http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: KISHOR SINGH RAVINDER DEV ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/11/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1981 AIR  625            1981 SCR  (1) 995  1981 SCC  (1) 503

ACT:      Prisons  Act,  1894-Section  Keeping  of  Prisoners  in solitary confinement  and putting  bar fetters for loitering and insolent  behaviour-Validity of  Natural  Justice-Prison authorities, if  should give  an opportunity  of being heard before imposing punishment on prisoners.

HEADNOTE:      One of  the petitioners,  in a  telegram to  one of the Judges of  this Court  complained of  insufferable,  illegal solitary confinement. He also complained that he was kept in iron fetters  alongwith the  other two  petitioners.  By  an order of this Court, the petitioners were directed to be set free from solitary confinement and brought before the Court. When the  prisoners  were  brought  before  the  Court  they alleged that,  while in  transit, violence  had been used by the escort  police on  the person  of one of the petitioners resulting in  deep wounds  on his person. The Superintendent of Prisons who was present in the Court was directed to take special care of the prisoner after giving him proper medical treatment.      Allowing the petition ^      HELD: 1.  Article 21  would become dysfunctional unless the  agencies   of  the   law  in   the  police  and  prison establishments have  sympathy for the humanist creed of that Article. The  State must  re-educate the  police  and  ,  F, inculcate a  respect for  the human  person. If  any of  the escort were  found  to  have  misconducted  themselves  they should be given condign punishment. [999G, D, E]      2. By  keeping the prisoners in separate solitary rooms for long periods ranging from 8 to 11 months, putting cross- bar fetters  for several  days  on  the  flimsy  grounds  of loitering in  the prison,  behaving insolently  and in  and; uncivilised manner  the prison  authorities  have  acted  in utter disregard of the mandate of this Court in Sunil Batra. [1000D-E]      3. The  Jail Superintendent’s version that he had given a hearing  to the  prisoners before punishing them cannot be believed. Neither  section 46 of the Prisons Act nor Rule 79 of the  Rajasthan Prison Rules can be read in the absolutist expansionism, the  Prison Authorities  would like them to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

