Supreme Court Addresses Unnatural Deaths in Prisons: A Call for Reform (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2017

Citation: W.P. (C) No. 406/2013

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can the State ensure the right to life with dignity for prisoners, especially in light of the alarming rate of unnatural deaths in prisons? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the inhumane conditions prevalent in 1382 prisons across the country. The Court, in its judgment, highlighted the issue of unnatural deaths in prisons, emphasizing the need for comprehensive reforms and a more humane approach towards prisoners. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a letter written by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti to the Supreme Court, which was then converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The letter raised concerns about several issues within Indian prisons, including overcrowding, unnatural deaths, staff inadequacy, and insufficient training of prison staff. The Court had already addressed the issue of overcrowding in a previous order on 5th February 2016. This judgment specifically focuses on the problem of unnatural deaths in prisons, using data primarily from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the letter from former Chief Justice Lahoti and treated it as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Court was assisted by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, the learned Amicus Curiae, who provided substantial material and different perspectives on the issue. The Court had previously addressed the issue of overcrowding in prisons on 5th February 2016. This present judgment focuses on the issue of unnatural deaths in prisons.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following key legal provisions and guidelines:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Court emphasizes extends to prisoners as well.
• Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Mandates a judicial inquiry into any death or disappearance from police or judicial custody. The provision states:
  “Where, — (a) any person dies or disappears, or (b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman, while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court, under this Code in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.”
• The Nelson Mandela Rules (Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners): Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 17th December 2015, these rules provide internationally accepted guidelines for prison administrations. The Court specifically highlights Rules 58-63 regarding prisoner contact with the outside world and Rule 71 regarding reporting of custodial deaths.
• Model Prison Manual 2016: Issued by the Government of India, it provides guidelines for prison administration, including procedures for custodial deaths and suicide prevention. The Court refers to Chapter VII, paragraph 7.95.1 and Chapter XIII of the manual.
• Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): These guidelines define natural and unnatural deaths and provide a framework for investigations.

Arguments

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae:

• The learned Amicus argued that custodial violence is a significant concern, encompassing physical, psychological, and sexual violence, and can even lead to death.
• He highlighted the lack of clarity in the NCRB’s classification of natural and unnatural deaths and the sub-categorization of ‘others’ in unnatural deaths.
• He drew attention to the NHRC’s monograph on suicides in prisons, noting the higher suicide rate in prisons compared to the general population.
• He emphasized the need for a more humane treatment of prisoners, reduction of the dehumanizing effect of imprisonment, and involvement of NGOs, especially for first-time offenders.
• He advocated for counseling services, extended family contact, access to legal services, and an independent grievance redressal mechanism for inmates.
• He stressed the importance of reducing overcrowding, providing basic medical facilities, and constituting a Board of Visitors.
• He also suggested that performance audits be conducted for prisons across the country.
• The Amicus cited the Nelson Mandela Rules, particularly those concerning prisoner contact with the outside world and the reporting of custodial deaths.

Submissions by the Attorney General:

• The Attorney General submitted that prisons are a State subject, and the Central Government can only issue advisories, not binding directions.
• He referred to the Model Prison Manual 2016, stating that it incorporates the NHRC guidelines, which are followed scrupulously.
• He highlighted the manual’s provisions on custodial deaths, suicide prevention, and grievance redressal mechanisms.
• He mentioned the role of NGOs in rehabilitation and the provision of legal aid to prisoners.
• He presented a Compendium of Advisories on Prison Administration 2016, indicating that the Central Government has issued advisories on various issues, including stress-relieving programs.
• He acknowledged that State Governments have several development priorities and may face financial constraints in improving prison conditions.

