Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1228
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Bhajan Meena @ Bahadur S/o Shri Harphool Meena - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 358/2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.C. Swami for Mr. Rajesh Kala
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Verma Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP
Prisoners have a right to rehabilitation, and transfer to Open Air Camps cannot be denied solely for repeated offenses if conduct has been satisfactory.
Headnote:
(A) Prisons Act, 1894 - Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 - The court examined the rights of prisoners to rehabilitation and reformation, emphasizing that each prisoner deserves a chance for societal adjustment post-incarceration. (Paras 1, 16, 20)
(B) Open Air Camp - The court ruled that eligibility for transfer to Open Air Camp is not barred solely due to repeated offenses if the prisoner's conduct has been satisfactory. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving a life sentence, requested transfer to an Open Air Camp after being convicted of murder while incarcerated. The request was initially denied based on the new conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the denial of transfer was unjustified as the petitioner had a satisfactory conduct record and previous instances of similar transfers were noted.
Issues: Whether committing murder while serving a life sentence can justify denying a transfer to Open Air Camp.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to rehabilitation should not be denied based solely on repeated offenses if the prisoner's conduct is satisfactory.
Result: The petitioner's transfer to Open Air Camp is ordered.
Order
1. “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future, never write off the man wearing the criminal attire but remove the dangerous degeneracy in him, restore his retarded human potential by holistic healing of his fevered, fatigued or frustrated inside and by repairing the repressive, though hidden, injustice of the social order which is vicariously guilty of the criminal behaviour of many innocent convicts. Law must rise with life and jurisprudence responds to humanism.”
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
2. Prisons, as penal and correctional institutions, have existed in India and abroad since times immemorial. Prisons confine criminals, convicts and undertrials. The primary purpose of prisons is to isolate or alienate such people from the society. They are jailed for a certain period but the purpose of reformation and rehabilitation is sometimes defeated due to the prison environment and the treatment meted out to prisoners.
3. The administration and management of the modern prison system in India is governed by the Prisons Act of 1894, which has its origins in the recommendations of the “Prison Discipline Committee” appointed in 1836 by Lord Macaulay, followed by constitution of four jail commissions to review the system from time to time. The law smacks of colonial prejudices and focuses on rigorous custodial treatment of prisoners while ignoring reformatory measures such as education, skill development, etc.
4. After independence, there has always been the larger question of how far our current penitentiary structure is furthering the objectives of the prison administration of reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders into the society as responsible citizens. With the noble idea of ensuring human rights and dignity of prisoners and their reformation and rehabilitation, the All India Jail Manual Committee recommended, inter-alia, setting up of open prison institutions. The need for having open penal and correctional institutions was recognised and extensively discussed in the first United Nation Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Geneva in 1955.
5. In India, the beginning of the Open Prison System was made in 1952 under the inspiration of Dr. Sampurnanand when an Open Air Camp was opened at Chakia in the Varanasi District of Uttar Pradesh. The inmates were allowed to work on their own or in local factories and wages were paid to them.
6. In case of Dharmbir vs State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (1979) 3 SCC 645 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has supported the institution of open prisons since such prisons, the Court felt, had certain advantages in the context of young offenders who could be protected from some of the well known vices to which young inmates were subjected to in ordinary jails. The Court therefore directed the State Government to despatch these two prisoners, in their early twenties, to one of the open prisons in Uttar Pradesh without standing on technical rules, if substantially they fulfil the required conditions.
7. The instant criminal writ petition has been submitted against the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the respondent by which the prayer of the petitioner for transferring him from Central Jail to Open Air Camp has been rejected on the count that while serving his sentence, the petitioner has committed the murder of a Pakistani National for which he has been awarded life sentence vide judgment dated 10.01.2020.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted regular parole of twenty days, after the subsequent conviction, by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023. Counsel submits that an identical issue came before the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat wherein it was examined “whether an accused undergoing life sentence can be shifted to Open Air Camp from Jail after his subsequent conviction for the same offence i.e. Section 302 IPC”. Counsel submits that in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. Stat
