http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 37  

PETITIONER: SUNIL BATRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1579            1980 SCR  (2) 557  1980 SCC  (3) 488  CITATOR INFO :  R          1981 SC 625  (7,8,11,12,14)  R          1981 SC 746  (3,4)  R          1981 SC1767  (11,13,21,23)  R          1982 SC 149  (16)  R          1982 SC 710  (108,109)  R          1986 SC 180  (39)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India   1950,   Article   32-Tortune inflicted on  prisoner in  jail-factum of forture brought to notice  of   court-power  and  responsibility  of  court  to intervene and protect prisoner.      Prisons Act  1894, Ss  27, 29  and 61  & Punjab  Prison Manual, Paras 41, 47, 49 and 53-Solitary confinement, denial of privileges,  amenities to  prisoners-to be  imposed  with judicial appraisal  of Sessions  Judge-Prison Manual  to  be ready  reach  of  prisoners-visits  to  jails  by  visitors, official and  non-official-keeping  of  grievance  boxes  in prisons  and  remedial  action  on  grievances  by  Sessions judges-Periodical reports to be forwarded to the High Court- reforms suggested in prison management and procedure.      Legal Aid-provision  of free  legal aid  to  prisoners- necessity of.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 37  

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.      Allowing the writ petition. ^      HELD:(Per Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)      1. (a)  Prem Chand  the  prisoner,  has  been  tortured illegally and the Superintendent cannot absolve himself from responsibility even  though he  may not be directly a party. Lack of vigilance is limited guilt. The primary guilt cannot be fixed  because a  criminal case  is pending  or is in the offing.  The   State   shall   take   action   against   the investigating  police   for   collusive   dilatoriness   and deviousness.[599 F] 558      (b) The  Superintendent is  directed to  ensure that no corporal punishment or personal violence on Prem Chand shall be inflicted.  No irons  shall be  forced on  the person  in vindictive spirit. [599 H]      (c)  Lawyers  nominated  by  the  District  Magistrate, Sessions Judge,  High Court  or the  Supreme Court  will  be given all facilities for interviews, visits and confidential communication  with  prisoners  subject  to  discipline  and security considerations.  The lawyers so designated shall be bound to make periodical visits and record and report to the concerned courts,  results which  have  relevance  to  legal grievances. [600 A-B]      (d) Within  the next  three months,  Grievance  Deposit Boxes shall  be maintained  by or  under the  orders of  the District Magistrate  and the  Sessions Judge  which will  be opened as  frequently as  is deemed  fit and suitable action taken on  complaints made.  Access to  such boxes  shall  be afforded to all prisoners. [600 C]      (e) District  Magistrates and  Sessions  Judges  shall, personally or  through surrogates,  visit prisons  in  their jurisdiction  and   afford   effective   opportunities   for ventilating  legal   grievances,  shall   make   expeditious enquiries there  into and  take suitable remedial action. In appropriate cases  reports shall  be made  to the High Court for the  latter to  initiate,  if  found  necessary,  habeas action. [600 D]      (f) No  solitary or  punitive cell,  no hard  labour or dietary change  as painful  additive, no other punishment or denial of  privileges and  amenities, no  transfer to  other prisons with  penal consequences,  shall be  imposed without judicial appraisal  of the  Sessions Judge  and  where  such intimation,  an  account  of  emergency  is  difficult  such information shall  be given  within two  days of the action. [601 B-C]      2. In our era of human rights’ consciousness the habeas writ has  functional plurality and the constitutional regard for human  decency and dignity is tested by this capability. [563 E]      3. Protection of the prisoner within his rights is part of the office of Article 32. [564 C]      4. It  behoves the  court to insist that, in the eye of law, prisoners  are persons  not animals,  and to punish the deviant ’guardians’  of the  prison  system  where  they  go berserk and  defile the  dignity of the human inmate. Prison houses are  part of Indian earth and the Indian Constitution cannot be  held at  bay by  jail  officials  ’dressed  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 37  

little, brief  authority’. when  Part III  is invoked  by  a convict. When  a prisoner  is traumatized,  the Constitution suffers a shock. [564 D-E]      5. The  courts in  America have, through the decisional process, brought  the rule  of law  into the  prison  system pushing  back,  pro-tanto,  the  ’hands-off’  doctrine.  The content of  our constitutional  liberties being no less, the dynamics of  habeas writs  there developed help the judicial process here.  The full potential of Arts. 21, 19 & 14 after Maneka Gandhi  has been unfolded by this Court in Hoskot and Batra. Today,  human rights  jurisprudence in  India  has  a constitutional status and sweep. [573 A, 574 D]      6. Rulings of this Court have highlighted the fact that the framers  of the Constitution have freed the powers under Art. 32 from the rigid restraints of 559 the traditional  English writs.  Flexible  directives,  even affirmative   action    moulded   to   grant   relief,   may realistically be  issued and  fall within its fertile width. [575 F]      Dwarkanath v.  income Tax  officer  [1965]  3  SCR  536 referred to.      7. Where injustice, verging on inhumanity, emerges from hacking human  rights guaranteed  in Part III and the victim beseeches the Court to intervene and relieve, the Court will be a functional futility as a constitutional instrumentality if it  does not  go into  action until the wrong is righted. The Court  is not  a distant  abstraction omnipotent  in the books but  an activist  institution which is the cynosure of public hope.  The court  can issue  writs to  meet  the  new challenges. [576 D]      8. Affirmed  in unmistakables  terms that the court has jurisdiction under  Art. 32  and so  too under  Art. 226,  a clear power  and, therefore, a public duty to give relief to sentence in prison setting. [576 F]      9. In  Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409 this  Court rejected  the ’hands-off’ doctrine and ruled that fundamental  rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison  although they  may suffer shrinkage necessitated by  incarceration.   Our  Constitutional   culture  has  now crystallised  in  favour  of  prison  justice  and  judicial jurisdiction. [576 H-577 A]      10. Where  the rights  of a  prisoner, either under the Constitution or under other law, are violated the writ power of the  court can  and should  run to his rescue. There is a warrant for  this vigil. The court process casts the convict into the prison system and the deprivation of his freedom is not  a   blind  penitentiary   affliction  but  a  belighted institutionalisation geared  to a social good. The court has a   continuing    responsibility   to    ensure   that   the constitutional purpose of the deprivation is not defeated by the prison administration. [577 E-F]      11. Whether  inside prison  or outside,  a person shall not be  deprived of  his guaranteed  freedom save by methods ’right, just and fair’. [578 E]      12. A  prisoner wears  the armour of basic freedom even behind bars  and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law  will respond to his distress signals through ’writ’ aid. The  Indian human  has a  constant companion-the  court armed with the Constitution. [578 H]      Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1979] 1 SCC 248: N. H. Hoskot v. Maharashtra, [1979] 1 SCR 192, referred to.      13. Implicit  in the  power to  deprive the sentence of his personal  liberty, the  Court has to ensure that no more and no  less than  is warranted  by the sentence happens. If

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 37  

the prisoner  breaks down because of mental torture, psychic pressure or  physical infliction  beyond the licit limits of lawful  imprisonment  the  Prison  Administration  shall  be liable for  the excess.  On the  contrary, if an influential convict is  able to buy advantages and liberties to avoid or water down  the deprivation  implied  in  the  sentence  the Prison Establishment  will  be  called  to  order  for  such adulteration or  dilution of  court sentences  by  executive palliation, if unwarranted by law. [579 B-C]      14. The court has power and responsibility to intervene and protect  the prisoner  against mayhem,  crude or subtle, and may use habeas corpus for 560 enforcing in-prison  humanism  and  forbiddance  of  harsher restraints and heavier severities than the sentence carries. [579 E]      15. Law  in the  books and  in the courts is of no help unless it  reaches the  prisoner in  understandable language and available  form. There  is therefore need to get ready a Prisoners’ Handbook  in the  regional language and make them freely available  to the  inmates. To  know the  law is  the first step to be free from fear of unlaw. [582 C]      16(i) The  most important  right of  a prisoner  is  to integrity of  his physical person and mental personality. No prisoner can  be personally  subjected to  deprivations  not necessitated by  the fact  of incarceration and the sentence of court. [584 D, 583 C]      (ii) Inflictions  may take  many protean  forms,  apart from physical assaults. Pushing the prisoner into a solitary cell, denial  of a  necessary  amenity,  and  more  dreadful sometimes, transfer  to a  distant prison  where  visits  or society of friends or relatives may be snapped, allotment of degrading labour,  assignment to  a desperate  or tough gang and  the  like,  may  be  punitive  in  effect.  Every  such affliction or  abridgement is  an infraction  of liberty  or life in  its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Art. 21 is satisfied. There must be a corrective legal procedure, fair and  reasonable and  effective. Such infraction will be arbitrary under  Article 14,  if it is dependent on unguided discretion, unreasonable under Art. 19 if it is irremediable and unappealable  and unfair  under Art.  21 if  it violates natural justice.  Some prisoners,  for their own safety, may desire segregation.  In  such  cases,  written  consent  and immediate report to higher authority are the least, if abuse is to be tabooed. [584 F-H, 586 G]      (iii) Visit  to prisoners  by family  and friends are a solace in  insulation: and  only a  dehumanised  system  can derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates of this humane amenity. Subject, of course, to search and discipline and other security criteria, the right to society of fellow- men, parents  and other  family members  cannot be denied in the light of Art. 19 and its sweep., [586 H]      17. Prison power, absent judicial watch tower, may tend towards torture.  The judges  are  guardians  of  prisoners’ rights because  they have  a duty to secure the execution of the sentences  without excesses  and to sustain the personal liberties of  prisoners without  violence on or violation of the inmates’ personality. [588 D, 590 C]      18. In  a democracy,  a wrong to some one is a wrong to every  one   and  an   unpunished  criminal   makes  society vicariously guilty. [596 D]      19. When  offences are  alleged  to  have  taken  place within the  prison, there  should be  no tinge  or trace  of departmental collusion  or league between the police and the prison staff. [605 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 37  

    [Directives for  which no  specific  time  limit  fixed except the urgency of their implementation:      1(i) The  State shall  take early  steps to  prepare in Hindi, a  Prisoner’s Handbook  and circulate copies to bring legal  awareness   home  to  the  inmates.  Periodical  jail bulletins  stating   how   improvements   and   habilitative programmes  are   brought  into  the  prison  may  create  a fellowship which will ease tensions. 561 A  prisoners’   wall  paper,  which  will  freely  ventilate grievances  will   also  reduce   stress.  All   these   are implementary of s. 61 of the Prisons Act. [601 D,E]      (ii) The  State shall  take steps  to keep  up  to  the Standard  Minimum   Rules   for   Treatment   of   Prisoners recommended by the United Nations, especially those relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity, community contact and correctional strategies. [601 F]      (iii) The  Prisons Act  needs  rehabilitation  and  the Prison  Manual   total  over-   haul.  A   correctional-cum- orientation course  is  necessitous  for  the  prison  staff inculcating   the    constitutional   values,    therapeutic approaches and tension-free management. [601 H]      (iv) The  prisoners’ rights  shall be  protected by the court by  its writ jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this  jurisdiction   viable,  free  legal  services  to  the prisoner  programmes   shall  be  promoted  by  professional organisations recognised  by the court such as for e.g. Free Legal Aid  (Supreme Court)  Society. The District Bar shall, we recommend, keep 2 cell for prisoner relief. [602 A]      (Per Pathak J. concurring)      1. The  prisoner Prem  Chand has been tortured while in custody in the Tihar Jail. [605 D]      2. The  Superintendent of  the jail  to ensure  that no punishment or  personal violence  is inflicted on Prem Chand by reason  of the  complaint made  in regard to the torture. [605 F]      3. Pressing  need for  prison reform  and provision for adequate facilities to prisoners, to enable them not only to be acquainted  with their  legal riots  but also  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. [605 G]      4. Imperative  that District  Magistrates 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,  make  expeditious  enquiry  and  take suitable remedial action. [605 H]      5. Sessions  Judge  should  be  informed  by  the  jail authorities of  any punitive action taken against a prisoner within two days of such action. [606 A]      6. A  statement by  the Sessions Judge in regard to his visits, enquiries  made and  action then  thereon  shall  be submitted periodically to the High Court to acquaint it with the  conditions   prevailing  in   the  prisons  within  its jurisdiction. [606 B]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1979.      Under Article 32 of the Constitution.      Dr. Y. S. Chitale and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner.      Soli 1. Sorabjee, Solicitor General of India, and R. N.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 37  

