordered release of those under trials who
are languishing in jails for an inordinately long period.
In Sheela barse v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court on a complaint of custodial
violence to women prisoners in jails, directed that those helpless victims of prison injustice
should be provided legal assistance at the State cost and protected against torture and
maltreatment.
In Sanjay Suri, the Apex Court held that the prison authorities should change their
attitude towards prison inmates and protect their human rights for the sake of humanity.
Interestingly, some penologists have advocated the need of spiritual trainings for those
who are condemned and incarcerated in prison cells. They strongly believe that the practice of
yoga and meditation will enable the prisoners to control the evils of Kama, Krodha, Madh and
Lobha which dwell in human body and help in gaining control over these evil forces so as to turn
him a good man and a good citizen. This is indeed a new approach to penological problem of
crime and criminals in the Indian setting. As rightly observed by Mr. Justice Ram Pal Singh of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, human body is a temple where the deity of Atma and
Parmatmad reside. For keeping the temple of flesh and blood, the abode of good and bad, the
sages and saints have prescribed Sadhna by regular practice of yoga which shall keep the human
body not only healthy and strong, but also neat, clean and pure. Healthy people would avoid
crime and try to do good to the society by establishing peace and tranquility. Thus by the
practice of yoga in prisons crimes can be considerably controlled and hardened criminals can be
reformed. Undoubtedly, the idea is laudable and must be adopted into practice.
As regards the importance of prayers in prison institutions, suffice it to say that it
provides sufficient spiritual strength to the inmates to change their human and social outlook.
The experiment carried out in the Tihar Jail sometimes in 1993-94 when Vipassana meditation
was introduced in a big way, brought about a big change in the living and thinking of the
prisoners, as narrated by Shri Tarsem Kumar, the then Superintendent of the Jail in his book
entitled Freedom Behind Bars.

More recently, the Gujarat State Prison Administration has launched a Prison Reform
programme to help jail inmates to improve with Bhajans and Yoga. The Sabarmati and Baroda
Central Jails are going to start a two-month long creative programme of Yoga and Bhajans which
will be conducted by the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyala to teach moral
and ethical values to the jail inmates and to encourage them to live a better life. The programme
has already been introduced in Nadiad Central Jail in March, 2001. The Programme emphasizes
on way to bring about a change in the attitude of the prisoners by developing their inner strengths
and bring about a spiritual awakening in them. Yoga, Bhakti Sangeet and loknriya are
obviously an essential part of the programme.
Explaining philosophy underlying this prison reform programme, Shri K.K. Niranjana of
the Brahma Kumaris Seva Kendra, Baroda observed that, a person often commits a crime
because of anger, hatred or a feeling of rivalry or revenge. In order to help such offenders, it is
essential to control their emotions. Besides, pessimistic feelings like tension, failure or anxiety
also add to their woes. A majority of prisoners repent for their crime and they sincerely want to
mend their ways but often lack necessary inspiration or the spirit. It is, therefore, essential to
enlighten such people by inculcating in them values of morality and ethics so that they get the
inner strength to distinguish between good and bad. An atmosphere of devotion, Yoga and
spiritualism will certainly help the prisoners to become better human beings.
It is advisable that such programmes be also launched in jails of other States. This
improvised Indian approach to prison reforms will surely bring about a positive change in the
attitude of prison inmates and help in their rehabilitation.
It hardly needs to be stated that remedial rights of prisoners require deeper understanding.
The real problem is not with the principles, but with their implementation. The Supreme Court
and the High Courts have been gradually exercising jurisdiction in assuring prison justice
including improvement in the quality of food and amenities, payment of appropriate wages,
necessary arrangement for health-care of prisoners etc. the States often take the plea of financial
limitations in assuring these constitutional remedies to prison inmates but this cannot be accepted
as a valid ground for excuse else the very purpose of constitutional and human rights would be
eroded.

