Prisoners’ Rights and Liberties – A Legal Analysis

“If the prisoner is beaten, it is an arrogant expression of fear.”

― Ghassan Kanafani, All That’s Left to You: A Novella and Short Stories

Whilst the Apex Court is commandeered with the subject about barbaric circumstances of prisoners in jails in India, much by its overcrowding, the dearth of practice, personnel and infrastructure and is contemplating with the states’ and centre’s administrations to refine such circumstances; medication of prisoners in India is tragic and confidentially transgressive of fundamental as well as statutory liberties of a person. To improve the ailment, the rights of prisoners must be laid in a two-page bullet-pointed physical and disseminated to captives, at the moment of their detention or generation before a judge and also while lodging in the prisons. Such liberties, unless they are given birth to and carried out in each junction and the whole perimeter of the prism, is a nullity and deception of compassionate belief on the criminal righteousness discharge network.

In the case of famed Charles Sobraj through Marie Andre’s vs. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978), Supreme Court Justice Krishna Aiyer held:

“..imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, Courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of Part III enjoyed by a free citizen”.

He further held that detention of a prisoner is not simply retaliation but also restoration. He observed:

“Social defence is the raison d’etre of the Penal Code and bears upon judicial control over prison administration. If a whole atmosphere of constant fear of violence, frequent torture and denial of opportunity to improve oneself is created or if medical facilities and basic elements of care and comfort necessary to sustain life are refused, then also the humane jurisdiction of the Court will become operational based on Article 19. Other forms of brutal unreasonableness and anti-rehabilitative attitude violative of constitutionality may be thought of in a penal system but we wish to lay down only a broad guideline that where policies, with a ‘Zoological touch’, which do not serve valid penal objectives are pursued in penitentiaries so as to inflict conditions so unreasonable as to frustrate the ability of inmates to engage in rehabilitation, the Court is not helpless. However, a prison system may make rational distinctions in making assignments to inmates of vocational, educational and work opportunities available, but it is constitutionally impermissible to do so without a functional classification system.”

Numerous fundamental liberties under Article, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India pact with the freedoms of prisoners. Article 20 pacts, inter alia, with two aspects, first, it forbids double jeopardy – no self should be found guilty for a similar offence twice. Secondly, it restricts self-incrimination – no one can be constrained to be a bystander against himself.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964), where the Court expatiated the definition of the term ‘life’ under Article 21:

“Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends 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.”

In Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra (1983) whereon a journalist’s petition the Apex Court put up with cognisance of the issue respecting the ill-treatment and impoverished situations of the prisoners in the prison and handed out distinct orientations:

1. That inquiry of women should be accomplished solely in the existence of female police officers/constables.
2. Whenever an individual is charged by the police without a subpoena, he must be instantly notified of the grounds of his detention and in case of every detention, it must shortly be formulated learned to the arrested individual that he is authorized to apply for bail.
3. That whenever a person is imprisoned by the authority and put up with the police lock-up, the police will instantly provide an inkling of the fact of such detention to the closest Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid Committee will take instantaneous strides to deliver legal aid to the imprisoned person at State cost procured he is inclined to ratify such legal aid.
4. That as quickly as an individual is indicted, the police must shortly attain from him the name of any close or pal whom he would like to be notified about his arrest and the police should get in touch with such relative or friend and acquaint him about the arrest.
5. That the judge before whom an arrested person is elicited shall enquire from the arrested person whether he has any objection of distress or maltreatment in police detention and notify him that he has right under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to be medically

In Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and Others (2008), where the pleader, who was an undertrial captive for more than 10 years against whom 48 criminal lawsuits were filed, moved toward Supreme Court for his fundamental rights’ enforcement. The Apex Court held that he must be acquitted on bail so that he can give rise to configurations for the reimbursement of the portion and also defend cases enrolled against him.

The Prisons Act, 1894 authorized for the functioning of the penitentiaries, furnishes special statutory liberties to the convicts.

Section 4 of the Prisons Act provides for accommodation and sanitary conditions for prisoners.

1. Section 7 furnishes for haven and safe detention of the superfluous number of captives who cannot be safely conserved in any prison.
2. Section 24(2) delivers for the inspection of prisoners by competent medical administrator.
3. Section 31 submits for alienation of prisoners incorporating male and female captives, civil and criminal captives and convicted and undertrial captives.
4. Section 33 delivers that every civil and unconvicted prisoner, not able to furnish himself with adequate apparel and bedding, shall be provided with the same.
5. Section 35 submits for the medication of undertrials, civil prisoners, parole and provisional discharge of prisoners.
6. Section 37 submits that a prisoner must be delivered with a medical administrator if he is in the necessity or if he comes off out of temperament in mind or body.

In the period of the ethical receptive community where the liberties are provided much more tendencies, the theory of open prisons is achieving acceleration. It was recently drawn to the report of the Apex Court that there are sixty-three open jails in a distinct fraction of the nation, but the prevailing potential is not being completely employed. The jails are no longer recognized as a spot to establish deterrence but are observed as a spot of restoration and so the notion of open-jails fiddles a significant part. It is established on the notion of socialization of the labourers with the outside world so that they can rejuvenate.