Rajasthan High Court Rules Undertrial Prisoner Can Execute Power Of Attorney For Selling Property

The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of prisoner rights, has held that incarceration does not lead to the "civil death" of an individual. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the Jaipur Bench, ruled that an undertrial prisoner retains the fundamental right to manage, own, and dispose of their property as afforded by the Constitution of India.

The Background

The petitioner, Anand Singh, an undertrial prisoner currently lodged in the Central Jail, Jaipur, in connection with Sessions Case No. 54 of 2020, sought judicial intervention after his application to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of his brother, Dilip Singh, was rejected by the Special Judge for Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases. The trial court had denied the request, citing the unsubstantiated suspicion that the property in question might have been acquired via "proceeds of crime."

Arguments and Legal Conflict

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the family was in the midst of a severe financial crisis and required the liquidation of jointly-owned assets to secure their livelihood. They contended that the trial court’s rejection was based on a "hypothetical and imaginary" premise rather than evidence. Conversely, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) opposed the petition, asserting that due to the advanced stage of the trial, there remained a possibility that the assets were illicitly acquired.

Principles of Constitutional Law

In analyzing the matter, the High Court emphasized that the right to property remains protected under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution. Justice Dhand observed that an accused person is not stripped of their civil rights simply because they are incarcerated as a suspect.

The Court further clarified that, pursuant to Section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022, there is a clear legal mechanism to facilitate the execution and registration of documents within prison premises. The judgment reinforces that a prisoner is legally entitled to appoint an attorney to handle their financial affairs, provided that the property in question is not currently attached by a court or specialized agency.

Key Observations

Highlighting the court’s position, Justice Dhand noted: * "It is settled principle of law that mere incarceration does not result in ' civil death ' of a person." * "A person, against whom an FIR is lodged, has the fundamental right to take care of his property or alienate the same by way of sale, in case, necessity so arises." * "Unless and until such evidence is made available on record of the Trial Court, it cannot be presumed simply on the basis of one's imagination that the aforesaid property has been purchased by the petitioner from the proceeds of crime ."

Court’s Decision

The High Court quashed the trial court's order and directed the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Jaipur, to facilitate the attestation and registration of the petitioner's GPA. The decision serves as a reminder to the subordinate judiciary that administrative caution should not override the protected fundamental rights of the accused. The ruling mandates that while prisoners have the right to alienate property, they must still seek necessary permissions from the trial court before finalizing any sale to ensure transparency and legal compliance.