Like prisons, the conditions of police lock-ups are still worse. The Mulla Committee on
Jail Reforms in its Report of March 1983 pointed out:
Most of the lock-ups have insufficient accommodation and are without even such basic
facilities as lavatories, light, water and ventilation. Sanitary conditions in these lock-ups are also
utterly unsatisfactory. There seems to be no rules or scales prescribed for the diet or bedding for
those detained in lock-ups. There are no visiting committees which would inspect or report about
the conditions prevailing in these lock-ups. The essential requirements of law with regard to the
time-limit for keeping in custody persons arrested without warrant are often
floutedconditions of police lock-ups need to be urgently improved.
With a view to improving the plight of women prisoners in jail the Supreme Courts
directives stated in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, deserve particular mention. They are
briefly stated as follows:-
1. Female prisoners and suspects should be guarded by female guards or constables.
Obviously, they should be separated from male wards.
2. Interrogation of women should be carried out in presence of women officials.
3. Intimation regarding arrest of a woman offender must be immediately given to her
relatives.
4. Information of such arrest must be immediately sent to the nearest Legal Aid Committee.

Finally, it need not be stressed that efforts for rehabilitation of an offender begin from the
time he enters the prison. A comprehensive prison programme is, therefore, essential to
cater to the needs of different categories of Inmates. The prison-life should be so
regulated that the prisoner is able to overcome all his psychological strains and adapts
himself as a law abiding citizen after his release from jail. It is always preferable to place
the released prisoner under the supervision and guidance of a Probation Officer for his
after-care and rehabilitation in the free community. The welfare officers appointed in
prisons can also play an important role in providing adequate counseling, legal help and
financial assistance to the prisoners at the time of their release so that they are properly
rehabilitated in society.
It must be remembered that the role of prisons has radically changed over the years and they are
no longer regarded as mere custodial institutions, instead they have now acquired a new
dimension as treatment and training centres for those who fall foul with law. The emphasis has
thus shifted from custody to training and re-education of offenders and the policy of segregation
now stand substituted by community-participation of prisoners. It has been amply realized that
protection of society can be better ensured if the offenders are corrected and reformed within the
society itself. To talk about treatment and training in prisons is not rhetoric; it can prove to be
real, given the zeal and determination. There is need to improve the prison system by introducing
new techniques of management and by apprising the prison staff with their constitutional
obligations towards prisoners. This would surely end the gloom cast on our prison system and
create new awakening among the prison community. In order to ameliorate the condition of
prisoners, the Supreme Court has laid certain mandates which would certainly go a long way in
improving the working conditions of Indian Prisons.

CHAPTER-V

PRISON REFORMS IN PRESENT LEGAL SYSTEM

 After Independence of India, the works on the reformation of jails speeded up. It was
accepted that prisoners are also human beings and they are having right of humanitarians. So in
1956 the punishment of transportation (Kala-pani) was substituted by imprisonment for life.
Various steps were taken for the treatment of the offenders. In 1949 Pakawasha Committee gave
the permission to take work from the prisoners in making of road and or that wages shall be paid.
At the same time good Time Law was implemented, according to which during the period of
imprisonment for good conduct a definite remission was provided.
2.1) All India manual committee (1957-59)
This committee was appointed by the Government of India to prepare a model prison
manual. The committee was also asked to examine the problems of prison administration and to
make suggestions for improvements to be adopted uniformly throughout the country. The report
of the All India Jails Manual Committee and the model Prison Manual prepared and presented by
that Committee to the Government of India in the year 1960 are commendable documents on
prisons. They not only enunciated principles for an efficient management of prisons, but also lay
down scientific guidelines for corrective treatment of prisoners.
2.2) All India Committee on Jail Reform(1980-83)
1980, the Government of Indian constituted All India Committee on Jail Reform chaired
by Mr. Justice Anand Narain Mulla. The recommendation of this commission, popularly known
as Mulla Commission, constitutes a landmark in the reformatory approach to prison reforms. The
Commission made thorough study of the problems and produced an exhaustive document. The
Mulla Committee examined all aspects of prison reforms. The Commission made thorough study
of the problems and produced an exhaustive document. The Mulla Committee examined all
aspects of prison administration and made wide-ranging recommendations, which if
implemented would go a long way to make prison administration efficient, humane and
professional. The recommendations of Mulla Committee touched upon legislative, operational,
security aspects besides matters like classification of prisoners, living conditions in prison,
medical and psychiatric services, and treatmet programs,vocational training for prison
inmate,problems related to under trials and other unconvicted prisoners,problems of women
prisoners etc. From the above paras researcher concludes that the systeme jail is developed as the
society is changes prior to the independence the prisoners have no any value they are concider as
a slave but after the independence several prison reforms are taken place and certain rights are
given to the women as well as men prisoners

