IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, V.SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
P.Ananda Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police (Prison) – Respondent
W.P.No.28839 of 2024
Decided on : 15-10-2024
ORDER :
[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, direction based on the petitioner representation dated 21.09.2024.
The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 21.09.2024.
2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate in the Madras High Court and District Courts. The writ petition was instituted to ensure the facilities to be granted to the unconvicted criminal prisoners and civil prisoners in the matter of interviews and letters.
3. Beyond that it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Prison Authorities have made certain arrangements and improved the facilities pursuant to the meeting with the official of the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai held on 25.07.2023 at 05:00 P.M. at the Conference Meeting Hall, High Court Heritage Building, Madras.
4. Pursuant to the minutes, certain facilities inside the prison are also provided by the Prison Department. However, frequent complaints have been received by the Courts that the legal practitioners are not permitted to communicate with the undertrial prisoners as per the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983.
5. In this context, it is relevant to consider Rule 541 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, which reads as under;
[Provided that in respect of accused or under-trial prisoners under the Terrorists and Distruptive (Prevention) Activities Act, 1987 (Central Act 28 of 1987) the relatives and friends, who desire to interview them, shall produce a certificate from the concerned village Administrative Officer or Member of Legislative Assembly of the constituency concerned as to the residence and relationship to such accused or under-trial prisoners.]
(2) Every interview between an unconvicted prisoner and his legal adviser shall take place within sight, but out of hearing of a prison official. A similar concession shall be allowed by the Superintendent in the case of an interview with any near relative of the unconvicted prisoner.
(3) When any person desires an interview with an unconvicted criminal prisoner in the capacity of the prisoner's legal adviser, he shall apply in writing, giving his name and address and stating to what branch of the legal profession he belongs and he must satisfy the Superintendent that he is the bona fide legal adviser of the prisoners with whom he seeks an interview and that he has legitimate business with him.
(4) Any bona fide confidential written communication prepared by an unconvicted criminal prisoner as instructions to his legal adviser may be delivered personally to such legal advisor or to his authorised nominee without being previously examined by the Superintendent. For the purpose of this rule, the term, 'legal adviser' means a legal practitioner within the meaning of Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Central Act XVIII of 1879).
(5) Civil prisoners may see their friends, relations and legal advisers at such time and under such restrictions as the Superintendent may appoint and the presence of a prison officer shall not be necessary. No Visitor shall be allowed to take within the prison any sweet meats or other eatables without the express permission of the Superintendent.”
6. It is needless to state that an undertrial prisoner cannot be compared with the convicted prisoner. Therefore, the Prison Manual contemplates separate facilities to be granted to unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners. Reasonable facilities as contemplated under the Prison Manu
The court mandated the improvement of communication facilities for legal practitioners with undertrial prisoners, emphasizing adherence to the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules and the protection of prisoners'....
Prison authorities must ensure unhindered access for lawyers to their clients, respecting the constitutional rights of prisoners to legal assistance without unnecessary delays.
Prisoners are entitled to basic human rights, including dignity and education, which must be upheld by prison authorities as per constitutional guarantees.
The judgment establishes that the systemic neglect of prisoners with disabilities constitutes human rights violations, emphasizing the need for comprehensive reforms in prison infrastructure and trea....
All Prison Authorities should give necessary assistance to the prisoners to meet their lawyers.
The court emphasized the necessity for adequate facilities for under-trial prisoners to ensure their right to family contact and access to justice, particularly during the pandemic.
Judicial review of policy decisions should not interfere unless the policy is grossly arbitrary or irrational.
The right to legal aid is essential for ensuring timely access to bail for marginalized prisoners, emphasizing the constitutional obligation to uphold personal liberty.
Prisoners are entitled to fundamental rights, including adequate health facilities, regardless of when educational qualifications are acquired, with medical conditions being the primary consideration....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.