Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Bishal Das and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others - Respondents
WPA No. 12098 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
PRISON CONDITIONS - PROTECTION OF RIGHTS - TRANSFER OF PRISONERS - MEDICAL CARE - INTERVIEWS WITH RELATIVES AND LAWYERS - SECTION 32(1) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTIONS 46(8) AND 46(10) OF THE PRISONS ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4(H) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - MODEL PRISON MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS IN INDIA, 2016 - RULE 25(1) OF THE NELSON MANDELA RULES - SECTION 4(E) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 5(2) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 6(3) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 40(1) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 79(C) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 64 OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 3 OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - RULE 616 OF THE WEST BENGAL JAIL CODE - EXPLANATION TO SECTION 79 OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 75(1) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 51(1) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - SECTION 51(2) OF THE WEST BENGAL CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 1992 - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 3 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR), 1948 - ARTICLE 9 OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR), 1966 - RULE 1 OF THE UNITED NATIONS STANDARD MINIMUM RULES FOR TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (THE NELSON MANDELA RULES) - ARTICLE 2.05 (VIII) OF THE MODEL PRISON MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS IN INDIA, 2016
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, under-trial prisoners for over three years, are being held in custody in connection with different offences, being co-accused in a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (1st), Hooghly on charges of kidnapping and murder. They are being held in the Chinsurah District Correctional Home at Hooghly. They allege that they are being confined together in a single cell, under unfavourable conditions which according to them are prejudicial to their human rights recognized by the Constitution of India, the prevalent prison laws of India and other national and international instruments. Secondly, the petitioners allege that they are regularly restricted from meeting their relatives and advocates. Thirdly, the petitioners are not given proper medical attention. Despite several requests, the living conditions of the petitioners are not being improved in any manner by the Jail Authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners' confinement in a single cell is not solitary confinement, but rather "seclusion". The petitioners' argument that they may be kept with other under-trials, who may belong to rival gangs, has to give way to the views of the jail authorities, who are in charge of maintaining discipline and security in the prison. However, the court directs that Medical Officers of the Hooghly District Correctional Home regularly check-up the physical and mental health of the prisoners. Routine check-ups both on the psychiatric and physical fronts much be undertaken for every prisoner housed in the said correctional home, including the petitioners, at least once every two months and necessary medical facilities be extended to them, in the event so required, over and above the medical check-ups. The jail authorities shall also ensure that basic amenities are available to the prisoners.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' confinement in a single cell amounts to solitary confinement or seclusion. 2. Whether the petitioners' right to meet their relatives and advocates is being violated. 3. Whether the petitioners are being denied proper medical attention.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners' confinement in a single cell is not solitary confinement, but rather "seclusion". The petitioners' argument that they may be kept with other under-trials, who may belong to rival gangs, has to give way to the views of the jail authorities, who are in charge of maintaining discipline and security in the prison. 2. The petitioners' right to meet their relatives and advocates is not being violated. 3. The petitioners are being denied proper medical attention.
Final Decision: WPA No.12098 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the respondent-Authorities to ensure that Medical Officers of the Hooghly District Correctional Home regularly check-up the physical and mental health of the prisoners. Routine check-ups both on the psychiatric and physical fronts much be undertaken for every prisoner housed in the said correctional home, including the petitioners, at least once every two months and necessary medical facilities be extended to them, in the event so required, over and above the medical check-ups. The jail authorities shall also ensure that basic amenities are available to the prisoners.
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The petitioners are under-trial prisoners in custody for over three years in connection with different offences, being co-accused in a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (1st), Hooghly on charges of kidnapping and murder and are being held in the Chinsurah District Correctional Home at Hooghly. A number of other criminal cases are also pending against them in other Districts of the State of West Bengal, particularly in South 24-Parganas. The grievances of the petitioners are the conditions of their incarceration. First, the petitioners are being confined together in a single cell, allegedly under unfavourable conditions which according to the petitioners are prejudicial to their human rights recognized by the Constitution of India, the prevalent prison laws of India and other national and international instruments. Secondly, the petitioners allege that they are regularly restricted from meeting their relatives and advocates. Thirdly, the petitioners are not given proper medical attention.
2. It is alleged that despite several requests, the living conditions of the petitioners are not being improved in any manner by the Jail Authorities. The petitioners also pray for being transferred to any other safer correctional home than their present abode in the Hooghly District correctional Home and apprehend safety and security risks in their present place of confinement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the Sessions Court has not granted the petitioners' prayer for bail, including a prayer for transfer, on consideration of a report submitted by the Superintendent of the Hooghly Correctional Home, it is argued that the jurisdictional court does not have the authority in law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other Act to issue order of transfer of prisoners to a different jail, which is an administrative act, amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
4. Eloquent arguments are advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners against their confinement in a single cell. Learned counsel cites State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and others, reported at (2000) 5 SCC 712 for the proposition that a prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being during his period of detention but enjoys all his fundamental rights, including the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution.
5. Next citing Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, reported at (1981) 1 SCC 608, learned counsel for the petitioners cites a quotation in the said judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court of the United States, who in Eve Pall's case observed that 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. The Supreme Court, it is argued, reaffirmed the human rights of prisoners.
6. Learned counsel next contends that the petitioners have the right to free movement under Article 19(d) of the Constitution of India and any State action which curtails such right must satisfy the test of "reasonable restrictions" as enumerated in Article 19(5). Although confining under-trial prisoners in custody is one such legally accepted reasonable restriction, such imprisonment does not entail the restriction of other human rights with the exception of those which are naturally restricted by the very act of being imprisoned.
7. The petitioners' segregation/separation for the purpose of security can be permitted as a temporary measure. However, the petitioners cannot be continuously segregated for more than three years, which amounts to a permanent arrangement, merely citing security reasons.
8. It is argued that human liberty is precious. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another Vs. Union of India and others, reported at (
AI
The petitioners' confinement in a single cell does not amount to solitary confinement, but rather "seclusion". The petitioners' right to meet their relatives and advocates is not being violated. The ....
The judgment establishes the principle that the rights of prisoners, including the legality of their confinement and denial of facilities, are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ....
Prisoners retain fundamental rights to dignity and humane treatment despite incarceration, and restrictions on their exposure to outdoor activities must not violate these rights under the Constitutio....
A prisoner sentenced to death is not under sentence until the judgment is final; solitary confinement conditions must adhere to constitutional rights, allowing normal interaction unless justified oth....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with prison rules and the principles of natural justice in imposing punishment on prisoners, emphasizing the detrim....
Point of Law : Removal and discharge of prisoners - There is no doubt that fundamental right of an under-trial prisoner under Article 21 of Constitution is not absolute. His rights of visitations as ....
Prisoners, regardless of their status, have an inherent right to life and humane treatment, including access to necessary medical care.
Prisoners are entitled to basic human rights, including dignity and education, which must be upheld by prison authorities as per constitutional guarantees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