. CHAPTER VI
 RIGHTS OF PRISONERS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS-A DETAIL RESEARCH

5.1) Rights under Universal Declaration of Human Rights:-

Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds its way after the Second World War.
Having experience tip brutalitarian treatment to the person imprisoned, before, during and after
the Second World War by the forces of Nazi regime or of the friends countries. These shaken
minds of the universal prudence which laid to emerge in the form of UDHR and hence which
specifically have the application in respect of confirming the rights to the prisoners which can be
considered as follows:-
1. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
2. No one shall be held I n slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be
prohibited in all their forms.
3. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
4. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are
equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
5. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
6. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
7. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.
8. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary
for his defence.
9. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it
was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable
at the time the penal offence was committed.
From these rights researcher concludes that these rights of prisoner which are
universally applicable are also enumerated under the constitution of India.
5.2) Rights under International Covenant:-
 The rights under the covenant are the explanatory illustrations of the human right theory,
that which is proposed under Universal Declaration of Human Rights The covenant separated the
two kinds of the rights in two groups i.e. covenant on civil and political rights and economic,
social and cultural rights, which inter maidens with the human life apparently at two levels for
the case of prisoners the both covenants get applicable integratedely and which serves a mixed
recepy of human lifes. The specification of the rights belongs to the prisoners can be illustrated
as follows:-
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No
one shall be arbitrary deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be
imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the ti me
of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant
and to the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This
penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent
court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing
in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any
way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the
sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all
cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen
years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be involved to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital
punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation.
8. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be
prohibited.
9. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
10. Any work or service, normally required of a person who is under detention in
consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from
such detention;
11. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of is liberty except on such grounds
and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
12. Anyone one is arrested shall be informed, at the ti me of arrest, of the reasons for is arrest
and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
13. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a
judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons
awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to
appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise,
for execution of ht judgment.
14. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take
proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.
15. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable
right to compensation.
16. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person.
17. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted
persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as
unconvicted persons;
18. Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as
possible for adjudication. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners
the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile
offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their
age and legal status.
19. No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual
obligation.
20. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any
criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone
shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a trimonial disputes or the guardianship of
children.
21. Everyone charged with a criminal offence s hall right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law.
22. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the
following minimum guarantees, in fully equality:
a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of t he
nature and cause of the charge against him;
b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his choosing.
c) To be tried without undue delay;
d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of is own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance,
of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the
interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does
not have sufficient means to pay for it,
e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against him;
f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in court;
g) Not to be compelled to testify against him or to confess guilt.
h) In the ca se of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of
their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.
23. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being
reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
24. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when
subsequently has conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground
that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage
of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be
compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown
fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.
25. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished against for an offence for which he has
already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal
procedure of each country. Competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by
law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of
morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of t
he private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion
of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of
 justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made
public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings
concern man.
26. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the
time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that
was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to
the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition for the lighter
penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
27. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act
or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the
general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
The researcher from the above discussion concludes that the rights guaranteed under the
international covenant on civil and political rights are also covered under the constitution
of India and Criminal procedure code of India.