read. That  would virtually  mean  that  prisoners  are  not persons to  be  dealt  with  at  the  mercy  of  the  prison echelons. Articles  14, 19 and 21 operate within the prisons in the  manner explained  in Sunil Batra. A separate Cell is not different from solitary confinement. [1001, 1002G-H]      (i)  If special  restrictions of  a punitive  or  harsh           character  have   been  imposed   for   convincing           security reasons,  it is  necessary to comply with           natural justice as indicated in Sunil Batra. There           must be  an appeal  from a  prison authority  to a           judicial organ  when such  treatment is meted out.           [1003A] 996      (ii) Section  46 of  the Prisons Act and Rules 1(f) and           79  of  the  Rajasthan;  Prison  Rules  are  valid           subject to  the directions  given by this Court in           Rakesh Kaushik. [1003G]       (iii) The  Sessions Judges  in the  State of Rajasthan           should remember the rulings of this Court in Sunil           Batra 1  and 11 and Rakesh Kaushik and act in such           manner that  judicial authority over sentences and           the conditions  of  their  incarceration  are  not           eroded by judicial in-action. [1004A]      Sunil Batra  v. Delhi  Administration [1979]  1 SCR 392 Sunil Batra  v Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR 557, Rakesh Kaushik v.  B. L.  Vig, Superintendents  Central  jail,  New Delhi [1980] 3 S.C.R. 929. applied.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5287 of 1980.           (Under Article 32 of the Constitution).      P. H. Parekh, Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner.      B. D. Sharma for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER, J.-The moral of this case is poignant: So long  as  an  iron  curtain  divides  the  law  set  by  the Constitution and  lit by  the Supreme Court from the minions of the  State, so  long shall  this Court’s  writ  remain  a mystic myth  and harmless half-truth making law in the books and law-in-action distant neighbours. This shall not be.      The sombre  scenario unfurled  by  this  habeas  corpus proceeding begins  with  a  telegram  (dated  3-10-1980)  on behalf  of  the  prisoners-the  petitioners-to  one  of  us, complaining, manu  brevi, of  insufferable, illegal solitary confinement punctuated  by periods  of iron  fetters, a  lot shared by  two others  with him in Jaipur Central Jail. This trauma-laden message reads:           "Convict Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev Pareek Surjeet      Singh  Central  Jail  Jaipur  confined  in  cells  with      fetters illegally  unconstitutionally more  than  eight      months habeas corpus writ prayed order enquiry and save      .. Daulat Singh"      This grievance  of the  prisoners  in  ’twisted  gyves’ triggered off  judicial action with telegraphic speed, as it were, and the Bench directed that the prisoners be forthwith liberated from  solitary confinement  and freed from fetters in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra’s case. That order dated October 6, 1980 reads :-      "We appoint Shri P. H. Parekh as amicus curiae, 997           If the  petitioner is  in solitary confinement, he      will be released from solitary confinement forthwith in      the light  of the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Sunil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    Batra’s case.  The Superintendent  of the  Central Jail      concerned will  report to  this Court  on 21st  October      1980 the number of cases with particulars of persons in      solitary confinement  in that prison. He will appear in      person on  that date.  Notice to  Shri  B.  D.  Sharma,      Standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan. Counsel’s services,  under our  litigative  process,  are  a necessary facility  for remedial justice and so we took this step of  appointing Shri  P. H. Parekh as amount curiae. The whole bar,  if it has a larger dedication, is amicus curiae, because no  cause should  be dearer  to  a  people-oriented, justice-centred  profession,  despite  its  esoteric  genes, elitist strands  and lucrative  slant, than to be a decisive actor in  the democracy of judicial remedies so that no man- be he poor man or prisoner, dissenter, delinquent, eccentric or extremist-shall  suffer what  the law  forbids.  In  this Court, the  members of  the bar,  whenever called  up by the bench have  kept the  door ajar  and unfailingly  helped the Court  as   free  janitors  of  justice  and  free  forensic functionaries  at  the  service  of  any  one  aggrieved  by injustice and  seeking legal  justice. After  all, the great proposition that  inspires the  calling of  justicing-by the Bench and  the Bar  alike-is best  expressed by  Dr.  Martin Luther King (Jr) in his letter from Alabama Prison :           Injustice  anywhere   is  a   threat  to   justice      everywhere. We  are caught in an inescapable network of      mutuality,  tied   in  a  single  garment  of  destiny.      Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.      We must,  even here,  record our  appreciation of  Shri Parekh’s passion  for  the  prisoners’  cause  coupled  with pains-taking presentation of the grievances they had. So too Shri B.  D. Sharma’s  commitment  to  jail  justice,  beyond jailor’s injustice  i.e. his  client’s brief. In retrospect, we feel  it was  right that we took quick action to liberate the three prisoners from their callously lonely, barbarously fettered solitary  custody. Justice  must be  instant and it has been wisely said: "Caution, caution, sir ! It is nothing but The word of cowardice ! Where human bondage and personal torture are  involved, to  wait is  to defeat.  In  personal liberty  jurisprudence,   this  court  has  not  tarried  or teetered and  shall not.  The reason is clear. The writ must right the  wrong forthwith  or must  stand self-condemned as make-believe. Where justice is in jeopardy 998 or freedom  is in  fetters the  court is not non-aligned and acts with  sensitive speed.  Time is  of the  essence  where otherwise torture is the consequence.      The order of this court dated 6-10-1980 brought counsel on both  sides into  the scene,  set free the prisoners from the hateful  ’solitary’ and  summoned before us the presence of the  Superintendent dent  of the  Prison on 21-10-1980 to answer for  his breach  of the  fundamental law laid down in Sunil Batra  On that  day, i.e.  21-10-1980, after  a  brief hearing, we directed:           "The respondent  will file  a  detailed  affidavit      giving particulars  and also  produce  the  proceedings      relating to  the enquiry  held  resulting  in  solitary      confinement. The  prisoner will  be produced  on 24-10-      1980 in  this Court  and Shri Parekh will be allowed to      interview him." Pursuant to  this order,  the  Superintendent  of  the  Jail submitted his explanation for what in the light of the Batra (supra) ratio,  is unlaw.  We will  presently  consider  the conduct of  the delinquent  jailor but  the more  disturbing episode brought  to our  painful  notice  was  the  violence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

