Back
2018 Supreme(Sikk) 60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JJ.
In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons - Appellant
WP (PIL) No. 10 of 2017
Decided On : 22-03-2018
Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
For the State :Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Karma Thinlay, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. S.K. Chettri and Ms. Pollin Rai, Asstt. Govt. Advocates.
Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Advocate for Sikkim State Legal Services Authority.
Urgent action required to address inhuman conditions in prisons and unnatural deaths of prisoners.
Headnote:
Inhuman Conditions - Prisons - 1382 - The Supreme Court issued directions under various sections including 57, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the judgment to address inhuman conditions in prisons, unnatural deaths of prisoners, and the rights and duties of prisoners and prison officials.
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court issued directions to address inhuman conditions in prisons and unnatural deaths of prisoners. The Court registered a suo motu Public Interest Litigation seeking implementation of the directions.
Finding of the Court:
The State Government was directed to examine the directions and recommendations and submit a report. The Court found the response of the State Government to be inadequate and directed the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sikkim to personally examine the issue and submit a report.
Issues: Inhuman conditions in prisons, unnatural deaths of prisoners, response of the State Government to the Supreme Court's directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found the need for urgent action to address inhuman conditions in prisons and unnatural deaths of prisoners, and directed the State Government to take necessary steps.
Final Decision: The State Government was directed to examine the issue and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
JUDGMENT :
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons, the Supreme Court on consideration of various issues, made the following directions, inter alia: -
“57. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances before us, the suggestions put forward by the learned Amicus and the learned counsel appearing for the National Forum deserve acceptance and, therefore, we issue the following directions:
1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit a copy of this decision to the Registrar General of every High Court within one week with a request to the Registrar General to place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to register a suo-motu public interest petition with a view to identifying the next of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural death as revealed by the NCRB during the period between 2012 and 2015 and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate compensation has already been awarded.
2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will ensure circulation within one month and in any event by 31st October, 2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph prepared by the NHRC entitled “Suicide in Prison – prevention strategy and implication from human rights and legal points of view”, (iii) the communications sent by the NHRC referred to above, (iv) the compendium of advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the State Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules and (vi) the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director General or Inspector General of Police (as the case may be) in charge of prisons in every State and Union Territory. All efforts should be made, as suggested by the NHRC and others, to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in prisons and to document each and every death in prisons – both natural and unnatural.
3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction between unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on the website of the NCRB and in its Annual Reports and also explain the sub-categorization “others” within the category of unnatural deaths. The NCRB should also be required to sub-categorize natural deaths. The sub-categorization and clarification should be complied with by 31st October, 2017.
4. The State Government should, in conjunction with the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State Police Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and Development conduct training and sensitization programmes for senior police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of prisoners. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Member-Secretary of each SLSA to follow-up and ensure compliance.
5. The necessity of having counselors and support persons in prisons cannot be over-emphasized. Their services can be utilized to counsel and advice prisoners who might be facing some crisis situation or might have some violent or suicidal tendencies. The State Governments are directed to appoint counselors and support persons for counseling prisoners, particularly first-time offenders. In this regard, the services of recognized NGOs can be taken and encouraged.
6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending the time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of using phones and video conferencing for communications not only between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the lawyer, whether appointed through the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise.
7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) should urgently conduct a study on the lines conducted by the Bihar State Legal Services Au