CHAPTER-VII
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
6.1 Human rights of prisoners in India:-

The Indian freedom struggle played a crucial role in initiating the process of identifying certain
rights for the prisoners. After independence, the Constitution of India conferred a number of
fundamental rights upon citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of personal
liberty and thereby prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment to any person whether
(s)he is a national or foreigner. Article 21. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty; No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law.The Supreme Court of India, by interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution, has developed

human rights jurisprudence for the preservation and protection of prisoners rights to maintain

human dignity. Although it is clearly mentioned that deprivation of Article 21 is justifiable

according to procedure established by law, this procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable. In a celebrity case (Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India., 1978), the Apex Court
opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for
depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. This was further upheld (Francis Coralie Mullin
v. The Administrator, 1981) Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable,
fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.

Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, which
enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law. In addition to this, the question of cruelty
to prisoners is also dealt with, specifically by the Prison Act, 1894 and the Criminal Procedure
Code (CRPC). Any excess committed on a prisoner by the police authorities not only attracts the
attention of the legislature but also of the judiciary. The Indian judiciary, particularly the
Supreme Court, in the recent past, has been very vigilant against violations of the human rights
of the prisoners Role played by the judiciary. The need for prison reforms has come into focus
during the last three to four decades. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have commented

upon the deplorable conditions prevailing inside the prisons, resulting in violation of prisoners

rights. Prisoners rights have become an important item in the agenda for prison reforms. The

Indian Supreme Court has been active in responding to human right violations in Indian jails and
has, in the process, recognized a number of rights of prisoners by interpreting Articles 21, 19, 22,
32, 37 and 39A of the Constitution in a positive and humane way. Given the Supreme Courts

overarching authority, these newly recognized rights are also binding on the State under Article
141 of the Constitution of India which provides that the Law declared by the Supreme Court
shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Following are the reasons cited in various case laws for which prisoners rights were recognized

and upheld by the Indian judiciary.

a) Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights
which they otherwise possess- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration.,
1978).

b) Like you and me, prisoners are also human beings. Hence, all such rights except those that
are taken away in the legitimate process of incarceration still remain with the prisoner. These
include rights that are related to the protection of basic human dignity as well as those for the
development of the prisoner into a better human being (Charles Shobraj vs. Superintendent,
1978).

c) If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he/she ceases to
be a human being and that he/she can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitutes
human dignity.

d) It is increasingly being recognized that a citizen does not cease to be a citizen just because
he/she has become a prisoner.

e) The convicted persons go to prisons as punishment and not for punishment (Jon Vagg., 1994)

Prison sentence has to be carried out as per the courts orders and no additional punishment can

be inflicted by the prison authorities without sanction(Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration.,
1978).

f) Prisoners depend on prison authorities for almost all of their day to day needs, and the state
possesses control over their life and liberty, the mechanism of rights springs up to prevent the
authorities from abusing their power. Prison authorities have to be, therefore, accountable for the
manner in which they exercise their custody over persons in their care, especially as regards
their wide discretionary powers.

g) Imprisonment as punishment is now rethought of as rehabilitative punishment. This

involves a philosophy that individuals are incarcerated so that they have an opportunity to learn
alternative behaviours to curb their deviant lifestyles. Correction, therefore, is a system designed
to correct those traits that result in criminal behaviour. The rehabilitative model argues that the
purpose of incarceration is to reform inmates through educational, training, and counseling
programmes. This development and growth requires certain human rights without which no
reformation takes place.

h) Disturbing conditions of the prison and violation of the basic human rights such as custodial
deaths, physical violence/torture, police excess, degrading treatment, custodial rape, poor quality
of food, lack of water supply, poor health system support, not producing the prisoners to the
court, unjustified prolonged incarceration, forced labour and other problems observed by the
apex court have led to judicial activism (NHRC, 1993).