allegedly used  by the  escort police  on the  person of one prisoner, Surjeet  Singh, while  in transit and testified to by the  visible wounds counsel found. Shri Parekh shocked us into shame  by seeking  lo show  us  the  physical  injuries inflicted. If  the writ  of this  court brings a person from the Jaipur  Prison to  judicial presence  can it  be that  a little set  of constables in custody during transit violate, with brazen  brutality, and  criminal immunity the person of their charges and the hands of the law hang limp in the face of such lawlessness ?           "Justice  without   power  is  inefficient;  power      without justice  is tyranny..  Justice and  power  must      therefore be brought together, so that whatever is just      may be  powerful, and  what ever  is  powerful  may  be      just." (Blaise Pascal) So, we ordered:           "We are  very disturbed to be told by Shri Parekh,      amicus curiae  that one of the prisoners, Surjeet Singh      while  being   taken  to   this  Court  was  manhandled      severely. Counsel says that there are bruises and other      signs of  injuries on his person. The Superintendent of      the Jail,  who is  present in  Court, will take special      care to  see that  this prisoner  is  taken  to  Jaipur      safely.  The  Superintendent  will  take  the  prisoner      Surjeet Singh  to Ram  Manohar Lohia Hospital today for      examination of the prisoner 999      and also for proper treatment which may be suggested by      the Doctor in the Hospital. In the light of the medical      report the  Superintendent will  lay first  information      before  the   Police  Station   concerned  against  the      constables who  are the  escorting police.  It will  be      open to  the prisoner  himself to  lay a  complaint and      facilities will  be afforded by the prison authorities.      We make it clear that the investigation should not have      the slightest taint of departmental inclination to help      a policeman  if there  is evidence  of  delinquency.  A      report will  be put into this Court about what has been      done, by 31-10-1980."      Thereafter, the  medical report,  of which we have been apprised by  Shri Parekh,  the report against the constables concerned, reported  Jo us  by Shri Sharma, are taking their course. We  do not  make any observations thereon as that is the subject  of a separate enquiry. Even so, no police life- style which  relies more  on fists than on writs, on torture more than  on culture,  can  control  crime,  because  means boomerang on  ends and  re-fuel the  vice which, it seeks to extinguish.  Secondly,   the  State   must  re-educate   the constabulary out  of their  sadistic arts  and  inculcate  a respect for the human person-a process which must begin more by example  than by precept if the lower rungs are really to emulate. Thirdly, if any of these escort policemen are found to  have   misconducted  themselves,   no  sense  of  police solidarity  or   in-service   comity   should   induce   the authorities to hide the crime. Condign action, quickly taken is surer guarantee of community credence than bruiting about that ’all is well with the police, the critics are always in the wrong’. Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person  in police  custody being  beaten  up  and  nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official  running berserk  regardless of human rights. We believe  the basic  pathology which  makes police cruelty possible will  receive Government’s  serious attention.  Who will police  the police?  What  psychic  stress  and  social deprivation of  the constabulary’s lifestyle need corrective

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

healings ? When will ’wits, not fists’ become a police kit ? When will the roots of ’third degree’ be plucked out and the fresh shoots  of humanist  respect put  out? We  make  these observations in  the humane  hope that  Art.  21,  with  its profound  concern   for   life   and   limb,   will   become dysfunctional unless  the agencies  of the law in the police and prison  establishments have  sympathy for  the  humanist creed of that Article.      This Court  has frowned  upon  handcuffs  save  in  the ’rarest of  rare’ cases  where security  will  be  seriously jeopardized unless  iron restraint is necessarily clamped on the prisoner. We are heartened to know that there are States where escorting is done with civility 1000 and humanity.  For instance,  para 443  of the Kerala Police Manual. 1970, Vol. II, reads :           "443. (1)  The use  of hand-cuffs  or ropes causes      humiliation to  the person  subjected to the restraint,      and is  contrary to  the modern  policy  regarding  the      treatment of  offenders. Therefore,  handcuffing and/or      binding shall  be restricted to cases where a person in      custody is of a desperate character, or where there are      reasons to believe that he will use violence or attempt      to escape  or where  there are  other  similar  reasons      necessitating such a step. We mention this here since policemen who beat those in their custody may with easy conscience handcuff and footcuff their charges, a course contrary to Art. 21.      The harrowing facts, in substantial measure emerge even from the statement of the case by the State. The petitioners have admittedly  been kept  in separate  solitary rooms  for long periods  from 8  months to 11 months-spells long enough to be  regarded as  barbarous if Sunil Batra’s (supra) is to prevail. Admittedly,  cross-bar fetters  were put in Kishore Singh for  several days  and on  Surjeet Singh  for 30 days- counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that flimsy grounds like  "loitering in the prison", behaving insolently and in  an "uncivilised"  manner  tearing  off  his  history ticket, were the foundation for the torturesome treatment of solitary confinement and cross-bar fetters. We have read the affidavit   of   the   Superintendent   and   feel   utterly unsatisfied, that  the mandate  in Sunil  Batra (supra)  has been  obeyed.  This  ease  and  the  uncivilised  orders  of cellular solitude and traumatic fetters compels us to repeat what we stated earlier in Sunil Batra (11).           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:           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  (3), titled "People in Prison", stated with telling effect: 1001           A society that believes in the worth of individual      beings   can have  the quality of its belief judged, at      least in  part,  by  the  quality  of  its  prison  and      probation services  and of the resources made available      to them. We do  not accept  the Superintendent’s  version that he had given a hearing to the prisoners before punishing them It is a self-defensive  pretence and  perhaps the  only  veracious alibis available  to him  are that  the vintage Prison Rules

