Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration | A Landmark Judgement in Prisoner Rights and Judicial Reform

Описание: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978 AIR 1675, 1979 SCR (1) 392)



Hello !


Just before you copy the notes, Please Subscribe to the channel (if you haven’t yet) and if you already have do interact in the form of Like, Comment or share !! It means a lot to me !!


For any legal advice or legal education help contact +91-9945893415 (whatsapp).




Facts


The petitioner Sunil Batra was convicted of a death sentence at Tihar central jail. He wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judge relating to the treatment which was given by the jail authorities.
In the letter, Sunil Batra complained of a brutal assault by a Head Warder on another prisoner, Prem Chand. He was assaulted and tortured by the prison authorities. Due to that, he suffered an injury in his private parts. He mentioned in the letter that these all acts were done for the sake of extracting money from the victim’s relatives. The letter which was written by the petitioner was revised into a Habeas Corpus proceeding.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Amicus Curiae and asked them to visit the prison and gather information relating to the issue. After collecting the information Amicus Curiae reported that the petitioner has sustained serious anal injury because of a rod. In that report, they mentioned that all acts were done because of the unfulfilled demand for money from the prison authorities. Prison authorities tried to cover up the matter by stating the injury which was sustained by the petitioner is due to piles but if we see at the actual scenario it was not.


Issues


1. Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the petition by a convict?


2. Can convicted persons enjoy the Fundamental Rights under Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21?


3. What judicial remedies can be granted to prevent and punish their breach and to provide access to prison justice?


4. What prison reform perspectives and strategies should be adopted to strengthen, in the long run, the constitutional mandates and human rights imperatives?


Judgement


In the present case, Supreme Court held that jail authorities does not have any right to torture or giving punishments to prisoners without the permission of the court And Hon’ble Court held that Fundamental Rights were infringed in the present case.


Hon’ble Court held that whenever Fundamental Rights were infringed people can directly knock on the doors of the Supreme Court and High Court by Article 32 and Article 226 And held that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, 1894 clearly states about Solitary Confinement by the prison authorities but there is nothing about torturing the prisoners. Hon’ble Court held that even convicted people also have the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.


Grievance Deposit Boxes shall be maintained by or under the orders of the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge which will be opened as frequently as is deemed fit and suitable action taken on complaints made. Sessions Judge should be informed by the jail authorities of any punitive action taken against a prisoner within two days of such action with reasons, if prior permission was not obtained.


The Court also stated that Law in the books and in the courts is of no help unless it reaches the prisoner in understandable language and available form. There is therefore need to get ready a Prisoners’ Handbook in the regional language and make them freely available to the inmates. To know the law is the first step to be free from fear of unlaw. Pressing need for prison reform and provision for adequate facilities to prisoners, to enable them not only to be acquainted with their legal rights but also to record their complaints and grievances and to have confidential interviews periodically with lawyers nominated for the purpose by the District Magistrate or the court having jurisdiction.