Sachthey for the Respondent. 562      The Judgment  of V.  R. Krishna  Iyer and  O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.  was delivered  by Krishna Iyer, J. R. S. Pathak, J. gave a separate opinion.      KRISHNA  IYER,   J.-This,  writ   petition  originated, epistolary fashion  in a  letter by  a prisoner, Batra, to a Judge of  this’ Court  (one of  us), complaining of a brutal assault by  a Head  Warder on  another prisoner, Prem Chand. Forms were  forsaken since  freedom was  at  stake  and  the letter was  posted on  the Bench  to be metamorphosed into a habeas proceeding and was judicially navigated with electric creativity, thanks  to the humanist scholarship of Dr. Y. S. Chitale  as  amicus  Curiae  and  the  erudite  passion  for affirmative court  action of Shri Soli Sorabjee, the learned Solicitor General.  Where the prison process is dehumanized, forensic help,  undeflected by the negative crudities of the adversary system, makes us dare where we might have daunted. The finest  hour of  justice comes  when court  and  counsel constructively  collaborate  to  fashion  a  relief  in  the individual case  and fathom deeper to cure the institutional pathology which  breeds wrongs and defies rights.  Here, the individual is  a prisoner  whose anus  was allegedly pierced with a  warder’s baton  and the  institution  is  the  Tihar Prison, right  in the  capital of  the country and under the nose of the Home Ministry.      The Perspective      This case is revelatory of several sins in this central penitentiary. ’Something  is rotten  in the State of Denmark   !’  The  constitutionaI  imperative   which   informs  our perspective in  this habeas  corpus proceeding must first be set out.  The rule  of law  meets with its Waterloo when the State’s minions become law-breakers and so the court, as the sentinel of  the nation  and the  voice of the Constitution, runs down the violators with its writ and secures compliance with human  rights even  behind  iron  bars  and  by  prison warders. This  case is  at once  a symptom,  a symbol  and a signpost vis  a vis  human rights in prison situations. When prison trauma  prevails, prison  justice must invigilate and hence we  broaden our  ’habeas’ jurisdiction.  Jurisprudence cannot slumber  when the  very campuses  of punitive justice witness torture.      The  petitioner  does  not  seek  the  release  of  the prisoner because  a life  sentence keeps him in confinement. But the  dynamic role  of judicial  remedies, after  Batra’s case, imparts to the habeas corpus writ a versatile vitality and operational  utility that  makes the healing presence of the law live up to its reputation as bastion of liberty even within the  secrecy of the hidden cell. Blackstone called it ’the 563 great  and   efficacious  writ  in  all  manner  of  illegal confinement’ and   Lord Deman proclaimed in 1839 that it had been ’for  ages effectual  to an  extent never  known in any other country’.  So long as Batra remains good law, judicial policing of  Bastille practices  will broaden to embrace the wider range  of prison vices. Dr. Chitale drew our attention to American legal literature disclosing the trend while Shri Soli Sorabjee for the Union of India, cited Corwin. Corwin’s remarks on  American constitutional  law, referred  to  with approval in Batra, has our assent:           Federal courts have intensified their oversight of      State penal facilities, reflecting a heightened concern      with the extent to which the ills that plague so-called      correctional  institution  overcrowding,  understaffing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 37  

    unsanitary  facilities,  brutality,  constant  fear  of      violence, lack  of adequate  medical and  mental health      care,  poor   food  service,  intrusive  correspondence      restrictions,    inhumane    isolation,    segregation,      inadequate  or   non-existent   rehabilitative   and/or      educational    programs,     deficient     recreational      opportunities-violate  the   Eighth  Amendment  ban  on      "cruel and unusual punishments."      The essence  of the  matter is that in our era of human rights  consciousness   the  habeas   writ  has   functional plurality and  the constitutional  regard for  human decency and dignity  is tested  by this capability. We ideologically accept the words of Will Durant(a). "It is time for all good men to  come to  the aid  of  their  party,  whose  name  is civilization."  Likewise,   we  endorse,   as  part  of  our constitutional thought,  what the British Government’s White Paper,  titled  ’People  in  Prison’,  stated  with  telling effect:           A society that believes in the worth of individual      beings can  have the  quality of  its belief judges, at      least in part, by the quality of its prison and probate      services and of the resources made available to them. The learned  Solicitor General brought this key-note thought to our  notice in  the  matchless  diction  of  Sir  Winston Churchill and  briefly referred  to in  Batra  in  a  speech seventy years ago:           The mood and temper of the public in regard to the      treatment of  crime and  criminals is  one of  the most      unfailing tests  of the  civilisation of any country. A      calm dispassionate 564      recognition of  the rights  of the accused, and even of      the convicted  criminal, against  the State-a  constant      heart  searching  by  all  charged  with  the  duty  of      punishment a  desire and  eagerness to  rehabilitate in      the world  of industry those who have paid their due in      the  hard   coinage  of  punishment:  tireless  efforts      towards the  discovery  of  curative  and  regenerative      processes: unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if      you can  only find  it in the heart of every man. These      are the  symbols, which,  in the treatment of crime and      criminal, mark  and measure the stored-up strength of a      nation, and  are sign and proof of the living virtue in      it. Truly, this  is a  perspective-setter and  this is  also the import of  the Preamble and Art 21 as we will presently see. We are  satisfied that protection of the prisoner within his rights is part of the office of Art.      ‘Prisons are  built with  stones  of  law’  and  so  it behoves the  court to  insist  that,  in  the  eye  of  law, prisoners are  persons, not  animals, and punish the deviant ’guardians’ of  the prison  system where they go berserk and defile the  dignity of  the human  inmate. Prison houses are part of  Indian earth  and the Indian Constitution cannot be held at  bay by  jail officials ’dressed ill a little, brief authority’, when  Part III is invoked by a convict. For when a prisoner is traumatized, the Constitution suffers a shock. And when  the Court  takes cognizance  of such  violence and violation, it  does, like  the. Hound  of Heaven,  ’But with unhurrying chase,  And unperturbed  pace, Deliberate  speed, and Majestic  instancy’ follow  the  official  offender  and frown down the outlaw adventure. The Facts      What are  the  facts  which  have  triggered  off  this judicial action ?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 37  

    The resume  of facts,  foul on  its face,  reveals  the legal  issues  raised,  brings  into  focus  the  basics  of prisoner’s  rights   and  helps  the  court  forge  remedial directives  so   as  to   harmonize  the   expending  habeas jurisprudence with  dawning horizons  of  human  rights  and enlightened measures  of prison discipline. Batra, a convict under death  sentence lodged in the Tihar Central Jail, came to know  of  a  crime  of  torture  practised  upon  another prisoner, Prem  Chand, allegedly  by a  jail warder,  Maggar Singh, as  a means  to extract money from the victim through his   visiting relations.  Batra braved  the consequences of Jail indignation 565 and brought  the incident to the ken of the Court, resulting in these proceedings which, though not strictly traditional, are clearly  in  the  nature  of  habeas  corpus  writs  and therefore, within  the wider  sweep of  Art. 32.  The  court issued notice  to the  State and  the  concerned  officials, appointed Dr. Y. S. Chitale and Shri Mukul Mudgal as amicus, authorised them  to visit  the prison, meet the prisoner and see relevant  documents and interview necessary witnesses so as to enable them to inform themselves about the surrounding circumstances and  the cruel  scenario of events. Counsel on both sides  have sensitized  the  issue  of  prison  justice admirably  and   catalysed  the   cause  of   jail   reforms effectively. The  democratic hope  of the  procession is its ’people’s orientation,  not its  lucrative potential nor its intellectual intricacies.  And service  in the  field of the handicapped human  sectors,  like  prisoners,  is  a  social justice contribution. The enthusiastic work done in the case by the  young lawyer,  Shri Mudgal,  assisting Dr.  Chitale, deserves our  commendation, even  as the  unreserved support rendered to  the Court  by Shri  Sachthey  is  in  the  good tradition of the Bar.      Back to  the facts. One Central episode round which the skein of  further facts  is wound is beyond doubt, viz. that Prem Chand,  the prisoner,  sustained serious anal injury on or about August 26, 1979, because a rod was driven into that sore   aperture    to   inflict    inhuman   torture.    The contemporaneous entry in the Jail Hospital register reads:      One prisoner  Prem Chand  s/o Pyara  Lal has  developed      tear of  anus due  to  forced  insertion  of  stick  by      someone,. He  require surgical  repair and his bleeding      has not stopped. He is to go to Irwin Hospital casualty      immediately.      Remarks of Superintendent. Noted 27 August, 79 sd D.S.      1.2.35 p.m.                                                  Sd/-                                                 (DR. KAPOOR)                                                    2.00 p.m. The prisoner’s  later narration  to the  doctor in the Irwin Hospital  corroborates   the  case.   The  unsuccessful  and unworthy attempts,  presumably by overawing the prisoner and even the  doctor, and other dubious devices. which we do not now scan,  to do  away with  this G.  primary  incriminating factor by  offering incredible  alternatives like rupture of the anus  by a  fall or  self-infliction or due to piles and sillier stories,  only show  how the  subtle torture  of the officials could  extract falsehoods from the victim and even medical officers,  exclupatory  of  the,  official  criminal whoever he  be. There are some traces of attempts to hush up tho crime  where the  higher officers  have  not  been  that innocent.  We   are  taken   aback  that  the  tardy  police investigation, 566

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 37  

with its  lethargic pace and collusive ways, has hardly done credit to the Police Department’s integrity, a fact that the Government  will   take  note   of,  without   institutional sheltering  of   police  delinquents.   Imagine   a   police investigator,  hunting   for  contradictions   obviously  to absolve the  head warder by interrogating Dr. Kapoor who had made an  entry in the hospital register and told Dr. Chitale that the  prisoner had  an anal  rupture which  could not be self-inflicted or  caused by a fall and was so serious as to require immediate  removal to Irwin Hospital, and making him say, long  afterwards on 2-10-1979 by delaying the laying of the chargesheet thus:           "A prisoner  named  Prem  Chand  s/o  Prehlad  was      produced before  me for  treatment on  the afternoon of      Sunday 26th  August,  1979.  He  was  brought  by  some      warder.           He was  complaining of  bleeding from boils on the      buttocks. This  was also told by the warder who brought      him.           He was given the required treatment as he was kept      under  observation on his request.           Next day  during the  ward rounds  when I examined      him, he  was having  tears of  anus  and  bleeding.  On      inquiring he  told that this has happened due to forced      insertion of as stick into his anus. Then  he   was  referred   to  Irwin  Hospital  for  further treatment.           V. K Kapoor 2-10-79"      Can human nature be such rubber ? More than  the probity of the investigation and the veracity of the  doctor are  at stake-hope in human integrity without which human dignity will be the first casualty.      These observations are not impressionistic but we leave it at  that since  our primary  purpose is  to  protect  the person of the prisoner, not to prosecute the offender. We do nat  wish   to  prejudice  that  process.  Regrettably,  the ’hearsay’ affidavit  of the  Under Secretary  (Home),  Delhi Administration, Shri Nathu Ram, blinks at the jail vices and merely dresses up the official version without so much as an inquisitorial audit  of the  lurid happenings  in a  premier correctional institution  of  the  nation.  We  deplore  the indifferent affiants  omnibus  approval  of  every  official conduct,  whereas   we   should,   instead   have   expected Government, which sincerely swears by human rights and whose political echelons  in succession, over the decades, are not strangers to  the actualities in these detention campuses to have put 567 aside the  tendency  to  white-wash  every  action  with  an official flavour. A Where human rights are at stake prestige has no place.      After the  prisoner was subjected to brutal hurt he was removed to the jail hospital and later to the Irwin Hospital but on  his re-transfer  he was  neglected; but  we  do  not pursue the  identity of  the culprit  or the  crime  or  the treatment  since   a  police  investigation  is  under  way. Nevertheless, we  cannot but  remark  that  whatever  damage might have  been done upto now, .. second investigation by a C.B.I. Officer  is justified,  if truth has been suppressed. Dr. Chitale  pointed out  certain poignant facts such as the prisoner  himself  having  been  pressured  into  statements contrary to  the case  of anal  infliction. We  do not  make comments on  them although  we are  unhappy at  the way  the business  of   investigation  has  been  done.  Indeed,  the potential for oblique mutual help between the police and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 37  

prison  staff   makes  Jail   offences  by   jail  officials undetectable; and  so,  to  obviate  this  possibility,  the C.B.I. may  well be  entrusted, as  a regular practice, with such cases  The prisoner being a person, we cannot write him off.      The alleged  offender, Warder Maggar Singh, may be left aside for  a while.  There are  other aspects of the torture which  demand  deeper  probe  and  panacea.  The  prisoner’s explanation  for  the  anal  rupture  is  stated  to  be  an unfulfilled demand  for money, allegedly a general practice. this  shows,   if  true,  that  bribery,  at  the  point  of barbarity, is  a  flourishing  trade  within  the  house  of punishment itself. How stern should the sentence be for such official criminals  and how  diligent should the State be to stamp out this wicked temptation ! If you want to end prison delinquencies  you   must  abolish   the   motivations   and opportunities.      The counter-case,  if we  may so call it, of the Warder as disclosed  in  the  Superintendents  report,  is  equally disturbing, if true:           On 25-8-79  evening life  prisoner Prem  Chand S/o      Sh.   Prahlad    was   produced   before   the   Deputy      Superintendent for  talking Mandrix  tablets. As he was      in state  of intoxication  because  of  taking  Mandrix      tablets   which   he   admitted   before   the   Deputy      Superintendent, he was kept in a cell pending orders of      the Superintendent.  Central Jail.  He was taken to the      jail hospital  the next day i.e. On 26-8-79 on a report      from the above said prisoner as he had pain in his anus      and was  bleeding. The  prisoner remained admitted into      the jail  hospital upto 27-8-79, 2 p.m. when the Dr. V.      K.  Kapoor,   Medical  officer,   recommended  for  the      shifting of  this prisoner  to the  Irwin Hospital with      the report mentioned in the petition. 568      The prisoner Prem Chand was shifted accordingly by Shri      Bachan Singh, Assistant Superintendent on duty on 27-8-      79. The  undersigned was  informed that  a case u/s 385      IPC had been registered against warder Maggar Singh in-      charge of the ward No. 11 i.e. 40 cells with the police      station Janak  puri and  investigation had  started  in      this case.  The result  of the  investigation is  still      awaited. The  prisoner was,  however, received  back in      the jail  on 29-8-79 on being discharged from the Irwin      Hospital.      The prisoner,  Prem Chand,  was kept  in a  ’punishment cell’ which,  according to  counsel for  the Administration, was not as bad as a solitary cell, although Dr. Chitale says that this  was similar  to the type of insulated confinement condemned as unconstitutional be this Court in Sunil Batra’s case (supra).  Coming to  the competing version put for ward by the prison officials through the counter-affidavit of the Under Secretary,  the  story,  even  if  true,  is  strongly suggestive of a mafia-culture prevasive in the Tihar prison. A background  of the ethos of the campus may be gleaned from portions of  the report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, made  by him  with reference  to the  alleged torture which is the subject matter of this case.           A number  of  prisoners  in  the  Tihar  Jail  are      habitual offenders,  professional  criminals  who  have      been inmates of the jail from time to time. A number of      the  said   prisoners  are   rarely  visited  by  their      relatives due  to the  fact that  they do  not want  to      associate with such persons. It has been seen that such      prisoners are  mainly visited by other professionals or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 37  