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

(Rule l(f)  Part 16  and Rule  79 of  the  Rajasthan  Prison Rules, 1951)  support the  administrative absolutism  of the prison boss  and more  to the  point as  counsel Shri Sharma candidly stated.  The Superintendent  was ’innocent’  of the benign  prescriptions   in  Sunil  Batra  (11)  decision(1). Indeed, Shri  Sharma, convincingly  persuaded us  to take  a lenient view  of the  delinquency of  the Superintendent  by emphasising that  he had  taken  the  Prison  Superintendent through the effective exercise of reading and explaining the Batra rulings  and assuring  us that  no  more  of  solitary confinement disguised  as "keeping  in  separate  cell"  and imposition of fetters will take place, save in the rarest of rare cases  and with  strict  adherence  to  the  procedural safeguards contained in the decisions of this Court relating to the  punishment of prisoners. We accept the bona fides of the prison  official but emphasise that violation of Art. 21 as interpreted  by this  Court in  its recent  decisions, if repeated, will  be visited  with more  serious consequences. Even so,  we will  refer  to  the  scripture  relied  on  as absolvent of the sin complained of and reiterate Tersely the mandatory prescriptions  and prescriptions  implicit in Art. 21 and elucidated by case-law.      Rules 79  and 1(f)  of Part VI of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, may be extracted here:           79.  "Special   Precautions  for   security:   The      Superintendent shall  use his  discretion  in  ordering      such special  precautions as  may be  necessary  to  be      taken for  the  security  of  any  important  prisoner,      whether he has received any warning from the Magistrate      or not, as the Superintendent is the sole Judge of what      measures are  necessary for  the safe  custody  of  the      prisoners; he shall be held responsible for seeing that      precautions taken  are reasonably  sufficient  for  the      purpose.           1 (f)  Cells may  be used  for the  confinement of      convicted criminal  prisoners who are in the opinion of      the Superintendent,  likely to exercise a bad influence      over other prisoners, if kept in their association. 1002 These Rules were framed under s. 46 of the Prisons Act which also may be read at this stage:           46. The  Superintendent  may  examine  any  person      touching any  such offence, and determine thereupon and      punish such offence by ......           (6)   imposition of  handcuffs of such pattern and                weight, in  such manner  and for such period,                as may  be prescribed  by rules  made by  the                Governor General in Council;           (7)   imposition of  fetters of  such pattern  and                weight in such manner and for such period, as                may  be  prescribed  by  the  rules  made  by                Governor General in Council;           (8)   separate  confinement  for  any  period  not                exceeding three months;           Explanation.-Separate   confinement   means   such           confinement with  or without  labour as secludes a           prisoner from  communication with,  but  not  from           sight of other prisoners, and allows, him not less           than one  hour’s exercise per diem and to have his           meals  in  association  with  one  or  more  other           prisoners;                ................           (9)   Cellular confinement  means such confinement                with or without labour as entirely secludes a                prisoner from  communication  with,  but  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

