Problems Plaguing Jails In India Continue To Linger Till Today: SC Asks States & UTs To Address Issue Of Inhuman Conditions In Prisons
|The Supreme Court asked the States and Union Territories to address the issue of inhuman conditions in the prisons of various States/UTs of India.
The Court while taking suo motu cognizance of the inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons, remarked that the problems plaguing jails in India continue to linger till today.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, “Thus, States/UTs, in their proposed affidavits, should address all issues holistically, including inmate-capacity enhancement/augmentation. Other logistics such as creation of posts of wardens/cooks/doctors/various jail staff etc. should also be factored in. … Before concluding, we may reiterate that prisoners are covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration, this Court had pointedly answered that prisoners are persons who are entitled to Fundamental Rights even while in custody. Rama Murthy v State of Karnataka, was a case where this Court had identified some problems plaguing jails in India, some of which continue to linger till today.”
The Bench took note of the conditions of prisons in the States of Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Kerala.
Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae (AC) Gaurav Agrawal filed a note summarising details of information received from the aforementioned States and AOR Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki represented the respondents.
The AC drew the attention of the Apex Court to the State of Bihar where overcrowding in jails has been flagged, especially concerning the (a) District Jails at (i) Aurangabad, (ii) Darbhanga, (iii) Gopalganj, (iv) Khagaria, (v) Lakhisarai, (vi) Madhepura, (vii) Biharsharif, (viii) Navadah, (ix) Saharsa, (x) Chapra, (xi) Sitamarhi, (xii) Siwan, (xiii) Supaul, (xiv) Hajipur; (b) Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, and (c) Central Jail, Purnea. In some jails, the capacity enhancement was likely to be completed by the end of Financial Year i.e., by or before March 2025 whereas in other jails, suitable land was still being identified. Coming to the Punjab State, the AC highlighted overcrowding in jails and pointed out some timelines for infrastructural improvement in jails and their upgradation.
As per the Note, in Chhattisgarh State, the total capacity of 33 jails was 14483 whereas currently 18343 prisoners were lodged. In Rajasthan, 30 works relating to construction of jails were on-going, including construction of District Jail Dungarpur, which was likely to be completed by August 31, 2024. In Jharkhand, various recommendations were made by the Committee for the 14 Jails (Central/District) and the Government sought information wherever new prisons have been recommended for establishment. On the other hand, in Odisha State, additional wards have been constructed in 29 selected jails to address the problem of overcrowding in 8 jails. And in Kerala State, no such action was taken by the State Government regarding overcrowding issues in 13 prisons.
The Apex Court after going through the State wise reports observed, “Upon careful consideration of the stands taken by the States supra as also the oral submissions of various other States made through their respective learned counsel, we are constrained to observe that the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations have not fully woken up to the dire situation. Bereft of a sense of urgency, we sense a certain lethargy. It is most unfortunate that upon queries put by the Court to the learned counsel appearing for the States, the standard response received is that further time be given to come up with details. Obviously, learned counsel cannot address the Court without instructions.”
The Court, therefore, directed that appropriate response(s) shall be filed by way of additional affidavits personally affirmed by the Chief Secretary of the State/UT concerned, at least a week before the next date of hearing, with advance copies to the AC.
“Few learned counsel have requested that the Court may specify some common/ uniform parameters for States/UTs to create facilities in prisons. This suggestion is merited. To begin with, specifications/parameters for jails may be in terms prescribed by and under the Model Prison Manual 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MPM’) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs”, it suggested.
Furthermore, the Court noted that mere existence of a large campus area would not per se mean that the capacity has been enhanced or augmented and what is required to be seen is that whether the requisite facilities for each individual prisoner are adequate in terms of sleeping area, mobility within the prison, kitchen/food, health facilities, other matters, etc.
“… the view of this Court in respect of prisoners and undertrials was exposited in State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri8 and Mohan Patnaik v State of Andhra Pradesh9. These are merely illustrative but sufficient to demonstrate the intent of this Court to secure basic facilities for those housed in prisons and were noticed in Orders/Judgment passed in this writ petition reported as (2016) 3 SCC 70010, (2016) 10 SCC 1711, (2017) 10 SCC 65812, and (2018) 18 SCC 77713. We expect all stakeholders to rise to the occasion and discharge the obligation cast on them as expeditiously as is possible”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court listed the matter on July 11, 2024 at the top pf the Board.
Cause Title- In Re- Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 461)