VERY IMPORTANT POINT
A sound prison system in India is a crying need of our time in the backdrop of great increase in the numbers of prisoners and that too of various types and from different strata of society, therefore, appropriate directions are issued by the Supreme Court of India.

JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-This writ petition has its origin in a letter dated 12.4.1984 by a prisoner of Central Jail, Bangalore (one Rama Murthy) to the Hon ble Chief Justice of this Court making grievance about some jail matters. The letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and court proceedings followed which are being wound up by delivering this judgment.

2. The epistolatory power had been invoked earlier also in a similar matter when Sunil Batra had written a letter to a Hon ble Judge of this Court from Tihar Jail, Delhi. The judgments in his cases and that of Charles Sobraj are such which can be said to be beacon lights insofar as management of jails and rights of prisoners are concerned. This Court in these judgments [(1) Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar1 (2) Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration and Ors.2 and (3) Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration3], on being approached either through formal writ petitions or by addressing letter, which was treated as a writ petition, has laid bare the constitutional dimension and rights available to a person behind stone walls and iron bars.

3. These are not the only decisions on the question of rights of prisoners and approach to be adopted while dealing with them as there are many other renderings of this Court which deal with some other aspects of prison justice. A brief resume of earlier decisions would be helpful to tread the path further. The resume reveals this :-

(1) In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar4 aid of Article 21 was made available perhaps for the first time to a prisoner while dealing with the question of his right of reading and writing books while in jail.

(2) Suresh Chandra v. State of Gujarat5 and Krishan Lal v. State of Bihar6, saw this Court stating about penological innovation in the shape of parole to check recividism because of which liberal use of the same was recommended.

(3) A challenge was made to the segregation of prisoners in Bhuvan Mohan Pattnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh7, and a three Judge Bench stated that resort to oppressive measures to curb political beliefs (the prisoner was a Naxalite because of which he was put in a quarantine and subjected to inhuman treatment) could not be permitted. The Court, however, opined that a prisoner could not complain of installation of high-volt live wire mechanism on the jail walls to prevert escape from prisons, as no prisoner had fundamental right to escape from lawful custody.

(4) In Charles Sobraj it was stated that this Court would intervene even in prison administration when constitutional rights or statutory prescriptions are transgressed to the injury of a prisoner. In that case the complaint was against incarceratary torture.

(5) Sunil Batra (I) dealt with the question whether prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights, apart from fundamental rights. In that case this Court was called upon to decide as to when solitary confinement could be imposed on a prisoner. In Kishor Singh v. State of Rajasthan8 also the Court dealt with the parameters of solitary confinement.

(6) Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration9 and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar10 prohibited putting of undertrial prisoners in leg-irons.

(7) In Sunil Batra (II) the Court was called upon to deal with prison vices and the judgment protected the prisoners from these vices with the shield of Article 21, Krishna Iyer, J. stated that "prisons are built with the stones of law".

(8) A challenge was made to a prison rule which permitted only one interview in a month with the members of the family or legal advisor in Francis Corcalie v. Union Territory of Delhi11 and the rule was held violative, inter alia, of Article 21.

(9) In series of cases, to wit, Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar12 (ii) Sant Bir v. State of Bihar13 (iii) Sheela Barse v. Union Territory14, this Court was calaled