    habitual offenders in the field with whom they have had      former associations.... It has been noticed these types      of prisoners have been able to develop a certain report      with some  of the  lower staff  in the jail namely Head      Warders, Warders  etc. and  obtain  certain  facilities      illegally including smuggling of numbers of items, i.e.      drugs etc. for their use. It may also be submitted that      to check  smuggling of narcotic drugs against prisoners      who indulge  in such  activities 30  cases of  narcotic      offences were get registered against the prisoners with      the Janakpuri  Police Station during this year.... That      95 prisoners  were transferred from the jail to Haryana      due   to    administrative   reasons    which   include      indiscipline and  violation of jail regulations by them      and otherwise  derogatory  behaviour  during  the  last      year.  This   year  also   about  22   case  have  been      recommended by  Superintendent, Jail  for transfer ....      In para 568(b) and the note thereunder of the 569      Jail Manual,  the habituals  are required  to  be  kept      separate   from the  casual prisoners  but due  to non-      availability, of any other jail in Delhi they are being      kept in  Tihar Jail,  which requires a lot or vigilance      on the  part of  the jail  officers. (b) It may also be      mentioned that  due to  paucity of  accommodation,  the      said jail is occupied by double the number of prisoners      than it is otherwise authorised.      To aggravate  the malady,  we  have  the  fact  that  a substantial number  of the  prisoners are  under-trials  who have to face their case in court and are presumably innocent until convicted.  By being  sent to  Tihar Jail they are, by contamination, made  criminals-a custodial  perversity which violates the  test of  reasonableness  in  Art.  19  and  of fairness in  Art. 21. How cruel would it be if one went to a hospital  for  a  checkup  and  by  being  kept  along  with contagious cases came home with a new disease ! We sound the tocsin that prison reform is not a constitutional compulsion and its neglect may lead to drastic court action.      It would  appear that  around 300  persons are taken in and out  daily between  the prison  and the courts. And when there  arc   political  agitations.  and  consequent  police arrests and  remand to  custody,  the  under-trial  strength swells in  numbers. Since many officers busy themselves with production  of   prisoners  in   court,  the   case  of  the Superintendent is  that  the  other  prisoners  "try  to  do mischief, make  thefts of  other prisoners  who go  on work, smuggle things and even resort to assaults."      To sum  up, the  Tihar prison  is an  arena of  tension ,trauma, tantrums  and crimes  of  violence,  vulgarity  and corruption.  And   to  cap   it  all,   there   occurs   the contamination  of   pre-trial  accused  with  habituals  and "injurious prisoners  of international  gang." The  crowning piece is that the jail officials themselves are allegedly in league with  the criminals in the cells. That is, there is a large network  of criminals,  officials and non-officials in the  house   of  correction   !  Drug   racket,  alcoholism, smuggling, violence,  theft, unconstitutional  punishment by way of  solitary cellular  life and transfers to other jails are  not  uncommon.  The  Administration,  if  it  does  not immediately have  the horrendous  situation examined  by  an impartial, authoritative  body,  and  sanitize  the  campus, complacent affidavits  of Under  Secretaries and  glittering entries from  dignitaries on  their  casual  visits,  cannot help.      While the  Establishment sought  to produce  before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 37  

Court extracts  from the  Visitors’ Book  to show  that many impartial and  distinguished persons  had  complimented  the jail authorities  on the way managed the prison, Dr. Chitale placed before us some internal evidence 570 from the  materials  on  record,  supplemented  strongly  by personal observations  recorded while  he was an internee in this  very  prison  by  Shri  Kuldip  Nayar,  a  responsible journalist  with   no  apparent  motive  for  mendacity  nor inclination for  subjectivity, in  his book "In Jail". There was nothing  in the  author’s view which money could not buy within the  recesses of  the prison campus. Giving a factual narrative, Shri Nayar wrote:................................           ’ .......  one could  get as  much  money  as  one      wanted from outside-again at a price. There was a money      order and mail service that perhaps was more dependable      than what the postal department could offer.           For instance,  when a  prisoner in  my ward wanted      two hundred  rupees, he sent a note through a warder to      his people  in old  Delhi and  in less than twenty-four      hours he  had the  money. He  paid sixty-six  rupees as      collecting  charges-thirty-three   per  cent   was  the      prescribed "money  order charge."  .. ....Dharma  Teja,      the shipping  magnate who served his sentence in Tihar,      for instance, has thousands of rupees delivered to him,      we  were   told.  And   if  one   could  pay  the  jail      functionaries one  could  have  all  the  comforts  one      sought. Teja  had all the comforts-he had an air cooler      in his  cell a radio-cum-record player set and even the      facility of  of using  the phone.... Haridas Mundhra, a      businessman who  was convicted  of fraud,  was  another      rich man  who spent some time in Tihar. Not only did he      have all.  the facilities,  but he could also go out of      the jail  whenever he  liked; at  times he would be out      for several  days and  travel even  upto Calcutta.  All      this of  course, cost  a lot  of money.  An even richer      prisoner was  Ram Kishan  Dalmia, he  spent most of his      jail term  in hospital. He was known for his generosity      to jail authorities, and one doctor received a car as a      gift.      But more  than businessmen  it was the smugglers jailed in Tihar who were lavish spenders. Their food came from Moti Mahal and  their whisky  from Connaught  Place. They had not only wine but also women "Babuji, not tarts but real society girls," one  warder said. The women would be brought in when "the Sahiblog"  went home for lunch, and their empty offices became "recreation rooms."      Corruption  in  jail  was  so  well  organised  and  so systematic that  everything, went  like clockwork  once  the price had  been paid.  Jail employees  at almost  all levels were involved,  and everyone’s  share was  fixed. There  was never a dispute; there has to be the proverbial honour among thieves.’ 571 One  wonders   whether  such   an  indictment   made  by  an established A writer had inclined the Government at least to appoint an  Inquiry Commission  to acquaint  itself with the criminal life-style of correctional institutions. The higher officials also  have their  finger in the pie, if Nayar were veracious:           ’Perhaps the  way almost  everyone had his cut was      most evident in our milk supply. It came in bulk to the      main gate  (phatak) there,  enough  milk  for  the  top      officials was  taken out  of the  cans, which were then      topped up  with water.  And as  the cans  moved to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 37  

    wards, all  those who  handled hem  appropriated  their      share, again topping up with water.           Even more  shocking than  the corruption  was  the      ingenious "slave  system" we  found in  the  jail.  The      slaves were  buys between  ten and eighteen employed as      ’helpers", and  there were scores of them. They cooked,      washed utensils,  cleaned rooms,  fetched water and did      much back  breaking labour  to "help"  the men who were      paid to  do these chores. They would be woken up before      6 a.m.  to prepare the morning tea and would be allowed      to sleep  around 10  p.m. after  scrubbing the pots and      pans-they were  herded into a ward which had no fan and      no proper sanitary facilities, but was always well lit,      with many bulbs on all night, to enable a sleepy warder      to check at a glance that they were all there.           These boys  were undertrial  prisoners,  many  had      been there  for eight  months and at least one had been      there for  two years. They were taken from one court to      another to  be tried  under one  charge or  another and      kept in jail all the while. The aim was to keep them in      as long  as  possible,  for  without  them  the  people      employed to  do the menial duties would have no time to      relax.           one morning  I was  woken up  by the  sobbing of a      boy, and  found some  other "helpers" trying to console      him while a warder stood by quite unmoved. I went up to      him; his  curly hair  reminded me  of Raju,  my younger      son. The  boy had  been picked  up the previous evening      from Defence  Colony in  New Delhi,  kept in  a  police      lock-up for  the night  and  brought  to  jail  in  the      morning.’      The crime  of punishment  is a new crime which the rule of law  must reach  at, but  what is  touching beyond tears, even if  there be  but a title of truth in the statement "In Jail," is about children being lapped 572 up and locked up for use as bonded labour in punitive houses of justice.  The modus  operandi is  sensitively set down by Kuldip Nayar:           The warder  explained that  whenever the number of      prisoners in  jail went  up, the  police were  asked to      bring in  boys to  help with  the chores.  For the past      several days,  the warder  said, jail  authorities  had      been pestering  the police  to get  more helpers as the      number of detenus had gone up. The evening before, when      the boy  was buying  paan (betel  leaf) from  a Defence      Colony  shop,  the  police  had  hauled  him  up  as  a      vagabond; they were responding to the jail authorities’      appeal to book more helpers.           "This is  nothing new,  it has  always  been  like      this," the  warder explained.  Several undertrial  boys      later related  to me  their tales of woe, how they were      arrested on  trumped up charges and how they were being      held in detention on one pretext or another.      We may,  at this  stage, go  in greater detail into the functional expansion  of habeas  corpus writs in the current milieu  especially   because  counsel  on  both  sides  have compellingly contended for an authoritative pronouncement by this court in favour of a broader jurisdiction.      We have  earlier noticed  that this  valuable  writ  is capable of  multiple  uses  as  developed  in  the  American Jurisdiction. Such  is the  view  expressed  by  many  legal writers. In  Harvard Civil  Rights and  Civil Liberties  Law Review,  the   view  has  been  expressed  that  beyond  the conventional blinkers,  courts  have  been  to  examine  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 37  

manner in  which an  inmate is  held or  treated during  the currency of  his sentence. Similar is the thinking expressed by other writers, R. J. Sherpa in "The Law of Habeas Corpus" (1976) Edn.  Juvenal, Satires  in 72  Yale Law  Journal  506 (1963).  In  American  Jurisprudence  there  is  a  pregnant observation:           The writ  is not  and never  has  been  a  static,      narrow formalistic  remedy.  Its  scope  has  grown  to      achieve  its   purpose-the  protection  of  individuals      against erosion  of the  right to be free from wrongful      restraints on their liberty. 573      Corpus Juris,  2d, Vol.  39, page 274, para 7 strikes a similar note,   away from the traditional strain. The courts in America have, through the decisional process, brought the rule of  law into  the prison system pushing back, protanto, the hands-off  doctrine. In  the leading  case of  Coffin v. Richard the  Court of Appeal observed, delineating the ambit and uses of the writ of habeas corpus:           The Government  has the  absolute  right  to  hold      prisoners for  offences against  it but it also has the      correlative duty  to protect  them against  assault  or      injury from  any quarter . while so held. A prisoner is      entitled to  the writ  of habeas  corpus, when,  though      lawfully in  custody, he  is deprived  of some right to      which he  is lawfully entitled even in his confinement,      the  deprivation   of  which   serves   to   make   his      imprisonment more  burdensome than  the law  allows  or      curtails his  liberty to  a greater extent than the law      permits.           When a  man possesses  a  substantial  right,  the      court will  be diligent in finding a way to protect it.      The fact  that a  person is  legally in prison does not      prevent the  use of  habeas corpus to protect his other      inherent rights....The judge is not limited to a simple      remand or  discharge of  the prisoner’s civil rights be      respected......      It is  significant that  the United State Supreme Court has  even   considered  as   suitable  for   habeas  relief, censorship of  prisoners’ mail and the ban on the use of law students  to  conduct  interviews  with  prison  inmates  in matters of  legal relief. In Procunier v. Martinez these two questions  fell   for  decision   and  the  court  exercised jurisdiction even  in such an internal matter. In Johnson v. Avery a  disciplinary action  was challenged  by a  prisoner through  a   writ  of  habeas  corpus.  This  indicates  the extension  of  the  nature  of  the  writ  in  the  American jurisdiction.  Incidentally   and  interestingly,  there  is reference to  some States in the United States experimenting with programmes  of allowing  senior law students to service the penitentiaries.  At a  later stage,  when we  concretise definite directives,  we may  have occasion  to refer to the use of  senior law  students  for  rendering  legal  aid  to prisoners; and so it is worthwhile extracting a passage from Johnson v.  Avery (supra)  with reference  to the Kansas Law School Programme in Prisons at Leavenworth:           The experience at Leavenworth has shown that there      have  been   very  few   attacks  upon   the   (prison)      administra- : 574      tion; that  prospective frivolous  litigation has  been      screened out  and that  where the  law school  felt the      prisoner had  a good cause of action relief was granted      in a  great percentage  of cases.  A large  part of the      activity was  disposing of  long outstanding  detainers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 37  