i) Overcrowded prisons, prolonged detention of under trial prisoners, unsatisfactory living

condition and allegations of indifferent and even inhuman behavior by prison staff has repeatedly
attracted the attention of critics over the years. Unfortunately, little has changed. There have
been no worthwhile reforms affecting the basic issues of relevance to prison administration in
India. (Justice A N Mulla Committee, 1980-83) Rights of the prisoners have been expressed
under the Indian Constitution as well as Indian laws governing prisons. The Supreme Court and
High Court rulings have played a crucial role in enumerating the rights of prisoners. A land mark
judgment by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer enumerated basic human rights of the prisoners. Mr. Sunil
Batra had written a letter from Tihar Jail, Delhi to the Supreme Court providing information
about the torture and inhuman conditions of the prison. This case has become a landmark case in
prison reforms (Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration, 1980) This case recognized the various
rights of prisoners in the most comprehensive manner. The judgment held that: No prisoner can
be personally subjected to deprivation not necessitated by the fact of incarceration and the
sentence of the court. All other freedoms belong to him to read and write, to exercise and
recreation, to meditation and chant, to comforts like protection from extreme cold and heat, to
freedom from indignities such as compulsory nudity, forced sodomy and other such unbearable
vulgarity, to movement within the prison campus subject to requirements of discipline and
security, to the minimal joys of self-expression, to acquire skills and techniques. A corollary of
this ruling is the Right to Basic Minimum Needs necessary for the healthy maintenance of the
body and development of the human mind. This umbrella of rights would include: Right to
proper Accommodation, Hygienic living conditions, Wholesome diet, Clothing, Bedding, timely
Medical Services, Rehabilitative and Treatment programmes Another land mark judgment
pronounce by the judiciary is the right to compensation in cases of illegal deprivation of personal
liberty. The Rudal Shah case (Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983) is an instance of breakthrough
in Human Rights Jurisprudence. The petitioner Rudal Shah was detained illegally in prison for
more than fourteen years. He filed Habeas Corpus before the court for his immediate release and,
interalia, prayed for his rehabilitation cost, medical charges and compensation for illegal
detention. After his release, the question before the court was "whether in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 32, could the court pass an order for payment of money? Was such an order in the
nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right? There is no
expressed provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a
fundamental right to life and personal liberty. But the judiciary has evolved a right to
compensation in cases of illegal deprivation of personal liberty. The Court
granted monetary compensation of Rs.35,000 against the Bihar Government for keeping the
person in illegal detention for 14 years even after his acquittal. The Court departed from the
traditional approach, ignored the technicalities while granting compensation. The decision of
Rudal Shah was important in two respects. Firstly, it held that violation of a constitutional right
can give rise to a civil liability enforceable in a civil court and; secondly, it formulates the bases
for a theory of liability under which a violation of the right to personal liberty can give rise to a
civil liability. (Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983) The decision focused on extreme concern to
protect and preserve the fundamental right of a citizen. It also calls for compensatory
jurisprudence for illegal detention in prison In India, the courts have acknowledged and several
judgements recognise a wide array of fundamental and other rights of prisoners. Table 2
enumerates the broad categories of rights, which are not exhaustive as this field is still
developing and slowly evolving (Sreekumar R, 2003). These rights have been drawn from
various case laws (Madhurima, 2009). Though these rights are articulated in the case laws, they
do not reach the poor prisoners. There are still many rights that are not recognized by the Indian
legal system. For example, in January 2010, considering the rapid increase in the number of HIV
Positive prisoners, the Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to examine the
possibility of allowing jail inmates to have sex with their wives in privacy. The Court for the first
time noted the aspect of physical needs of the prisoners (The Conjugal Right, 2010). This
conjugal right also has a valid argument that merely because a spouse is convicted, the innocent
partner should not suffer.
6.2 Human Rights of prisoners: National and International Instruments:-

In India, the idea of rights of prisoners was long suppressed under the colonial rule and has only
recently emerged in public discourse. The Constitution of India confers a number of
fundamental rights upon citizens. The Indian State is also a signatory to various international
instruments of human rights, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that:
No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment
(UDHR, 1948)Also important is the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
which states in part:
All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person. (UNICCPR, 1966)There are many United Nations
codified standards of treatment for prisoners across different economic, social and cultural
contexts in a number of documents. These concern themselves with ensuring those basic
minimum conditions in prisons which are necessary for the maintenance of human dignity and
facilitate the development of prisoners into better human beings. International documents, which
have articulated the prisoners rights, are listed in the accompanying table. Table 1. International
Conventions/Regulations on Prisoners Human Rights Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (OHCHR, 1955)Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of
Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UN Medical Ethics,
1982) Convention Against Torture (UNCAT, 1984)Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (Principles of Detention, 1988)Basic
Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (UNPTP, 1990) United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for Non-Custodial Measures
(The Tokyo Rules, 1990) Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance. General
Assembly Resolution 47/133 (UNDPPED, 1992) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules, 1985) Declaration of Basic Principles
of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, (UNVCAP, 1985)Therefore, both under
national as well as international human rights law, the state is obliged to uphold and ensure
observances of basic human rights.
 CHAPTER-VIII

