Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
P.D. Desai, C.J. and H.S. Thakur. J.
Nawal Kishore Thakur-Petitioner
versus
Brahmu Ram - Respondent
Cr.-Writ Petition No. 20 of 1984
Decided on 10-7-84
Counsel for the parties
Petition filed through jail-For the Petitioner.
P.N. Nag, Advocate-For the Respondent
IMPORTANT POINT
Convicts are not, by mere reasons of the conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which otherwise possess.
Headnote:Constitution of India, Art, 1950 - 21/14 and Provision of Paragraph 702 and explanation to Paragraph 701 of the superintendence and management of Jails in the Punjab (The Manual)-petitioner was a 'B' class prisoner-He challenged the provisions of paragraph 702 r/w the explanation 703 of the Superintendence and Management of Jails in the Punjab (The Manual)-as these provision were violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and because of these provision prisoners were required to carry buckets of water to the residence of the Jail officers Whether the contention was rightly raised? (Yes) (Paras 2 and 3)
Held, Under the circumstances the operation of paragraph 702 and the Explanation to paragraph 703 of the Manual was suspended with immediate effect. The State Govt. was directed to issue instruction forthwith to all jail authorities in the state not to take from any prisoner the work of the nature contemplated by these provisions. (Para 3)
Result: Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
P.O. Desai, C.J. The petitioner is entitled to facilities as a B-Class prisoner. On behalf of the authorities, an affidavit dated July 4, 1984 and a statement under the signatures of Assistant Superintendent of Jail and Deputy Inspector General of Prisons have been filed showing the facilities provided to the petitioner in accordance with his status as a B-Class prisoner.
Let copies of the affidavit together with the anoexures and the statement be forwarded to the petitioner. He is at liberty to make further submissions in writing, if any, in regard to the affidavit and/or the statement, in so far as the question of furnishing the requisite facilities is concerned. Adjourned to July 30, 1984.
The petitioner's grievence with regard to his solitary confinement between 12 Noon to 2 P.M. daily has also been dealt with in the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner will be at liberty to deal with this aspect of the matter also in his further submissions, if any.
2. The petitioner's allegation that his two co-prisoners are being required to carry buckets of water to the residences of the Jail Officers is admitted in that: affidavit-in-reply. It has ,been admitted that Amar Singh and Keshav Ram, who are undergoing sentences of rigorous imprisonment, have been detailed to supply water to the quarters occupied by the. Jail Officers. Reliance has been placed in the said affidavit upon the provisions of Paragraph 102 read with the Explanation to Paragraph 703 of the Superintendence and Management of Jails in the Punjab; as applicable to Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Manual"), in order to justify the services being taken accordingly from the two prisoners.
Paragraph 702 of the Manual reads as under:
"Small detachments of the sweeper and water-carrier gangs may be permitted to clean out and supply water to the quarters occupied by jail officers (except those of the Superintendent), twice a day; each house shall be visited in turn and the prisoners not allowed to separate or lag behind."
Paragraph 703 reads as under:
"No prisoner shall at any time be employed by any officer of the jail. or other person, on any private work or service of any kind whatsoever:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit the employment of any prisoner on any work carried on within the walls of the jail in the ordinary course of any jail industry, with the knowledge and permission of the Superintendent and subject to the payment of the usual charges for such work.
Explanation: For the purposes of this rule "private work" does not include the supplying of water to, or the cleansing of the quarters occupied by any subordinate officer under the orders of the Superintendent."
The Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly observed that Fundamental Rights do not flee a person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration. In other words, convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all the Fundamental Rights which they otherwise possess. Whether inside prison or outside, a person is not deprived of his guaranteed freedoms save by methods right, just and fair.
Provisions such as those made in Paragraph 702 read with the Explanation to Paragraph 703 of the Manual are, prima facie, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution because they could be regarded as an infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense without prescribing in respect thereof by law a procedure which is right, just, fair and reasonable. In fact, those provisions involve forced labour for a prisoner because no payment is contemplated to be made for such work, although, for other work within the jail, which could be classified as jail industry, payment at the usual rate is required to be made. Employment of a prisoner for such private work of menial nature against his will and without remuneration also offends human dignity which again is infraction of life and liberty as understood in its