    lodged against  the inmates. In addition, the programme      handles  civil   matters  such  as  domestic  relations      problems and  compensation claims. Even where there has      been no  tangible success, the fact that the inmate had      someone on  the outside  listen to  him and analyse his      problems had  a most  beneficial effect.  We think that      these programmes  have been  beneficial not only to the      inmates but to the students, the staff and the courts. Incidentally, the  presence of  law students at the elbow of the prisoner has a preventive effect on ward and warden.      The content  of our  constitutional liberties  being no less, the  dynamics of  habeas writs they developed help the judicial process  here. Indeed.  the full potential of Arts. 21, 19,  14, after  Maneka Gandhi (supra), has been unfolded by this  Court in  Hoskot and  Batra.  Today,  human  rights jurisprudence in  India  has  a  constitutional  status  and sweep, thanks  to Art.  21 so that this Magna Carta may well toll the knell of human bondage beyond civilised limits.      The supplementary  statement of  the Superintendent  of the Central  Jail (partly  quoted earlier) hair-raising when we find  that far  from rehabilitation,  intensification  of criminality is happening there and the officials are part of this sub-culture.  We, certainly  do not  wish to generalise but do  mean to  highlight the facts of life behind the high walls  as   demanding  constitutional   and   administrative attention. Homage  to human  rights, if  it springs from the heart,  calls   for  action.   Prisons,  prison   staff  and prisoners-all three  are in  need of  reformation. And  this milieu apparently  is not unique to Tihar but common to many penal institutions.      It  is  refreshing  and  heartening  that  the  learned Solicitor General  widened our  vista and  argued that  this court, having  been seized  of  the  problem  of  prisoners’ fundamental freedoms and their traumatic abridgement, should give guide-lines  in this  uncharted area, design procedures and device  mechanisms which  will go  into effective action when the restricted yet real rights of prisoners are overtly or covertly  invaded. The  jurisdiction  of  this  court  to remedy the  violations of  prisoners’ residuary  rights  was discussed at  the bar,  as also  the  package  of  plausible measures which  may appropriately  be issued  to ensure  the functional success  of justice  when rights are infringed by officials or  fellow-prisoners. Both  sides appreciated  the gravity of  the jail  situation, the sensitivity of security considerations, the virginity of this 575 field of  law and  the necessity  for  normative  rules  and operative  monitoring   within  the  framework  of  judicial remedies. This  constructive stance  of counsel  unusual  in litigative negativity,  facilitated our  resolution  of  the problems   of   jail   justice,   despite   the   touch   of jurisprudential novelty and call to judicial creativity.      We must  formulate the  points argued before we proceed to state our reasoning and record our conclusions.      1. Has  the court  jurisdiction to  consider prisoners’ grievance,   not   demanding   release   but,   within   the incarceratory circumstances,  complaining  of  ill-treatment and curtailment  short of  illegal detention?  Yes. We  have answered it.      2. What  are the  broad  contours  of  the  fundamental rights, especially  Arts. 14,  19 and  21 which  belong to a detainee sentenced  by Court?  Here too, the ground has been covered.      3. What judicial remedies can be granted to prevent and punish their breach and to provide access to prison justice?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 37  

    4. What  practicable  prescriptions  and  proscriptions bearing on  prison practices  can be  drawn up  by the court consistently with the existing provisions of the Prisons Act and Rules bent to shape to con form to Part III ?      5.  What  prison  reform  perspectives  and  strategies should be  adopted to  strengthen,  in  the  long  run,  the constitutional mandates and human rights imperatives?      The canvas  was spread wide by counsel and court and we deal with  the arguments within the larger spread-out of the case. Rulings  of this  court have highlighted the fact that the framers  of our Constitution have freed the powers under Art. 32 from the rigid restraints of the traditional English writs. Flexible  directives, even affirmative action moulded to grant  relief may realistically be issued and fall within its fertile  width. The jurisdictional dimension is lucently laid down by Subba Rao, J. in Dwarkanath case:           This   article   is   couched   in   comprehensive      phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the      High Courts  to reach  injustice wherever  it is found.      The Constitution  designedly used  a wide  language  in      describing the  nature of  the power,  the purpose  for      which and  the person  or authority against whom it can      be exercised.  It can  issue writs  in  the  nature  of      prerogative writs  as understood  in England;  but  the      scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the 576      expression "nature"  for the  said expression  does not      equate the writs that can be issued in India with those      in England,  but only  draws an analogy from them. That      apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or      writs other  than the prerogative writs. It enables the      High Courts  to mould  the reliefs to meet the peculiar      and  complicated  requirements  of  this  country.  Any      attempt to  equate the  scope of  the power of the High      Court under  Art. 226  of the Constitution with that of      the English  Courts to  issue prerogative  writs is  to      introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown      over the  years in  a comparatively  small country like      England with  a unitary  form of government into a vast      country  like   India  functioning   under  a   federal      structure. Such  a construction  defeats the purpose of      the article itself.      Where injustice,  verging on  inhumanity, emerges  from hacking human  rights guaranteed  in Part III and the victim beseeches the  Court to  intervene and  relieve, this  court will  be   a  functional   futility  as   a   constitutional instrumentality if  its guns do not go into action until the wrong is  righted. The  court is  not a  distant abstraction omnipotent in the books but an activist institution which is the cynosure  of public  hope. We  hold that  the court  can issue writs  to meet  the  new  challenges.  Lord  Scarman’s similar admonition,  in his  English Law-The New Dimensions, is an  encouraging omen.  The objection, if any, is absolute because in  a prison situation, a Constitution Bench of this Court (Batra  and Sobraj)  did imprison the powers of prison officials to  put  an  under-trial  under  iron  fetters  or confine in  solitary cells  convicts  with  death  sentences under appeal.      Once  jurisdiction   is  granted-and   we   affirm   in unmistakable terms  that the court has, under Art. 32 and so too under  Art. 226,  a clear power and, therefore, a public duty to give relief to sentences in prison settings-the next question is the jurisprudential backing for the play of that jurisdiction. Here again, Batra has blazed the trial, and it binds.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 37  

    Are prisoners persons? Yes, of course. To answer in the negative is  to convict  the nation  and the Constitution of dehumanization and to repudiate the world legal order, which now recognises  rights of  prisoners  in  the  International Covenant of  Prisoners’ Rights  to  which  our  country  has signed assent.  In Batra’s case, this Court has rejected the hands-off doctrine  and it has been ruled that fundamental n lights do  not flee  the person  as  he  enters  the  prison although  they   may  suffer   shrinkage   necessitated   by incarceration. Our constitutional 577 culture has  now crystalized in favour of prison justice and judicial jurisdiction.           The jurisdictional reach and range of this court’s      writ  to   hold   prison   caprice   and   cruelty   in      constitutional leash  is in  contentable,  but  teasing      intrusion  into   administrative  discretion  is  legal      anathema absent  breaches of  constitutional rights  or      prescribed procedures.      The U.S.  Supreme Court, in like situations, has spoken firmly and  ’humanistically, and these observations have the tacit approval of our Court in Batra’s case. Justice Douglas put it thus.           Prisoners are  still  ’persons’  entitled  to  all      constitutional rights  unless their  liberty  has  been      constitutionally curtailed  by procedures  that satisfy      all the requirements of due process. Justice Marshal strongly seconded the view:           I have  previously stated  my view that a prisoner      does not  shed his  basic constitutional  rights at the      prison gate,  and I  fully support  the court’s holding      that the interest of inmates in freedom from-imposition      of serious  discipline is  a ’liberty’  entitled to due      process protection.      We, therefore,  affirm  that  where  the  rights  of  a prisoner, either  under the Constitution or under other law, are violated  the writ power of the court can and should run to his  rescue. There is a warrant for this vigil. The court process casts  the convict  into the  prison system  and the deprivation of  his freedom  is  not  a  blind  penitentiary affliction but  a belighted institutionalisation geared to a social good.  The court  has a  continuing responsibility to ensure that the constitutional purpose of the deprivation is not defeated  by the  prison administration. In a few cases, this  validation  of  judicial  invigilation  of  prisoners’ condition  has   been  voiced  by  this  court  and  finally reinforced by the Constitution Bench in Batra (supra).           The Court need not adopt a "hands off" attitude in      regard to  the problem  of prison administration. It is      all the  more so  because a  convict is in prison under      the order and direction of the court."      Under the caption "Retention of Authority over Prisoner by Sentencing Judge" Krantz notes 578           As noted by Judge Lay in a Judicial Mandate, Trial      Magazine (Nov-Dec. 1971) at p. 15:           It should  be the  responsibility of  the court in      imposing the  sentence to  set forth as it would in any      equitable decree,  the  end  to  be  achieved  and  the      specifics necessary  to achieve  that purpose. If then,      we are  to have  accountability in the execution of the      sentence, courts  must make  clear what  is intended in      the imposition  of the  sentence. Every sentence should      be couched  in terms similar to a mandatory injunction.      In this  manner, the  penology system  is to be held to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 37  

    account if  the government  does not faithfully execute      the order.           In other  words, the  sentencing court  should  be      required to  retain jurisdiction  to  ensure  that  the      prison  system   res  ponds  to  the  purposes  of  the      sentence. If  it does  not, the  sentencing court could      arguably have  the authority  to demand compliance with      the sentence  or even  order the  prisoner released for      non-compliance. Whether inside  prison or  outside, a  person shall  not  be deprived of  his guaranteed  freedom save by methods ’right, just and fair’. Bhagwati J. in Maneka Gandhi observed.           The principle  of reasonableness, which legally as      well as  philosophically, is  an essential  element  of      equality or  non arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like      a brooding  omnipresence and the procedure contemplated      by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in      order to  be in  conformity with  Art. 14.  It must  be      "right and  just and  fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful      or oppressive;  otherwise it  would be  no procedure at      all and  the requirement  of Article  21 would  not  be      satisfied.      Hoskot applied  the rule  in Maneka Gandhi (supra) to a prison  setting   and  held  that  "one  component  of  fair procedure is natural justice". Thus it is now clear law that a prisoner  wears the  armour of  basic freedom  even behind bars and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will respond to his distress signals through ’writ’ aid. The Indian human  has a  constant companion-the court armed with the Constitution.  The weapon is ’habeas’, the power is Part III and the projectile is Batra, 579      No iron  curtain can  be drawn between the prisoner and the Constitution.      It is,  therefore, the court’s concern, implicit in the power to  deprive the  sentences of his personal liberty, to ensure that  no more  and no  less than  is warranted by the sentence happens.  If the  prisoner breaks  down because  of mental torture,  psychic pressure  or physical R; infliction beyond the  licit limits  of lawful  imprisonment the Prison Administration shall  be  liable  for  the  excess.  On  the contrary,  if   an  influential   convict  is  able  to  buy advantages  and   liberties  to  avoid  or  water  down  the deprivation   implied    in   the.   sentence   the   Prison Establishment will  be called to order For such adulteration or dilution  of Court  sentences by executive palliation, if unwarranted by law. One of us, in Batra observed:           Suffice it  to say  that, so  long as  judges  are      invigilators and  enforcers  of  constitutionality  and      performance auditors  of legality,  and convicts  serve      terms in  that grim  microcosm  called  prison  by  the      mandate  of  the  courts,  a  continuing  institutional      responsibility vests  in the  system to  monitor in the      incarceratory process  and prevent  security ’excesses’      Jailors are bound by the rule of law and cannot inflict      supplementary sentence  under disguises  or defeat  the      primary purposes of imprisonment.      The upshot  of this  discussion is  but this. The Court has power  and responsibility  to intervene  and protect the prisoner against mayhem, crude or subtle, and may use habeas corpus for  enforcing imprison  humanism and  forbiddance of harsher restraints  and heavier severities than the sentence carries. We  hold these  propositions to  be self-evident in our constitutional  order and  is supported by authority, if need be.  Therefore, we  issue the  writ to the Lt. Governor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 37  