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

CONCLUSION:-

Thus after perusing the above chapters i.e. prison system and its developments,
rights of prisoners we have to conclude that, the prisoner means the criminals who
commits an act against the law in which the punishment is prescribed and thereby he is
punishable for imprisonment as per the law and kept behind the bar i.e. in prison. The
term prison in the simplest sense means that the place where the criminals are kept. The
main object of the punishment is to reform the criminal and the significant object of
keeping the person behind the bar is to maintain law and order and peace in the society.
Therefore as the object of punishment is to reform the criminal, the prison system is
established to reform them. Thereby prison system serves two fold purposes first is, it can
maintain peace in the society and secondly it can reforms the criminals so that they will
become to able to live in the society.
The prison system in India is existed prior to independence, before independence
the conditions of prisoners are harsher than the animals there was no uniform code to
give punishment, the nature of punishment was also brutal. But after lapse of time the
views regarding to the prisoners are changed, various jail committees were appointed
thereby certain reforms have taken place in the prison system such as improving diet
facility, providing cloths, bedding, medical facility to the prisoners. After independence it
is accepted that the prisoners are the human being and they have rights of humanitarian,
therefore various steps have taken to the treatment of offenders, the model prison manual
is prepared and provides certain rights to the prisoners for their reformation.
 Therefore the main object of the prison system is to reform the prisoner as to
make them able to live in society peacefully. Therefore with a view to that object
prisoners have given so many rights like right to food, right to read news paper, novels, to
take education, to free in jail in a particular period, in the prison as they are human being.
These are enumerated under the criminal law, Constitutional Law and under the various
statutes. Therefore by virtue of this object prisoners acquired right to bail, freedom of
speech and expression, protection from double jeopardy, right to life and personal liberty,
speedy trial, right against solitary confinement, handcuffing, bar fetters, right against
inhuman treatment, right to meet friends and consult lawyers, right to reasonable wages,
free legal aid, right to life etc. which are defined under chapter 3rd. these rights are
guaranteed by the constitution of India therefore the state has no authority to violate these
rights. A prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a detenue, does not cease to be a
human being. They also have all the rights which a free man has but under some
restrictions. Just being in prison he doesnt deprive them from their fundamental rights.
Therefore the duty task upon the State to provides these rights to the prisoners
effectively. And our judiciary plays a significant role to protect these rights of the
prisoners. The Honble Supreme Court of India time to time recognized these rights and
gives directions to the State for implementation of these rights properly. It is the sacred
duty of the court to protect these rights of prisoners as he is the custodian and protector of
these rights. The Supreme Court in various case laws such as, In the Sunil Batra case,
Krishna Iyer J stated that solitary confinements, bar fetters and whipping are barbaric.
In 1966 the Supreme Court granted convict prabhakar permission to publish a book
which based on is life. Therefore with these case laws. It is clear that our judiciary took
several efforts to protect these rights of the prisoners.
But however the fact remains that it is the police and the prison authorities who
need to be trained and oriented so that they take prisoners rights seriously, because in
several times it reveals that due to the complaints of the prisoners, that the prison
authority has not followed the directions of the Supreme Court regarding to handcuffing,
torture, not providing proper food etc. and many a times due to overcrowding in jail,
delay in trial, availability of serious medical treatment in the jail, the prisoners have
deprived from the enjoyment of these rights. Thereby due to these reason the purpose of
prison to reform the prisoner in some extent cannot be achieved.
 SUGGESTIONS:-

The researcher on the basis of research done hereby gives some of the suggestions.