              from sight of other prisoners;      We cannot  agree that  either the  Section or the Rules can be  read  in  the  absolutist  expansionism  the  prison authorities would like us to read. That would virtually mean that prisoners are non persons to be dealt with at the mercy of the  prison echelons.  This country  has no  totalitarian territory even  within the  walled  world  we  call  prison. Articles 14,  19 and  21 operate  within the  prisons in the manner  explained.   in  Sunil   Batra  (I)  (supra),  by  a Constitution Bench of this Court. It is significant that the two opinions  given separately  in that  judgment  agree  in spirit and substance, in reasoning and conclusions. Batra in that case was stated to be in a separate confinement and not solitary cell.  An identical  plea has been put forward here too. For  the reasons  given in  Sunil Batra’s  case we must overrule the  extenuatory submission that a separate cell is different from  solitary confinement.  The petitioners will, therefore, be  entitled Jo  move within  the confines of the prison like  others  undergoing  rigorous  imprisonment.  If special restrictions 1003 of a  punitive or  harsh character  have to  be imposed  for convincing security  reasons, it is necessary to comply with natural justice  as indicated in Sunil Batra case. Moreover, there must  be an appeal not from Caeser to Caeser, but from a prison  authority to  a judicial organ when such treatment is meted out.      Sobraj in  the same  case (Sunil Batra, supra) was kept in fetters  and reasons  more persuasive than in the present case were  put forward  in  defence.  This  Court,  however, directed "such  fetters  shall  forthwith  be  removed".  Of course, we  do not  place any  absolute ban  but insist that only in  extreme cases  of compelling necessity for security of other  prisoners or  against escape can such fettering be resorted  to.   Human  dignity   is  a  dear  value  of  our Constitution not  to be bartered away for mere apprehensions entertained by  jail officials.  The latter decision of this Court in  Sunil Batra  11 clothes  with flesh  and blood the principles laid  down in  Sunil Batra (I) (supra). In Rakesh Kaushik the  position  has  advanced  further  and  concrete directions have  been issued  which we  extract here because the law  laid down by this Court applies not to one State or the other but to all national institutions in the country:           "(2)  He   will  further  enquire,  with  specific      reference  to  the  charges  of  personal  assault  and      compulsion for  collaboration in  canteen  swindle  and      other  vices   made  by   the  prisoner   against   the      Superintendent and the Dy. Superintendent.           (3) He will go into the question of the directives      issued in  the concluding portion of Sunil Batra’s case      (W.P. 1009/79)  with a  view to ascertain whether these      directions have been substantially complied with and to      the extent  there is shortfall or default whether there      is any reasonable explanation therefor.           (4) Being a Visitor of the jail, it is part of his      visitatorial  functions   for  the  Sessions  Judge  to      acquaint himself  with the  condition of  tension, vice      and violence and prisoners’ grievances ........... We hold  that the  jail authorities in Rajasthan will comply with the  principles so  laid down.  We read  down s. 46 and Rules 1(f)  and 79 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules and sustain them in this limited fashion 1004      We direct  the Respondents  to act accordingly. Further we remind that the Sessions Judges in the State of Rajasthan

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

to remember  the rulings of this Court in Sunil Batra I & 11 and Rakesh  Kaushik (supra)  and act  in  such  manner  that judicial authority  over sentences  and  the  conditions  of their incarceration are not eroded by judicial in-action.      We  find   that  the   old  rules   and  circulars  and instructions  issued   under  the   Prisons  Act   are  read incongruously with  the Constitution. especially Art. 21 and interpretation put  upon it  by this  Court. We.  therefore, direct the State Government of Rajasthan-and indeed, all the other  State  Governments  in  the  country-to  convert  the rulings of  this Court bearing on Prison Administration into rules and  instructions forthwith  so that  violation of the prisoners’  freedoms   can  be  avoided  and  habeas  corpus litigation may  not proliferate. After all, human rights are as much cherished by the State as by the citizen.      Since the  petitioners have been released from separate confinement and from cross-bar fetters and since counsel for the State  has assured  us that  nothing  will  be  done  in violation of the propositions set out in the catena of cases of this court (Sunil Batra I & 11 and Rakesh Kaushik (supra) ), we  deem it  unnecessary to  give any  further directives pursuant to this habeas corpus application. N.V.K.    Petition allowed. 1005