and  the   Superintendent  of  the  Central  Jail  that  the prisoner, Prem  Chand, shall  not be  subjected to  physical manhandling by  any jail  official, that  the  shameful  and painful torture  to which  he has  been subjected-a  blot on Government’s claim  to protect  human rights-shall  be ended and the  wound on  his person  given proper medical care and treatment. The  Central Government will, we are sure, direct its Jail  staff not show too pachydermic a disposition for a democratic  government.  For  example,  specific  guidelines before punishing  a prisoner  had been given in Batra’s case and yet  the prisoner  Prem Chand  has been  lodged  in  the punishment cell,  which is  almost the  same as  a  solitary cell, with  cavalier disregard  for  procedural  safeguards. Merely to  plead that  many prisoners  are ’habituals’ is no ground for habitual 580 violation of  law by officials. We direct that Prem Chand be released from the punishment cell and shall not be subjected to such severity until fair procedure is complied with.      The chronic  callousness of  the Prison  System to- the humane demands  of the  Constitution, despite  the fact that many ministers  over many  decades in many States have known the unbroken  tradition of  prison sub-culture  and  despite prison diaries  of national figures from Jawaharlal Nehru to Jay Prakash Narain, has made court and counsel benignly turn the judicial  focus on  the future  so that further mischief may not  be suffered in incarceration. There is little doubt that  barbarities  like  bar  betters  and  hand-cuffs  were recklessly being  practised either  on account  of  ignorant unconscionableness  or   willful  viciousness   in   several detention  camps.  Many  of  the  victims  are  poor,  mute, illiterate, desperate and destitute and too distant from the law to  be aware  of their  rights  or  ask  for  access  to justice, especially  when the  running tension of the prison and the grisly potential for zoological reprisals stare them in the  face. So it is for the court to harken when humanity calls, without  waiting for particular petitions. Like class action, class remedies have pro bono value.      The court-the  learned  Solicitor  General  underscored this  constructive   approach-must  not  wait  for  a  stray petition from some weeping inmate and give the little person a little  relief in the little case but give the nation, its governments,   prison    establishments   and   correctional departments, needed  guidance and  also fill  with hope  the hearts of  those who  cherish human  rights that  the courts are, after  all, sentinels  on the qui vive. Law is what law does and  court, if  anything, are constitutional in action. Dr. Chitale,  naturally, joined  this moving  demand. We  do think that  there are  many, drawn from the class of penury, who suffer  more privations  than their  sentences  justify. Ralph Ellison’s  picture of the American Black has relevance for the prisoner here:           I am  an invisible man....I am a man of substance,      of flesh and bone, fibre an liquids-and I might even be      said to  possess a  mind. I  am invisible,  understand,      simply because  people refuse  to see me .... When they      approach me  they see only my surroundings, themselves,      or figments of their imagination-indeed, everything and      anything except me.           The invisibility  to which  I refer occurs because      of a  peculiar disposition  of the  eyes of  those with      whom I  come in  contact. A  matter of  construction of      their inner eyes, 581      those eyes  with which they look through their physical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 37  

    eyes ..  4 upon  reality....You wonder  whether you are      not simply  a phantom  in other  people’s  minds....You      ache with  the need  to convince  yourself that  you do      exist in  the real world, that you’re a part of all the      sound and  anguish, and you strike out with your fists,      you curse  and you  swear to  make them  recognise you.      And, alas, it is seldom successful.      In a  culture of  Antyodaya, the  court must rescue the weakest by  preemptive guidance  without driving  parties to post facto  litigation. In law as in medicine, prevention is better than cure, a rule jurisprudents have not sufficiently developed, and  so we  accede to  the request of counsel and proceed to discuss the normative side of prison justice. C      Before we  begin this chapter we might as well set down what the  learned Solicitor  General stressed  viz. that the detailed guidelines  set out  in  the  separate  opinion  in Batra’s case  (page 488 to 493) are the same as are implicit in the  judgment of  Desai J.  speaking for the other Judges and this position should be re-emphasised by this court here so as to avoid misconception. Desai J. has stated           Justice Krishna  Iyer has  delivered an  elaborate      judgment  which  deals  with  important  issues  raised      before us  at great  length and  with  great  care  and      concern. We  have given a separate opinion, not because      we differ  with him  on fundamentals,  but  because  we      thought it  necessary to  express our  views on certain      aspects of the questions canvassed before us      Likewise, in the separate judgment, a similar statement is made:           I am  aware that  a splendid  condensation of  the      answers to  the core questions has been presented by my      learned brother Desai, J and I endorse the conclusion.      A close  perusal  shows  that  both  the  judgments  in Batra’s case  lay down  the  same  rule  and  the  elaborate guidelines  in   the   first   opinion   are   a   necessary proliferation of the law expounded in the second judgment in the case.  We hold,  agreeing with  both counsel,  that  the detailed prescriptions  in the  separate  opinion  in  sunil Batra (p.  488 to  493) is  correct law  and binds the penal institutions in  the country. We agree with these guidelines and express ourselves to that effect since the core question raised in  the present  case and  the cardinal principles we have accepted lead to the same conclusions.      At the  outset, we  notice the widespread prevalence of legal illiteracy  even among  lawyers about  the  rights  of prisoners. Access  to law  postulates awareness  of law  and activist awareness of legal rights 582 in the  condition for  seeking court  justice. So  the first need in  the Juristic  twilight is  for the State to produce and update  a handbook on Prison Justice, lucid, legible for the lay,  accurate, comprehensive  and, above all, practical in meeting the felt necessities and daily problems of prison life. The Indian Bar has, as part of its judicare tryst as a special responsibility to assist the State in this behalf. A useful handbook  prepared by  the American  Civil  Liberties Union was  handed upto  us by Dr. Chitale titled "The Rights of Prisoners".  Law in  the books and in the courts is of no help unless  it reaches  the  prisoner  in  under  standable language and  available form.  We,  therefore,  draw  the  . attention of  the State  to the need to get ready Prisoner’s Handbook in  the regional  language  and  make  them  freely available to the in mates. To know the law is the first step to be free from fear of unlaw.      Prisoners are  peculiarly and  doubly handicapped.  For

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 37  

one thing,  most prisoners  belong to the weaker segment, in poverty, literacy,  social station  and the  like. Secondly, the  prison   house  is   a  walled-off   world   which   is incommunicado for  the human world, with the result that the bonded inmates  are invisible, their voices inaudible, their injustices unheeded.  So it  is imperative,  as implicit  in Art. 21  that life or liberty shall not be kept in suspended animation or  congealed into  animal existence  without  the freshing flow  of air,  procedure. ’The  meaning  of  ’life’ given by  Field J.,  approved in  Kharak Singh’  and  Maneka Gandhi bears exception:           Something more  than mere  animal  existence.  The      inhibition against  its  deprivation  extended  to  all      those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The      provision equally  prohibits the mutilation of the body      by the amputation of an arm. Or leg, or the putting out      of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the      body through which the soul communicates with the outer      world      Therefore,  inside   prisons  are   persons  and  their personhood, if crippled by law-keepers turning law-breakers, shall be forbidden by the Writ of this Court from such wrong doing. Fair  procedure, in dealing with prisoners, therefor, calls for  another dimensions  of access  to  law-provision, within easy  reach, of  the  law  which  limits  liberty  to persons who are prevented from moving out of prison gates.      A handbook  meets the logistics of the law in field. Of course, the  prison staff  also suffer from the pathology of misinformation or non-education about rights and limitations and this ignoratia juris 583 situation leads  to insensitivity to human rights and a test in the  hand-book of  prison  law  must  be  a  minimum  for recruitment.  The   peril  to  prison  rights  is  from  the uninstructed personnel,  apart from  the anticultural  ethos which permeates.  It behoves  Government to  insist  on  the professional requirement,  for warders  and  wardens,  of  a hearty familiarity with the basics of Prison Law.      Rights  jurisprudence   is  important  but  becomes  an abstraction in the absence of remedial jurisprudence. Law is not an  omnipotence in  the sky but a loaded gun which, when triggered by  trained men  with ballistic skill, strikes the offending bull’s  eye. We  have made  it clear  . ’  that no prisoner can  be personally  subjected to  deprivations  not necessitated by  the fact  of incarceration and the sentence of court.  All other  freedoms belong  to him  to  read  and write, to  exercise and recreation, to meditation and chant, to creative  comforts like  protection from extreme cold and heat, to  freedom from  indignities like  compulsory nudity, forced sodomy  and other  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 and all other fundamental  rights   tailored   to   the   limitations   of imprisonment.      Chandrachud J,  long ago, spelt out the position and we affirm it:           "Convicts  are   not,  by   mere  reason   of  the      conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which      they  otherwise   possess.  A   compulsion  under   the      authority of  law, following upon a conviction, to live      in  a   prison-house  entails  by  its  own  force  the      deprivation of  fundamental freedoms  like the right to      move freely throughout the territory of India 11 or the      right to  ’practise’ a  profession. A man of profession

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 37  

    would  thus   stand  stripped  of  his  right  to  hold      consultations while  serving out  his sentence. But the      Constitution guarantees  other freedoms  like the right      to acquire,  hold  and  dispose  of  property  for  the      exercise of which incarceration . can be no impediment.      Likewise, even  a convict is entitled G to the precious      right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that      he shall  not be  deprived  of  his  life  or  personal      liberty except  according to  procedure established  by      law."      We think  it proper  to suggest  that in our country of past colonial subjection and consequent trepidation in life, publicity officially is 584 necessary  for   rights  to   be  appreciated  even  by  the beneficiaries. Therefore, large notice boards displaying the rights and  responsibilities on  prisoners may be hung up in prominent places  within the  prison in  the language of the people. We  are dealing  with the  mechanics of bringing the law within the wakeful ken of the affected persons.      Sec. 61  of the  Prisons  Act,  simplied  imaginatively leads to the same result. That section reads:           "Copies of  rules, under sections 59 and 60 so far      as they  affect the  government of  prisons,  shall  be      exhibited, both  in English  and in  the Vernacular, in      some place  to which  all  persons  employed  within  a      prison have access."      We think  it right  to hold  that copies  of the Prison Manual shall  be  kept  within  ready  reach  of  prisoners. Darkness never  does anyone  any good  and light  never  any harm.      Perhaps, the  most important  right of a prisoner is to the integrity of his physical person and mental personality. This Court in Batra’s case has referred to the international wave of  torture of  prisoners found  in an article entitled ’Minds Behind Bars’. That heightens our anxiety to solve the issue of prisoners’ protection.      The problem  of law,  when it  is called upon to defend persons hidden  by the  law, is to evolve a positive culture and  higher   consciousness   and   preventive   mechanisms, sensitized strategies and humanist agencies which will bring healing balm  to bleeding  hearts. Indeed,  counsel on  both sides carefully  endeavoured to  help the  Court  to  evolve remedial processes and personnel within the framework of the Prisons Act and the parameters of the Constitution.      Inflictions may  take many  protean forms,  apart  from physical assaults.  Pushing the  prisoner  into  a  solitary cell, denial  of a  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  ineffect.  Every  such affliction or abridgment is an infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Art. 21 is satisfied. There  must be a corrective legal procedure, fair and  reasonable  and  effective.  Such  infraction  will  be arbitrary, under  Article 14, if it is dependent on unguided discretion,  unreasonable,   under  Art.   19   if   it   is irremediable and  unappealable and  unfair, under Art. 21 if it violates  natural justice.  The string  of guidelines  in Batra set  out  in  the  first  judgment,  which  we  adopt, provides for  a hearing  at  some  stages,  a  review  by  a superior, and  early  judicial  consideration  so  that  the proceedings may not 585

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 37  

hop from  Caesar to Caesar. We direct strict compliance with those A norms and institutional provisions for that purpose.      Likewise,  no   personal  harm,   whether  by   way  of punishment or  otherwise, shall  be suffered  by a  prisoner without affording  a preventive,  or in  special cases, post facto  remedy   before  a  impartial,  competent,  available agency. R      The Court  is always  ready to correct injustice but it is no  practical proposition  to drive  every victim to move the court  for a  writ, knowing  the actual  hurdles and the prison realities.  True, technicalities  and legal  niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are  found; still, the awe and distance of courts, the legalese and  mystique, keep the institution unapproachable. More realistic  is to  devise a method of taking the healing law to  the injured  victim. That  system is  best where the remedy will rush to the injury on the slightest summons. So, within the existing, dated legislation, new meanings must be read. Of  course, new  legislation is the best solution, but when lawmakers  take for  too long  for social  patience  to suffer, as  in this  very case of prison reform, courts have to make-do  with interpretation and carve on wood and sculpt on stone  ready at  hand and  not wait  for far  away marble architecture.  Counsel  rivetted  their  attention  on  this pragmatic  engineering  and  jointly  helped  the  court  to constitutionalise the  Prisons Act  prescriptions.  By  this legal energetics they desired the court to read into vintage provisions legal remedies.      Primari1y, the  prison authority  has the duty to given effect to the court sentence. (See for e.g. SS. 15 and 16 of the Prisoners  Act, 1900).  To give  effect to  the sentence means that it is illegal to exceed it and so it follows that a prison  official who  goes  beyond  more  imprisonment  or deprivation of  locomotion and assaults or otherwise compels the doing  of things  not covered  by the  sentence acts  in violation of  Art. 19.  Punishments of rigorous imprisonment oblige the  inmates to  do hard labour, not harsh labour and so a,  vindictive officer  victimising a prisoner by forcing on him  particularly harsh  and degrading jobs, violates the law’s mandate.  For example,  a prisoner, if forced to carry night soil,  may seek  a habeas writ. ’Hard labour’ in s. 53 has to  receive a  humane meaning.  A girl student or a male weakling sentenced  to  rigorous  imprisonment  may  not  be forced to  break stones  for nine  hours a day. The prisoner cannot demand  soft jobs  but  may  reasonably  be  assigned congenial jobs.  Sense and sympathy are not enemies of penal asylum. 586 Section 27 (2) and (3) of the Prisons Act states:      27. The  requisitings of  this Act  with respect to the separations of prisoners are as follows:      (1)       xx               xx      (2)   in a prison where male prisoners under the are of           twenty-one arc  confined, means  shall be provided           for separating  them  altogether  from  the  other           prisoners and  for separating  those of  them  who           have arrived  at the age of puberty from those who           have not.      (3)  unconvicted criminal prisoners shall be kept apart           from convicted criminal prisoners; and      The materials  we have  referred  to  earlier  indicate slurring over  this rule  and its  violation must be visited with judicial  correction and  punishment of the jail staff. Sex  excesses   and  exploitative   labour  are   the  vices