I. Young offenders aged between 18 and 21 should not be confined in prisons with the adult
offenders, as they become more prone to crimes while in the company of more
experienced and hardened criminals. It similarly recommended that persons arrested for
politico-economic agitations for public causes should not be confined to prisons with
regular prisoners.
II. The overcrowding in the prison should be removed by increasing rooms in the prison.
Minimum prisoner shall be kept in one room.
III. Speedy trial shall be conducted effectively as to reducing the population under the jail by
way of establishing special fast-track courts, Lok Adalats, special court for special
offences like Corruption, Maharashtra Control of Organized crimes, and via video
conferencing. However, is should be ensured that the prisoners should not be forced to
plead guilty in such fast-track courts in the hope of getting a lesser sentence. Modern
methods of information technology and e-governance should be pressed into service for
improvements in this regard.
IV. Free legal aid should be providing to the prisoners without delay and meritorious
advocates should be appointed on the legal aid committee to meet the ends of justice.
V. Number of judges should be increased for speedy disposal of matters and to the ends of
justice. As there is also a great need for expedited appeal hearings, which would become
possible if the number of judges in the higher judiciary is increased.
VI. The prisoners shall be provide adequate sanitation, improved prisons wages all-round
entertainment facilities and better health check-up facilities form the bare minimum
required if prison are truly to be a place for reforming and rehabilitating an individual
rather than further hardened a criminal.
VII. Rehabilitation of inmates will be meaningful only if they are employed after release and
for that purpose educational facilities should be introduced or upgraded. In many jails,
inmates including hardcore criminals and women had joined various courses offered by
IGNOU and their respective State Universities. Courses mainly offered by them are BA,
MA, MBA & other post graduation courses therefore study material should be provided
to the prisoners and permission can be given to join the classes of 10th and +2 for basic
guidance. In jails with a view of imparting vocational training a fully fledged computer
training centres shall be established.
VIII. Programs for women empowerment shall have to organize by the jail authority by
training them in weaving, making toys, stitching and making embroidery items.
IX. Wage earning and gratuity schemes and incentives shall also be used to reduce the
psychological burden on the women prisoner.
X. Various seminars shall be organized by jail authorities to enlighten the prisoners on their
legal rights, health and sanitation problems, HIV/AIDS and issues of mental health,
juveniles, minorities and steps to reduce the violence in prisons.
XI. Many inmates usually complained about inadequate quality and quantity of food, which
is required to be improved. The food is required to be prepared in better hygienic
conditions.
XII. Prison administration should take adequate steps for effective centralization of prisons
and a uniform jail manual should be drafted throughout the country. The uniformity of
standards can be maintained throughout all the States. Thus such practices will help in
changing the traditional and colonial outlook of the Indian Prison System and also help
the prisoners to become more responsible, creative and potential citizen.
XIII. Reformative steps shall be taken to reform the criminals by providing the education to
them and for that all educational facilities should be required to provide such as books,
library, and separate reading room.
XIV. Canteen facility should be proved to the prisoners in jail and the rates of the canteen food
should reasonable and easily affordable to all the prisoners.
XV. Prisons should be changed into hospitals to give treatment to offenders, to bring them on
the correct line. Officer of the jail should be changed into a doctor. The offenders shall
feel that officers of the jail are their friends.
 CHAPTER-IX

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

I. BOOKS:
i) Indian Constitutional Law- M.P.Jain
ii) Constitution of India- seervai
iii) The Constitutional Law of India- J.N.pandey.
iv)___________________________________

II. ARTICLES, JOURNALS AND REPORTS:

1. Journal of the Indian Law Institute-1993-Volume 35 (Part-II)
2. Journal of the Indian Law Institute-1999- Volume 41(Part 1)

III. WEBSITES:

1) Web site of Law Ministry, and Ministry of Social Justice India.

2) www.wikipedia.rog
3) www.indiakanon.com
4) www.legalserviceindia.com
5) Supremecourtofindia.nic.in
6) www.supremecourtcases.com
7) www.businessdictionary.com
8) En.wikipedia.org/wiki/