Supreme Court has protected the prisoners from excesses and arbitrariness of the State and its officials. Even the incarcerated individuals, whether accused, undertrial, or convicts, have certain rights, as any other citizen. They have a right to dignity and cannot be subjected to any cruel or inhuman treatment. The punishment awarded to such persons has to be in accordance with law. Such punishment cannot be inhuman or cruel.
In the case of Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration and others[1], the Court declared that the use of iron fetters, or the practice of solitary confinement and cellular segregation is inhuman. Speaking for the Court, Justice Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable style, states that:
“I hold that bar fetters are a barbarity generally and, like whipping, must vanish. Civilised consciousness is hostile to torture within the walled campus. We hold that solitary confinement, cellular segregation and marginally modified editions of the same process are inhuman and irrational… The law is not abracadabra but at once pragmatic and astute and does not surrender its power before scary exaggerations of security by prison bosses… Social justice cannot sleep if the Constitution hangs limp where its consumers most need its humanism.”
Again in the case of Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi[2] , while observing that the rights enjoyed by prisoners are not static and will rise to human heights when challenging situations arise, Supreme Court observed thus:
“12. … prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Moreover, the rights enjoyed by prisoners under Articles 14, 19 and 21, though limited, are not static and will rise to human heights when challenging situations arise.”
In Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration[3], the Court highlighted Article 21 protects the prisoners against several inflictions. It was held:
“Inflictions may take many protean forms, apart from physical assaults. Pushing the prisoner into a solitary cell, denial of a necessary amenity, and, more dreadful sometimes, transfer to a distant prison where visits or society of friends or relations may be snapped, allotment of degrading labour, assigning him to a desperate or tough gang and the like, may be punitive in effect. Every such affliction or abridgment is an infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Article 21 is satisfied.”
Supreme Court recently in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.[4], reiterated the constitutional rights of the accused in the following words:
“The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanize and degrade those under the control of the State. Authoritarian regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only as places of confinement but as tools of domination. Supreme Court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution, has recognized that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity…
Thus, the jurisprudence which emerges on the rights of prisoners under Article 21 is that even the incarcerated have inherent dignity. They are to be treated in a humanely and without cruelty. Police officers and prison officials cannot take any disproportionate measures against prisoners. The prison system must be considerate of the physical and mental health of prisoners. For instance, if a prisoner suffers from a disability, adequate steps have to be taken to ensure their dignity and to offer support.”
It is thus clear that no one can take away the fundamental rights of prisoners or the accused. Incidentally, Supreme Court in the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another[5], had an occasion to consider the question as to what happens when the rights of the accused or the prisoners are violated, and he becomes a victim of lawlessness on the part of the State Government which keeps him in illegal detention for over 14 years after his acquittal. While granting monetary compensation to the victim in the said case, Supreme Court observed thus:
“One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt.
The ·right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well-known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy.
Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner’s rights. It may have recourse against those officers.”
Again in the case of Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra[6], Supreme Court has granted compensation to the accused, who spent 16 years in jail on false implication by the authorities.
From the above discussion, the position that would emerge is that,
Firstly, even the accused or the convicts have certain rights and safeguards in the form of constitutional provisions and criminal law.
Secondly, the State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and excessive measures against the accused or for that matter even against the convicts without following the due process as sanctioned by law.
The third principle that would emerge is that when the right of an accused or a convict is violated on account of illegal or arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its officials or on account of their negligence, inaction, or arbitrary action, there has to be an institutional accountability.
One of the measures for redressing the grievance for violation of a right would be to grant compensation. At the same time, if any of the officers of the State has abused his powers or acted in a totally arbitrary or mala fide manner, he cannot be spared for such an illegal, arbitrary, mala fide exercise of power.
Reference
In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024)
[1] (1978) 4 SCC 494
[2] (1978) 4 SCC 104
[3] (1980) 3 SCC 488
[4] 2024 INSC 753
[5] 1983 INSC 85
[6] 2019 INSC 305