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 37  

adolescents are  subjected to  by adults.  The young inmates must be  separated and freed from exploitation by adults. If Kuldip Nayar  is right  this rule  is in cold storage. lt is inhuman and  unreasonable to  throw young  boys to  the sex- starved adult  prisoners or  to  run  menial  jobs  for  the affluent or  tough prisoners.  Art. 19  then intervenes  and shields.      Section 29  and connected  rules relating  to  solitary confinement have  been covered  by Batra’s  case.  But  Prem Chand, in  this very  case, has been sent to a ’solitary’ or ’punishment’  cell  without  heeding  the  rule  in  Batra’s regarding impost of punitive solitary confinement. We cannot agree that  the cell  is  not  ’solitary’  and  wonder  what sadistic delight  is derived  by the  warders and wardens by SUCH cruelty.  Any harsh  isolation from  society  by  long, lonely, cellular detention is penal and so must be inflicted only consistently with fair procedure. The learned Solicitor General mentioned that some prisoners, for their own safety, may desire  segregation. In  such cases, written consent and immediate report to higher authority are the least, if abuse is to be tabooed.      Visit to  prisoners by  family and friends are a solace in insulation;  and only  a dehumanised  system  can  derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates of this humane amenity. Subject,  of course,  to search  and discipline and other security criteria, the right to society of fellow-men, parents and  other family  members cannot  be denied  in the light  of   Art.  19  and  its  sweep.  Moreover  the  whole habilitative purpose  of sentencing  is to  soften,  not  to harden, and this will be promo- 587 ted by  more such  meetings. A sullen, forlorn prisoner is a dangerous   criminal in  the making  and the  prison is  the factory! Sheldon Krantz rightly remarks:           In 1973,  the National  Advisory Commission argued      that prisoners  should have  a "right"  to  visitation.      Task Force  Report, Corrections  (1973) at  66. It also      argued that  ’ correctional officials should not merely      tolerate visiting but should encourage it, particularly      by families.  Although the  Commission recognised  that      regulations  were   necessary  to  contend  with  space      problems and  with security  concerns, it proposed that      priority be given to making visiting areas pleasant and      unobtrusive. It  also urged  that corrections officials      should not  eavesdrop  on  conversations  or  otherwise      interfere  with   the  participants’   privacy.   Thus,      although  there  may  be  current  limitations  on  the      possible use  of  the  Constitution  on  visitation  by      family  and   friends,  public  policy  should  dictate      substantial improvements in this area, in any event.      We see  no reason  why the  right to  be visited  under reasonable   restrictions,    should   not   claim   current constitutional status.  We hold, t subject to considerations of security  and discipline,  that liberal  visits by family members, close  friends and  legitimate callers, are part of the r prisoners’ kit of rights and shall be respected.      Parole,  again,   is  a   subject  which   is  as   yet unsatisfactory and  arbitrary but  we are not called upon to explore that  constitutional area and defer it. Likewise, to fetter prisoners  in iron  is an inhumanity unjustified save where safe  custody is  otherwise  impossible.  The  routine resort to  handcuffs and  irons bespeaks a barbarity hostile to our  goal of  human dignity  and social  justice. And yet this  unconstitutionally  is  heartlessly  popular  in  many penitentiaries so  much so a penitent law must proscribe its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 37  

use in any but the gravest situation.      These rights  and safeguards  need a machinery. The far internal invigilation  and independent  oversight cannot  be overemphasised. Prisoners’  rights and  prison wrongs  are a challenge to remedial creativity.      Krantz, in his book, (supra) notes:           To respond  to the  need for  effective  grievance      procedures will  probably require  both the  ceation of      internal pro- 588      grams  (formal   complaint  procedures)   and  programs      involving     "outsiders"      (ombudsmen,     citizens      investigative committees, mediators, etc).      So, apart  from judicial  review for  prisoners’ rights and conditions  of confinement, we have to fabricate instant administrative grievance procedures.      Indeed, a  new  chapter  of  offences  carrying  severe punishments when  prison officials  become delinquents is an urgent item  on the  agenda of prison reform; and lodging of complaints of  such offences together with investigation and trial by independent agencies must also find a place in such a scheme.  We are  dealing with a morbid world where sun and light  are  banished  and  crime  has  neurotic  dimensions. Special situations need special solutions.      We  reach   the  most   critical  phase   of  counsel’s submissions viz., the legal fabrication and engineering of a remedial machinery  within the fearless reach of the weakest of victims  and worked  with independence, accessibility and power to  review and  punish. Prison  power, absent judicial watch tower, may tend towards torture.      The  Prisons   Act  and   Rules  need   revision  if  a constitutionally and  culturally congruous  code  is  to  be fashioned. The  model jail manual, we are unhappy to say and concur in  this view  with the learned Solicitor General, is far from  a model  and is,  perhaps,  a  product  of  prison officials insufficiently  instructed in  the imperatives  of the Constitution  and unawakened  to the  new hues  of human rights. We  accept, for  the nonce,  the suggestion  of  the Solicitor  General   that  within   the  existing  statutory framework the requirements of constitutionalism nay be read. He heavily  relies on  the need  for a judicial agency whose presence, direct  or by  delegate, within  the prison  walls will deal  with grievances.  For this  purpose, he relies on the Board  of  Visitors,  their  powers  and  duties,  as  a functional   substitute    for   a   Prison   ombudsman.   A controllerate is  the desideratum  for in situ reception and redressal or grievances.      After  all,   the  daily  happenings,  when  they  hurt harshly, have  to be  arrested forthwith, especially when it is the prison guards and the head warders who brush with the prison inmates.  Their behaviour  often causes  friction and fear but  when their doings are impeached, the institutional defence mechanism  tends to protect them from top to bottom. So much so, injustice escapes punishment.      In this context it is apt to quote David Rudovsky: 589           The present  system puts  absolute discretion  and      day-to-day power over every aspect of a prisoner’s life      in their  hands. It  is this  part of prison life which      causes the deepest resentment among prisoners for, to a      large extent,  the manner in which an inmate is treated      by the  guards determines the severity of conditions he      will have  to endure.  It is  a doub1e  irony that  the      lower the  level of authority in prison (from warden on      down to  guard) the  greater  tho  discretion  that  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 37  

    vested in  the prison official and the less willing the      courts are to review their decisions. ’Thus, whether it      be a  request for medical treatment, the right to go to      the yard  of prison  library, or  the potentially  more      serious matter of prison discipline and punishment, the      guard of  the  block  holds  ultimate  power  over  the      prisoner. Complete  discretion in the context of prison      life where  no remedies  exist to  correct it,  can  be      catastrophic, Judge Sobeloff has put it bluntly:           In fact,  prison guards  may be more vulnerable to      the corrupting  influence of  unchecked authority  than      most people. It is well known that prisons are operated      on minimum  budgets and  that poor salaries and working      conditions make  it difficult  to attract  high-calibre      personnel. Moreover,  the "training" of the officers in      dealing with  obstreperous prisoners is but a euphemism      in most  states. George  A. Ellis  quotes a  prisoner’s      letter:           You cannot  rehabilitate a  man through  brutality      and disrespect...If  you treat  a man  like an  animal,      then you  must expect  him to  act like  one. For every      action, there  is a  reaction...And  in  order  for  an      inmate, to act like a human being you must trust him as      such.. You  can’t spit  in his  face and  expect him to      smile and-say thank you.      The  institution   and  composition  of  the  Board  of Visitors comes  in handy  and has  statutory  sanction.  The visitatiorial power  is wide  the panel of visitors includes judicial officers  and such  situation can  be pressed  into service legally  to fulfil the constitutional needs. Para 47 read with para 53-A sets out the structure of the Board Para 47(b) to  (d) includes  District & Sessions Judges, District Magistrates  and   Sub-Divisional  Magistrates   among   the members. The  functions of  visitors are  enumerated in para 53, and 53-B and they include (a) 590 inspect  the  barracks,  cells,  wards  workshed  and  other buildings of  the jail  generally and  the cooked  food; (b) ascertain whether considerations of health, cleanliness, and security are.  attended to,  whether proper  management  and discipline are  maintained in every respect, and whether any prisoner is  illegally detained, or is detained for an undue length of  time, while  awaiting  trial;  (c)  examine  jail registers   and   records;   (d)   hear,   attend   to   all representations and  petitions made,  by  or  on  behalf  of prisoners; and  (e) direct,  if deemed  advisable, that  any such representation or petitions be forwarded to Government. In the  sensitive  area  of  prison  justice,  the  judicial members have  special responsibilities  and they must act as wholly  independent   overseers  and   not   as   ceremonial panelists. The  judges are  guardians of  prisoners’  rights because they  have a  duty to  secure the  execution of  the sentences without  excesses  and  to  sustain  the  personal liberties of  prisoners without  violence on or violation of the inmates’  personality. Moreover,  when a  wrong is  done inside jail  the judicial visitor is virtually a peripatetic tribunal and  sentinel, at once intramural and extra-mural,- observer, receiver and adjudicator of grievance.      What then.  are prisoner  Prem Chands’  rights, in  the specific set  t ng of this case, where the complaint is that a jail  warder, for  pernicious purposes, inflicted physical torture ?      The Punjab  Prison Manual  clearly lays down the duties of District  Magistrates with  reference to  Central  Jails. Para 41 (l) and (3) read thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 37  

         41. (l)  It shall be the duty of the Magistrate of      the district  from time  to time  to visit  and inspect      jails situate  within the limits of his district and to      satisfy himself that the provisions of the Prisons Act,      1894, and  of all  rules, regulations,  directions  and      orders made  or issued  thereunder applicable  to  such      jail, are duly observed and enforced.         xx               xx                xx           (3) A  record of  the result  of  each  visit  and      inspection made,  shall be  entered in a register to be      maintained by the Superintendent for the purpose. Para 42 is also relevant:           42. In  the  absence  of  the  Magistrate  of  the      district from  headquarters, or  in the  event of  that      officer being  at any  time unable  from any  cause  to      visit the  jail in the manner in these rules prescribed      in that behalf, he shall depute a Magistrate 591      subordinate to  him who  is available  for the duty, to      visit and A inspect the jail on his behalf. Any officer      so  deputed   may,  subject   to  the  control  of  the      Magistrate of  the district. exercise all or any of the      powers by  the  Prisons  Act,  1894,  or  these  rules,      conferred upon the Magistrate of the district. Paragraph 44 clothes the District Magistrate with powers and makes his orders liable to be obeyed.           44. (1) The orders passed under sub-section (2) of      section l  of the  Prisons Act, 1894, should, except in      emergent cases  in which  immediate action  is, in  the      opinion of  such Magistrate  necessary, be so expressed      that the  Superintendent may  have time to refer (if he      thinks  necessary)   to  the  Inspector-General  before      taking action thereon.           (2) All  orders issued  by the  Magistrate of  the      district  shall,   if  expressed   in  terms  requiring      immediate compliance,  be forthwith obeyed and a report      made, as  prescribed in  the said  sub-section, to  the      Inspector-General. D      We understand  these provision  to cover  the ground of reception of grievance from prisoners and issuance of orders thereon after  prompt enquiry.  The District Magistrate must remember that  in this capacity he is a judicial officer and not  an   executive  head   and  must   function   as   such independently of  the prison  executive. To  make prisoners’ rights in  correctional institutions  viable, we  direct the District Magistrate  concerned to  inspect the  jails in his district once  every week receive complaints from individual prisoners and  enquire into  them immediately.  If he is too preoccupied with  urgent work,  para graph 42 enables him to depute a  magistrate subordinate to him to visit and inspect the jail.  What is  important is  that he  should  meet  the prisoners separately  if they  have grievances. The presence of warders  or officials  will be  inhibitive  and  must  be avoided. He  must ensure  that, his  enquiry is confidential although subject  to natural  justice and  does not  lead to reprisals by  jail officials.  The rule speaks of the record of the  result of  each visit  and inspection. This empowers him to  enquire and  pass orders.  All orders  issued by him shall  be  immediately  complied  with  since  obedience  is obligated by  para 44(2).  In the event of non-compliance he should immediately inform Government about such disobedience and advise the prisoner to forward his complaint to the High Court under  Art. 226 together with a copy of his own report to help  the High  Court exercise  its habeas  corpus power. Indeed, it  will be  practical, as  suggested by the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 37  