Submissions by the National Forum for Prison Reforms:

• The National Forum for Prison Reforms advocated for a performance audit of prisons by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
• They highlighted the CAG report on Tihar Jail, which revealed shortages of medical staff and essential medicines.
• They also emphasized the need for an inquiry into every death in custody as per Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the Court addressed were:

1. The high incidence of unnatural deaths in prisons.
2. The need for clarity in the classification of natural and unnatural deaths by the NCRB.
3. The implementation of existing guidelines and manuals related to prison administration.
4. The necessity of a more humane approach towards prisoners, including provision of medical care, counseling, and legal aid.
5. The role of the Central and State Governments in ensuring the rights of prisoners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [CITATION], Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India [CITATION], Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [CITATION], Kewal Pati v. State of Bihar [CITATION], and D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal [CITATION] to emphasize the principle of awarding compensation for violation of fundamental rights, particularly in cases of custodial deaths and illegal detention.
• The Court cited Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. [CITATION], Murti Devi v. State of Delhi [CITATION] and Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [CITATION] to highlight that custodial death is a clear violation of Article 21.
• The Court acknowledged the various High Court judgments, such as Nina Rajan Pillai & Ors. v. Union of India [CITATION], Kewalbai v. The State of Maharashtra [CITATION], Bheduki Buragohain v. State of Assam [CITATION], Madhuben Adesara v. State of Gujarat [CITATION], Banalata Dash v. State of Orissa & Ors [CITATION], Amandeep v. State of Punjab & Anr [CITATION], Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State [CITATION], Sabu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors [CITATION], Ravindra Nath Awasthi v. State of U.P. [CITATION], Mst. Madina v. State of Rajasthan & Ors [CITATION], Dukhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors [CITATION], Santosh Kumari v. State of H.P. & Ors [CITATION], State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Dar [CITATION], Mrs. Meena Singh v. State of Bihar [CITATION], and Lawyers for Justice ( Non-Government Organization) v. State of M.P. [CITATION], which granted compensation for unnatural deaths in custody. These cases were used to emphasize the consistent judicial approach to this issue.
• The Court also relied on the Nelson Mandela Rules to emphasize the importance of prisoner contact with the outside world and the reporting of custodial deaths.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, applies to prisoners as well. The Court noted that the State has a duty to ensure that prisoners live a life of dignity, and that custodial deaths are a violation of this right.
• Human Rights: The Court highlighted the universal nature of human rights, stating that they are not dependent on the status of a person. The Court stressed that even those accused or convicted of crimes are entitled to basic human rights, including the right to life and dignity.
• Data and Statistics: The Court considered the data from the NCRB, which revealed a high number of unnatural deaths in prisons. This data highlighted the urgent need for prison reforms and a more humane approach towards prisoners.
• NHRC and Other Reports: The Court considered the NHRC’s monograph on suicides in prisons, which highlighted the high suicide rate in prisons compared to the general population. The Court also considered the various communications issued by the NHRC on custodial deaths.
• International Standards: The Court relied on the Nelson Mandela Rules and the guidelines of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to emphasize the need for internationally accepted standards in prison administration.
• Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on several of its previous judgments, as well as judgments from various High Courts, which have awarded compensation for custodial deaths. This emphasized a consistent judicial approach to this issue.
• Need for Reform: The Court noted that despite various guidelines and manuals, unnatural deaths in prisons continue to occur. This indicated a need for a more proactive approach by the Central and State Governments to implement meaningful prison reforms.
• Humane Approach: The Court emphasized the need for a more humane approach towards prisoners, including provision of medical care, counseling, and legal aid. The Court also stressed the importance of family contact and an independent grievance redressal mechanism for inmates.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Enhanced Prisoner Rights: The judgment reinforces that prisoners are entitled to a life of dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Need for Prison Reforms: The judgment calls for comprehensive prison reforms, including improved medical facilities, counseling, and legal aid.
• Accountability: The judgment emphasizes the need for accountability and transparency in prison administration, including clear classification of deaths and thorough investigations.
• Compensation for Custodial Deaths: The judgment reiterates the principle of compensation for unnatural deaths in custody, recognizing that these deaths are a violation of human rights.
• Role of Central andState Governments: The judgment highlights the need for both the Central and State Governments to actively work towards improving prison conditions and implementing prison reforms.
• International Standards: The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to international standards, such as the Nelson Mandela Rules, in prison administration.
• Performance Audits: The judgment calls for performance audits of prisons to ensure that guidelines and manuals are being followed effectively.
• Humane Approach: The judgment stresses the need for a more humane approach towards prisoners, including family contact and an independent grievance redressal mechanism.