Karnataka High Court Quashes 'Arbitrary' Prisoner Transfer, Upholds Right to be Heard Under Article 21

Bengaluru : In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional rights of inmates, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a Sessions Court order transferring an under-trial prisoner from Bengaluru to Belagavi Central Prison. The bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that transferring a prisoner based on a vague justification of "security reasons" without affording them an opportunity to be heard is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and an infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

---

Case Background: A Transfer Challenged

The case was brought forward by Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh, an under-trial prisoner who had been in judicial custody at the Central Prison, Bengaluru, since January 2023. During his incarceration, Sheikh had enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce program through Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) as part of his rehabilitation efforts.

On August 5, 2025, a Sessions Court ordered his transfer to the Central Prison in Belagavi. The transfer was initiated based on a requisition from the Chief Superintendent of the Bengaluru prison, which in turn was based on communications from the NIA and the Director General of Prisons citing "security reasons." Sheikh challenged this order, arguing that the sudden transfer was arbitrary, lacked justifiable reasons, and severely prejudiced his education and rehabilitation.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner argued that the transfer violated his fundamental rights. He was never provided with a copy of the transfer requisition or given a chance to contest the grounds. His counsel relied on a previous High Court decision in * Pradosh S. Rao v. State of Karnataka *, asserting that the facts were identical and the same legal principles should apply.

• State's Counsel: The High Court Government Pleader defended the transfer as a necessary measure based on security considerations. It was argued that a prisoner has no vested right to be incarcerated in a specific prison and that the transfer was an administrative decision based on an official requisition.

**Court's Reasoning: Upholding Article 21 **

Justice Magadum, in his detailed order, sided firmly with the petitioner, emphasizing that the transfer of a prisoner is not a mere administrative formality. The court's reasoning was anchored in constitutional principles and established legal precedent.

1. The Right to a Fair Hearing: The court found a critical procedural flaw: Sheikh was never heard before the transfer order was passed. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in * State of Maharashtra vs. Saeed Sohail Sheikh *, Justice Magadum reiterated that any judicial or quasi-judicial order for shifting a prisoner must involve the application of the court's mind and provide an effective opportunity for the prisoner to present objections.

> "The petitioner was thus denied his right to be heard before an order adversely affecting him was passed. This omission goes to the root of the matter, as the order impugned is not preceded by compliance with the principles of natural justice."

2. Cryptic Justifications are Unacceptable: The High Court heavily criticized the Sessions Court's reliance on the vague term "security reasons." The lower court's order failed to detail the nature of the security threat or demonstrate any independent application of judicial mind to the materials provided by prison authorities.

> "Such a cryptic recital falls short of the standards required when fundamental rights under Article 21 are at stake."

3. Balancing Security with Prisoner's Rights: Justice Magadum underscored that while security is a valid concern, it cannot be used to arbitrarily curtail the rights of an under-trial prisoner. The court must balance security needs against the inmate's rights to education, family visits, and access to legal aid. The impugned order showed no evidence of such a balancing act.

NIA's Post-Judgment Intervention Rejected

In a notable postscript to the main judgment, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) orally moved the court to reconsider its decision, arguing that the NIA was a necessary party and that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under the NIA Act.

The High Court swiftly rejected these arguments. Justice Magadum clarified that the transfer order was an administrative decision made under the Prisons Act, 1894 , not the NIA Act or UAPA. Therefore, the NIA was not a necessary party, and a writ petition was the appropriate remedy.

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order dated August 5, 2025. It directed the authorities to re-transfer Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh to the Bengaluru Central Prison forthwith.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that an individual's fundamental rights are not extinguished upon incarceration. It sets a clear precedent that prison transfers, especially those ordered by a court, must adhere to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, and that blanket justifications like "security reasons" will not pass judicial scrutiny without a demonstrated application of mind and a fair hearing for the affected prisoner.