Solicitor  General,  if  the  District  Magistrate  keeps  a grievance box in each 592 ward to which free access shall be afforded to every inmate. It should  be kept  locked and  sealed by  him  and  on  his periodical visit,  he alone,  or his  surrogate, should open the box,  find out  the grievances, investigate their merits and take remedial action, it justified.      Chapter V  of the Manual deals with visitors who arc an important component  of jail  management. Para  47 specially mentions District  & Sessions  Judges, District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates  and Superintendent  of Police as members of  the Board  of Visitors. In fact, Sessions Judges arc required  to visit  the jails  periodically-the District Magistrates and  Sub Divisional  Magistrates and magistrates subordinate to  them and  others appointed  by them  in this behalf are  to visit jails in their jurisdiction once a week under the existing Rule. We direct, in implementation of the constitutional  obligation  we  have  already  discussed  at length to  safeguard prisoners’ fundamental rights, that the Sessions  Judges   and   District   Magistrates   or   other subordinates nominated by them shall visit jails once a week in their visitorial functions.      Para  49   has  strategic   significance  and   may  be reproduced:           49. (1)  Any official  visitor may  examine all or      any of  the books, papers and records of any department      of, and  may interview  any prisoner  confined  in  the      jail.           (2) It shall be the duty of every official visitor      to satisfy  himself that  the provisions of the Prisons      Act, 1894,  and of  the rules,  regulations, orders and      directions  made  or  issued  J  thereunder,  are  duly      observed, and to hear and bring to notice any complaint      or representation made to him by any prisoner.      We understand  this provision to mean that the Sessions Judge, District  Magistrate or  their  nominees  shall  hear complaints, examine  all documents, take evidence, interview prisoners  and   check  to   see  if   there  is   deviance, disobedience, delinquency  or the  like which infringes upon the rights of prisoners. They have a duty "to hear and bring to notice any complaint or representation made to him by any prisoner".  Nothing  clearer  is  needed  to  empower  these judicial  officers   to  investigate   and  adjudicate  upon grievances. We  direct the  Sessions Judges concerned, under his lock  and seal,  to keep a requisite number of grievance boxes in  the prison  and give  necessary directions  to The Superintendent to see that free access is afforded to put in complaints of  encroachments, injuries  or  torture  by  any prisoner, where  he needs  remedial action. Such boxes shall hot be tampered with by any one 593 and shall be opened only under the authority of the Sessions Judge. We  need hardly  emphasise the  utmost vigilance  and authority that  the Sessions Judge must sensitively exercise in this situation since prisoner’s personal liberty depends, in this  undetectable campus  upon his  awareness, activism, adjudication and  enforcement. Constitutional  rights  shall not be emasculated by the insouciance of judicial officers.      The  prison  authorities  shall  not,  in  any  manner, obstruct or  noncooperate with reception or enquiry into the complaints otherwise, prompt punitive action must follow the High Court  or the  Supreme Court  must be  apprised of  the grievance so that habeas corpus may issue after due hearing. Para 53  is important  in this  context and  we reproduce it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 37  

below:           53. All  visitors shall be afforded every facility      for observing the state of the jail, and the management      thereof, and  shall  be  allowed  access  under  proper      regulations, to  all parts  of the  jail and  to  every      prisoner confined therein.           Every visitor  should have  the power  to call for      and inspects  any book  or other  record  in  the  jail      unless the  Superintendent, for  reasons to be recorded      in writing,  declines on the ground that its production      is undesirable.  Similarly, every  visitor should  have      the right  to see any prisoner and to put any questions      to him  out of the hearing of any jail officer. E There      should be  one  visitor’s  book  for  both  classes  of      visitors,  their   remarks  should  in  both  cases  be      forwarded to the Inspector General who should pass such      orders as  he thinks  necessary,  and  a  copy  of  the      Inspector-General’s order should be sent to the visitor      concerned. Paras  53-B   and  53-D   are  not  only  supplementary  but procedurally vital,  being protective  provisions  from  the stand-point of  prisoners. We  except them  here for  double emphasis although adverted to earlier:           53-B. All  visitors, official and non-official, at      every visit, shall-           (a)   inspect the barracks, cells, wards, workshed                and other buildings of the jail generally and                cooked food;           (b)   ascertain whether  considerations of health,                cleanliness, and  security are  attended  to,                whether proper  management and discipline are                maintained in  every respect, and whether any                prisoner is illegally detrained, 594                Or is  detained for  an undue length of time,                while awaiting trial;           (c) examine jail registers and records;           (d)   hear,  attend  to  all  representations  and                petitions made, by or on behalf of prisoners;                and           (e)   direct, if  deemed advisable,  that any such                representations or  petitions be forwarded to                Government.           53-D.  No  prisoner  shall  be  punished  for  any      statement made  by him  to a  visitor unless an enquiry      made by  a Magistrate  results in  a finding that it is      false. We hope-indeed,  we direct-the  judicial and  other official visitors to  live upto  the expectations  of these two rules and strictly  implement their  mandate. Para 54 is also part of this package of visitatorial provisions with invigilatory relevance. We expect compliance with these provisions and if the situation  demands it,  report to  the  High  Court  for action in the case of any violation of any fundamental right of a prisoner.      The long journey through jail law territory proves that a big  void exists in legal remedies for prisoner injustices and so  constitutional mandates can become living companions of banished  humans only if non-traditional procedures, duly oriented personnel and realistic reliefs meet the functional challenge.  Broadly   speaking,  habeas  corpus  powers  and administrative  measures   are  the  pillars  of  prisoners’ rights. The  former is invaluable and inviolable, but for an illiterate, timorous,  indigent  inmate  community  judicial remedies remain  frozen. Even  so, this constitutional power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 37  

must discard formalities, dispense with full particulars and demand of  the detainer  all facts  to decide  if humane and fair treatment  prevails,  constitutionally  sufficient  and comporting with  the  minimum  international  standards  for treatment  of   prisoners.  Publicity   within  the   prison community of  court rulings  in this area will go a long way to restore  the morale  of inmates  and, hopefully,  of  the warders. So  we direct the Delhi Administration to reach, in Hindi, the  essentials of this ruling to the ken of the jail people.      The stress  that we  lay is on the need of the Court to be dynamic  and  diversified  in  meeting  out  remedies  to prisoners. Not  merely the contempt power but also the power to create  ad hoc,  and use  the services  of,  officers  of justice must  be brought  into play.  In this very case, Dr. Chitale,  as   amicus  curiae,   was  so   authorised,  with satisfactory  results.   American   juristic   thought   has considered similar action: by courts using 595           Masters-Primarily factfinders for the court;           Receivers-Primarily  hold,  manage,  or  liquidate      property;           "Special"   Masters-responsible    for    multiple      functions such  as fashioning  a plan  and assisting in      its implementation;           Monitors-responsible     for     observing     the      implementation process and reporting to the court; and           Ombudsmen-responsible    for     hearing    inmate      complaints and  grievances,  conducting  investigations      and making recommendations to the court.      Courts  which  have  utilised  some  of  these  special      officers including;  Hamilton v  Schiro, 388  F.  Supp.      1016 (E.D.La. 1970); and, Jackson v. Hendrick 321 A. 2d      603 (Pa.  1974) (Special  Masters); Wayne County Bd. Of      Comm’rs., Civ.  Action 173271 (Cir. Ct. Of Wayne City.,      Nich., 1972)  (Monitor); and, Morales v. Turman, 364 F.      Suppl. 166 E.D. Tex 1973) (ombudsmen).           The use of special judicial officers, like the use      of the  contempt power,  holds considerable promise for      assisting  courts   in   enforcing   judicial   orders.      Hopefully, their  use will be expanded and refined over      time. These measures are needed since the condition is escalating.      The situation  in Tihar  Jail is  a reflection of crime explosion, judicial slow-motion and mechanical police action coupled with  unscientific negativity and expensive futility of the  Prison Administration.  The Superintendent  wails in court that the conditions are almost unmanageable:           (i)     Huge  overcrowding  in  the  jail.  Normal                population of  the jail remains between 2300-                2500 against 1273 sanctioned accommodation.           (ii) No  accommodation for  proper  classification                for undertrials, females, habituals, casuals,                juveniles, political prisoners etc. etc.                (iii)  Untrained   staff  of   the  Assistant                Superintendents.  Assistant   Superintendents                are posted  from other various departments of                Delhi  Admn.   viz.  Sales  Tax,  Employment,                Revenue, Civil Supplies etc., etc.           (iv) Untrained  mostly the warders guard and their                being non-transferable. 596           (v)   A long  distance from the courts of the jail                and  production   of  a   large   number   of                undertrial prisoners  roughly between 250-300

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 37  

              daily and  their receiving back into the jail                in the evening.           (vi) The  population of  the jail  having a  large                number of drugs addicts, habitual pickpockets                having regular  gangs  outside  to  lookafter                their interests  legal and  illegal both from                outside.      Other jails  may compete with Tihar to bear the palm in bad treatment  and so the problem is pan-Indian. That is why we have  been persuaded  by the learned Solicitor General to adventure into  this undiscovered territory. The Indian Bar, and may  be, the  Bar Council  of  India  and  the  academic community, must  aid the court and country in this operation Prison Justice.  In a  democracy, a  wrong to  some one is a wrong to  every one and an unpunished criminal makes society vicariously guilty.  This larger  perspective validates  our decisional range.      Before  we  crystalise  the  directions  we  issue  one paramount  thought   must  be   expressed.   The   goal   of imprisonment is  not only  punitive but restorative, to make an offender a non-offender. In Batra’s case this desideratum was stated and it is our constitutional law, now implicit in Art. 19 itself. Rehabilitation is a prized purpose of prison ’hospitalization’. A  criminal must  be cured and cruelty is not curative even as poking a bleeding wound is not healing. Social justice and social defence-the sanction behind prison deprivation-ask for  enlightened habilitative  procedures. A learned writer has said:           The only  way that  we will ever have prisons that      operate  with  a  substantial  degree  of  justice  and      fairness is  when all  concerned with that prison-staff      and prisoners  alike-share  in  a  meaningful  way  the      decision-making process,  share the  making of rule and      their  enforcement.   This  should   not   mean   three      "snitches" appointed  by the  warden to  be an  "inmate      advisory committee".  However, if  we are to instill in      people a  respect for  the democratic process, which is      now the  free  world  attempts  to  live,  we  are  not      achieving that  by forcing  people to  live in the most      etalitarian institution  that we  have in  our society.      Thus, ways  must be  developed to  involve prisoners in      the process of making decision that affect every aspect      of their life in the prison.      The Standard  Minimum Rules,  put out by United Nations agencies also  accent  on  socialisation  of  prisoners  and social defense: 597           57. Imprisonment  and other  measures which result      in   cutting off an offender from the outside world are      afflictive by  the very  fact of taking from the person      the right of self-determination by depriving him of his      liberty. Therefore  the prison  system shall not except      as  incidental   to  justifiable   segregation  or  the      maintenance  of  discipline,  aggravate  the  suffering      inherent in such a situation.           58. The  purpose of justification of a sentence of      imprisonment  or   a  similar  measure  deprivative  of      liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime.      This  end  can  only  be  achieved  if  the  period  of      imprisonment is  used to  ensure, so  far as  possible,      that upon  his return  to society  the offender  is not      only willing  but able  to lead  a law-abiding and self      supporting life.           59. To  this end,  the institution  should utilize      all the  remedial, educational,  moral,  spiritual  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 37  

    other  forces   and  forms   of  assistance  which  are      appropriate and  available, and  should seek  to  apply      them according to the individual treatment needs of the      prisoners.      Prison-processed  rehabilitation  has  been  singularly unsuccessful in  the West  and the  recidivism rate  in  our country also  bears similar  testimony:  To  get  tough,  to create more  tension, to  inflict, more cruel E; punishment, is to  promote more stress, more criminality, more desperate beastliness  and   is  self-defeating   though  soothing  to sadists. Hallock, a professor at the University of Wisconsin says:           The stresses that lead to mental illness are often      the same  stresses that  lead to  crime. Mental illness      always  has  a  maladaptive  quality,  and  criminality      usually has a maladaptive quality.      The final  panacea for  prison injustice is, therefore, more dynamic, far more positive, strategies by going back to man,  the  inner  man  The  ward-warden  relationship  needs holistic repair if prisons are, in Gandhian terms, to become hospitals, if  penology, as  modern criminologists claim, is to turn  therapeutic. The hope of society from investment in the penitentiary  actualises only  when the inner man within each man,  doing the  penance of prison life, transforms his outer values and harmonises the environmental realities with the infinite  potential of  his imprisoned being. Meditative experiments, follow-up  researches and  welcome  results  in many countries lend optimism to 598 techniques of  broadening awareness, deepening consciousness and quietening the psychic being.      It is of seminal importance to note that the Tamil Nadu Prison Reforms  Commission (1978-79)  headed  by  a  retired Chief Justice  of the  High Court  of Patna,  working with a team of  experts. has  referred with  approval to successful experiments in  Transcendental  Meditation  in  the  Madurai Central Prison:           Success has been claimed for this programme. It is      re ported  that there is "reduction of anxiety and fear      symptoms,   greater   flexibility   in   dealing   with      frustration, increased  desire to  care for others, and      ability to  interact in  group situations viz. rational      rather than  purely aggressive  means.  Some  in  mates      reported spontaneous  reduction in  clandestine use  of      alcohol and ganja; and even cigarette smoking was less.      Prison  authorities   informed  us  that  they  noticed      personality   changes in  some of  these prisoners, and      that they  now had the calm and pleasant exchanges with      these inmates.  Their behaviour  towards others  in the      prison and  relationship with  prison authorities  also      changed considerably".  There is  a proposal  to extend      this treatment  to  short  term  prisoners  also.  This      treatment may  also be  tried in  other  prisons  where      facilities exist.  A copy of the report of the Director      of the  Madurai Institute of Social Work is in Appendix      XI.      The  time  for  prison  reform  has  come  when  Indian methodology on  these lines is given a chance. We do no more than indicate  the sign  post  to  Freedom  From  Crime  and Freedom Behind  Bars as  a burgeoning  branch of therapeutic jurisprudence. All  this gains  meaning where  we  recognise that mainstreaming  prisoners into community life as willing members of  a law-abiding  society is the target. Rule 61 of the Standard Minimum Rules stresses this factor:           61. The  treatment of  prisoners should  emphasize

