The Supreme Court of India highlighted the persistent issues afflicting jails across the country, urging states and union territories to tackle the inhumane conditions within prisons. Despite ongoing efforts, these problems continue to persist, affecting the well-being of inmates.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed the States and Union Territories to tackle the issue of inhumane conditions in prisons across India. Addressing the situation in 1,382 prisons, the Court noted that the longstanding problems within Indian jails persist.
A Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized the need for States and UTs to submit comprehensive affidavits addressing all concerns, including the enhancement of inmate capacity and augmentation of prison logistics, such as the creation of posts for wardens, cooks, doctors, and other jail staff.
Read Also: Supreme Court Directs States & UTs to Issue Ration Cards to 80 Million Migrant Workers
The Bench stated,
“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.”
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that prisoners are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Citing the case of Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration, the Court affirmed that prisoners are entitled to Fundamental Rights even while in custody. The Court also referenced Rama Murthy v State of Karnataka, highlighting that some of the issues identified in that case still affect Indian jails today.
The Bench reviewed the conditions of prisons in Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Kerala. Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae (AC) Gaurav Agrawal submitted a note summarizing the information received from these states, while AOR Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki represented the respondents. The AC brought the Apex Court‘s attention to the overcrowding in Bihar’s jails, particularly in the District Jails at Aurangabad, Darbhanga, Gopalganj, Khagaria, Lakhisarai, Madhepura, Biharsharif, Navadah, Saharsa, Chapra, Sitamarhi, Siwan, Supaul, Hajipur, Adarsh Central Jail in Beur, and Central Jail in Purnea.
Gaurav Agrawal stated,
“In some jails, the capacity enhancement was likely to be completed by the end of the Financial Year i.e., by or before March 2025 whereas in other jails, suitable land was still being identified,”
Regarding Punjab, the AC emphasized overcrowding and outlined timelines for infrastructural improvements and upgrades in the state’s prisons.
According to the Note, Chhattisgarh State has a total jail capacity of 14,483, yet currently houses 18,343 prisoners. In Rajasthan, 30 construction projects for jails are underway, including the District Jail Dungarpur, expected to be completed by August 31, 2024.
In Jharkhand, the Committee made several recommendations for 14 Central and District Jails, and the government is gathering information on where new prisons have been proposed. In Odisha, additional wards have been built in 29 selected jails to alleviate overcrowding in eight of them. However, in Kerala, the State Government has not taken any action to address overcrowding issues in 13 prisons.
After reviewing the state-wise reports, the Apex Court 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 responses be filed via additional affidavits personally affirmed by the Chief Secretary of the concerned State/UT, at least a week before the next hearing date, with advance copies provided to the AC.
The Court observed,
“Several learned counsel have requested that the Court specify some common and uniform parameters for States and UTs to create facilities in prisons. This suggestion is merited,”
It Suggested,
“To begin with, specifications and parameters for jails may be in terms prescribed by and under the Model Prison Manual 2016 (MPM) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.”
The Court further noted that having a large campus area does not necessarily mean that the capacity has been enhanced. What must be evaluated is whether the requisite facilities for each prisoner adequate in terms of sleeping area, mobility within the prison, kitchen and food provisions, health facilities, and other essentials.
The Court concluded,
“The view of this Court in respect of prisoners and undertrials was exposited in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri and Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 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/Judgments passed in this writ petition reported as (2016) 3 SCC 700, (2016) 10 SCC 17, (2017) 10 SCC 658, and (2018) 18 SCC 777. We expect all stakeholders to rise to the occasion and discharge the obligation cast on them as expeditiously as possible,”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court listed the matter for July 11, 2024, at the top of the Board.
Read Judgement