Prisoners are entitled to payment of fair or living wages.

1. This Court has been receiving petitions from prisoners in the various jails of the State either directly or through the grievance deposit boxes maintained in the jails. Such of those matters as call for attention of the Government are brought to the notice of the Government by the High Court, expecting that action would be taken thereon and if no action is taken then the court is called upon to look into the matter on the judicial side and pass necessary order.

2. The High Court forwarded a request, of 19 prisoners from the Central Prison at Cannanore to the Government for necessary action along with the letter of the Registrar dated 18-6-1982. One of the prayers made in the representation by the prisoners was that the wages of the prisoners may be enhanced. The Government's attention was drawn to this prayer. In fact the question of enhancement of wages of prisoners was pending with the Government on a recommendation made by the High Court earlier. That has been so pending for a fairly long time, for more than three years now. In the meantime representations in that matter are being received from the prisoners. Therefore the High Court decided to take cognizance of the complaint of the 19 prisoners concerning the propriety of non-payment of adequate wages. By then the High Court also received a similar petition from another prisoner, one P. V. Sandappan who also raised the question of inadequacy of wages. Thus the matter has been taken up in these two petitions so that we could consider the question of justification for direction as to wages to be paid to the prisoners in the jails in the State.

3. Though the prisoners were not as such represented in this court we had the assistance of eminent counsel who acted as amicus curiae in this case. We place on record our thanks to Sri. P. Balagangadhara Menon, Advocate, who from the very commencement of this matter has been of great assistance to us. So is the case with Sri, S. Sivaraman, Advocate. We had also the benefit of hearing the arguments of Advocates Sri. K. A. Abdul Salam and Sri. M. P. Krishnan Nair representing the Law Society of India. We also heard Mr. Vincent Panikulangara, the Secretary of the Public Interest Law Service Society (PILSS). The learned Advocate General fairly placed before us the Government's point of view and furnished us material that we wanted in the case. We are thankful to all of them.

4. The question for decision is by no means easy. It is complicated, more so because of attitudes. The approach to a criminal, the purpose of punishment, the object to be achieved by keeping the prisoner behind bars, the need for a harsh or soft treatment towards the criminal are all matters on which there has been and there continues to be keen controversy. Civilized opinion recognises the role played by society in the preparation of crimes. Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it, said Henry Thomas Buckle. The criminal is, according to one school of thought, to be dealt with as a victim, but equally powerful is the other school which considers him in a different light and which considers that unrelenting misery should be decreed for the criminal, deterrence being, according to that school, the very purpose and object to be achieved by the punishment. Though reference to the righteousness of these attitudes may perhaps be not irrelevant here the question that we are called upon to decide must necessarily be approached from an entirely different angle, the morality of inadequate wages paid to a prisoner is, a matter essentially for the legislature to consider and the executive to feel about. Whatever may be the sentiments of the court on mis question it is not for this court to lay down any policy. All the same the court will activise itself in the cause if by denying adequate wages for the labour extracted from a prisoner, extracted at an illusory cost, the constitutional right of a prisoner is being infringed and the prisoner is exploited. S