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 37  

    not their  exclusion  from  the  community,  but  their      continuing  part  in  it.  Community  agencies  should,      therefore, be  enlisted wherever possible to assist the      staff  of   the  institution  in  the  task  of  social      rehabilitation of  the prisoners.  There should  be  in      connection  with   every  institution   social  workers      charged with  the duty of maintaining and improving all      desirable relations  of a  prisoner with his family and      with valuable social 599      agencies. Steps  should be  taken to  safeguard, to the      minimum  extent   compatible  with   the  law  and  the      sentence,  the  rights  relating  to  civil  interests,      social security  rights and  other social  benefits  of      prisoners. It  follows   that  social   resources,  helpful  to  humane treatment and  mainstreaming, should  be ploughed in, senior law students screened by the Dean of reputed Law Schools may usefully be  deputed  to  interview  prisoners,  subject  to security and  discipline. The  grievances so gathered can be fed back  into the  procedural mechanism  viz. the  District Magistrate or  Sessions Judge.  The  Delhi  Law  School,  we indicate, should  be allowed to send selected students under the leadership  of a teacher not only for their own clinical education but  as prisoner-grievance-gathering agency. Other service  organisation,  with  good  credentials,  should  be encouraged, after  due checking for security, to play a role in the  same direction.  The Prisons  Act does  provide  for rule-making and issuance of instructions which can take care of this suggestion. Omega      The omega  of our judgment must take the shape of clear directives to  the State and prison staff by epitomising the lengthy discussion. To clinch the issue and to spell out the precise directions is the next step.      1. We  hold that  Prem Chand,  the prisoner,  has  been tortured illegally  and the  Superintendent  cannot  absolve himself from  responsibility  even  though  he  may  not  be directly a  party. Lack of vigilance is limited guilt. We do not fix the primary guilt because a criminal case is pending or in  the offing.  The State  shall take action against the investigating   police    for   the   apparently   collusive dilatoriness and  deviousness  we  have  earlier  indicated. Policing the  police is  becoming a  new ombudsmanic task of the rule of law. G      2. We  direct the  Superintendent  to  ensure  that  no corporal punishment or personal violence on Prem Chand shall be inflicted. No irons shall be forced on the person of Prem Chand  in   vindictive  spirit.   In  those  rare  cases  of ’dangerousness’ the  rule of  hearing and reasons set out by this Court  in Batra’s  case and elaborated earlier shall be complied with. 600      3.  Lawyers   nominated  by  the  District  Magistrate, Sessions Judge,  High Court  and the  Supreme Court  will be given  all   facilities  for   inter   views,   visits   and confidential  communication   with  prisoners   subject   to discipline and  security considerations.  This has  roots in the visitatorial  and supervisory judicial role. The lawyers so designated  shall be  bound to make periodical visits and record and  report to the concerned court results which have relevance to legal grievances.      4. Within  the next  three  months,  Grievance  Deposit Boxes shall  be maintained  by or  under the  orders of  the District Magistrate  and the  Sessions Judge  which will  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 37  

opened as  frequently as  is deem-d  fit and suitable action taken on  complaints made.  Access to  such boxes  shall  be accorded to all prisoners.      5. District  Magistrates  and  Sessions  Judges  shall, personally or  through surrogates,  visit prisons  in  their jurisdiction  and   afford   effective   opportunities   for ventilating  legal   grievances,  shall   make   expeditious enquiries there  into and  take suitable remedial action. In appropriate cases  reports shall  be made  to the High Court for the  latter to  initiate,  if  found  necessary,  habeas action.      It is significant to note the Tamil Nadu Prison Reforms Commission’s observations:           38.16.  Grievance   Procedure  :-This  is  a  very      important right  of a prisoner which does not appear to      have been properly considered. The rules regulating the      appointment and  duties of  non-official  visitors  and      official visitors to the prisons have been in force for      a long  time and  their primary  functions is "to visit      all parts  of the  jail and to see all prisoners and to      hear and  enquire into  any complaint that any prisoner      hear make". In practice, these rules have not been very      effective in  providing a  forum for  the prisoners  to      redress their  grievances. There are a few non-official      visitors who  take up  their duties conscientiously and      listen to  the grievances of the prisoners. But most of      them take  this appointment  solely as  Fl  a  post  of      honour and  are somewhat  reluctant to  record  hl  the      visitors’ book  any grievance of a prisoner which might      cause embarrassment  to the  prison staff. The judicial      officers, viz., 601      the Sessions Judge and the Magistrates who are also ex-      officio     visitors  do  not  discharge  their  duties      effectively.      We insist  that the judicial officers referred to by us shall carry  out their duties and responsibilities and serve as an effective grievance Mechanism.      6. No  solitary or  punitive cell,  no hard  labour  or dietary change  as painful  additive, no other punishment or denial of  privileges and  amenities, no  transfer to  other prisons with  penal consequences,  shall be  imposed without judicial appraisal  of the  Sessions Judge  and  where  such intimation, on  account of  emergency,  is  difficult,  such information shall be given within two days of the action. Conclusion      What  we   have  stated  and  directed  constitute  the mandatory part of the judgment and shall be complied with by the State.  But implicit  in the  discussion and conclusions are certain  directives for which we do not fix any specific time  limit   except  to   indicate  the  urgency  of  their implementation. We may spell out four such quasi-mandates.      1. The  State shall  take early  steps  to  prepare  in Hindi, a  Prisoner’s Handbook  and circulate copies to bring legal awareness  home to  the  k  inmates.  Periodical  jail bulletins  stating   how   improvements   and   habilitative programmes are  brought into the prison may create a fellow- ship which  Will ease  tensions. A  prisoners’  wall  paper, which will  freely ventilate  grievances  will  also  reduce stress. All  these are  implementary of s. 61 of the Prisons Act.      2. The  Slate shall  take  steps  to  keep  up  to  the Standard  Minimum   Rules   for   Treatment   of   Prisoners recommended by the United Nations, especially those relating to work  and wages, treatment with dignity community contact

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 37  

and correctional  strategies. In  this  latter  aspect,  the observations  we   have  made  of  holistic  development  of personality shall be kept in view.      3. The  Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison Manual total  overhaul, even  the Model  Manual being out of focus with  healing goals.  A  correctional-cum  orientation course is  necessitous for  the prison staff inculcating the constitutional values,  therapeutic approaches  and tension- free management. 602      4. The  prisoners’ rights  shall be  protected  by  the court by  its writ jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this  jurisdiction   viable,  free  legal  services  to  the prisoner  programmes   shall  be  promoted  by  professional organisations recognised  by the Court such as for e.g. Free Legal Aid  (Supreme Court)  Society. The District Bar shall, we re-commend, keep a cell for prisoner relief      In this  connection, it  is heartening to note that the Delhi University, Faculty of Law, has a scheme of free legal assistance even to prisoners.      The Declaration  on the  Protection of All Persons from Torture and  other cruel,  Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted  by U.  N. General  Assembly  (Resolution 3452 of  9 December  1975) has relevance to our decision. In particular-           Article 8.-Any person who alleges that he has been      subjected  to   torture  or  other  cruel,  inhuman  or      degrading  treatment   or  punishment   by  or  at  the      instigation of  a public  official shall have the right      to complain  to,  and  to  have  his  case  impartially      examined by,  the competent  authorities of  the  State      concerned.           Article 9.-Wherever  there is reasonable ground to      believe that  an act of torture as defined in article I      has been  committed, the  competent authorities  of the      State concerned  shall promptly proceed to an impartial      investigation  even   if  there   has  been  no  formal      complaint. Dr. Chitale  has handed up to us an American Civil Liberties Union Hand-book  on the Rights of Prisoners. It rightly sets the sights of prison justice thus :           As an  institution, our  penal and  "correctional"      system  is   an  abject   failure.  The  conditions  in      America’s   jails    and   prisons   virtually   ensure      psychological impairment and physical deterioration for      thousands of  men and  women each year. Reformation and      rehabilitation    is     the    rhetoric;    systematic      dehumanization is  the  reality.  Public  attention  is      directed 603 only  sporadically   toward  the  subhuman  conditions  that prevail in  these institutions, and usually only because the prisoners  themselves   have  risked   many  more  years  in confinement,  and   in  some  cases  even  their  lives,  to dramatize their situation by protest.      The ’central  evil’ of  prison life,  according to this handbook,  is   "the  unreviewed  administrative  discretion granted to  the poorly  trained personnel  who deal directly with prisoners.  Moreover, even  those rights  which are now guaranteed  by  the  courts  are  often  illusory  for  many prisoners. Implementation  and enforcement  of these  rights rest primarily  in the hands of prison officials. Litigation is  costly   and  time-  consuming,  and  few  lawyers  have volunteered their  service in  this area.  Thus  even  those minimal rights  which appear  on paper  are often in reality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 37  

denied. "  We conclude  with the hope that the State, though preoccupied with  many pressing problems, will discharge its constitutional   obligation   to   the   invisible   mortals incarcerated by  it and  legislatively and  administratively re-make a  Prison Code  adhering to  the high  values of the Preamble. Over a hundred years ago (1870)-           "  ....   some  American   prison   administrators      assembled to  discuss their common problems and founded      what is  now the  American Correctional Association. At      the very first meeting, these remarkable men set down a      justly famous ’Statement of Twenty-two Principles."           Among the twenty-two were these:           "Reformation, not  vindictive suffering, should be      the purpose  of the  penal treatment  of prisoners. The      prisoner should  be made to realize that his destiny is      in his own hands:           Prison discipline  should be  such as  to gain the      will of the prisoner and conserve his self-respect:           The  aim   of  the   prison  should   be  to  make      industrious free  men rather  than orderly and obedient      prisoners. This  quote   from  the   well-known  work   "The  Crime  of Punishment" extracted  by George  Ellis in  his book "Inside Folsom Prison: Trans- 604 cendental mediation  and TM-Sidhi  Program" is  notable as a practicable  project   which  will   reduce  the  number  of prisoners by raising the nature of prisoners.      In the  package of benign changes needed in our prisons with a  view to  reduce  tensions  and  raise  the  pace  of rehabilitation, we  have referred  to acclimatization of the community life  and  elimination  of  sex  vice  vis  a  vis prisoner we have also referred to the unscientific mixing up in practice  of under-trials,  young offenders and long-term convicts. This  point deserves  serious attention.  A recent book "Rape in Prison" states :           "One of  the most  horrendous aspects  of  a  jail      sentence is the fact that not only are the young housed      with the  older offenders,  but  those  awaiting  trial      share the  same  quarters  as  convicted  inmates.  The      latter individuals  have  little  to  lose  in  seeking      sexual gratification  through assault, for they have to      serve their  time any  way .. As matters now stand, sex      is unquestionable  the  most  pertinent  issue  to  the      inmates’ life behind bars. . . There is a great need to      utilize the  furlough system  in corrections.  Men with      record showing  good behaviour  should be  released for      week ends at home with their Families and relatives.      Farewell to this case is not final so far as the jailor and the  police investigator  are concerned. The former will stand his  trial and  shall receive  justice. We say no more here. The  investigator  invites  our  displeasure  and  the Assistant Public  Prosecutor, whom  he consulted,  makes  us unhappy since  we have  had a perusal of the case diary. The crime alleged is simple, the material relied on is short and yet,  despite  repeated  observations  from  the  Bench  the investigator has  delayed  dawdily  the  completion  of  the collection of  evidence and  the laying of the charge-sheet. The  prisoner   who  is   the  victim  has  been  repeatedly questioned  under   different  surroundings   and  divergent statements are  recorded. We  do not  wish to  state what we consider to be the obvious inference, but we are taken aback when the  Assistant Public  Prosecutor has  given an opinion which, if we make presumption in his favour, 605

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 37  

shows indifferences  and, if  we make  contrary  inferences, makes us  suspect. When  offences are  alleged to have taken place within  the prison,  there should be no tinge or trace of departmental  collusion or  league between the police and the prison staff. We make these minimal observations so that the State may be alerted for appropriate action. Surely, The conduct of  the prosecution  cannot be  entrusted to one who has condemned it in advance. B      We allow  the petition  and direct  a  writ  to  issue, including the  six mandates and further order that a copy of it be  sent for  suitable action  to the  Ministry  of  Home Affairs and  to  all  the  State  Governments  since  Prison Justice has pervasive relevance. C      PATHAK, J.-I  have read  the judgment  prepared  by  my learned brother.  For my  part, I  think  it  sufficient  to endorse the following finding and direction detailed towards the end of the judgment:           (1)   The prisoner,  Prem Chand, has been tortured                while in  custody in  the Tihar  Jail.  As  a                criminal case  is in  the offing  or  may  be                pending,  it   is  not   necessary  in   this                proceeding  to   decide  who  is  the  person                responsible for inflicting the torture.           (2)  The Superintendent of the Jail is directed to                ensure  that   no  punishment   or   personal                violence is inflicted on Prem Chand by reason                of  the  complaint  made  in  regard  to  the                torture visited on him.      Besides this, I am in general agreement with my learned brother on  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. N.V.K.                             Petition allowed 607