Supreme Court clarifies rights of death row prisoners regarding facilities and treatment: In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2018)

Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2018
Citation: I.A. NO. 26542 OF 2018 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J, S. Abdul Nazeer, J, Deepak Gupta, J
Can a prisoner sentenced to death be treated differently from other convicts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, clarifying the rights of prisoners awaiting execution. This judgment emphasizes that prisoners on death row are entitled to similar facilities as other convicts until their death sentence becomes final, ensuring their basic human rights are protected. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

This case originated from an application seeking directions and declarations regarding the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death. The application argued that these prisoners should receive the same facilities as other convicts and that solitary or separate confinement should be deemed unconstitutional. The core issue revolved around determining when a convict can be officially considered a “death row prisoner” and what rights they are entitled to during this period.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, which deals with the confinement of prisoners under sentence of death. The Court also referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and how it extends to prisoners. The Court also considered the interpretation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

The Court noted that Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional rights of prisoners.

Arguments

The applicant argued that prisoners sentenced to death by the Trial Court should be treated like other convicted prisoners, with access to work opportunities, educational programs, vocational training, and other institutional facilities. The applicant contended that the classification of a prisoner as a “death row prisoner” should only occur after all judicial and constitutional avenues for appeal have been exhausted.

The applicant relied on previous judgments of the Supreme Court to support their argument that prisoners should be treated with dignity. The applicant argued that solitary confinement is unconstitutional and that prisoners on death row should be allowed to move within the confines of the prison.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. When can it be said that a convict is under the sentence of death?

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether a prisoner under sentence of death is entitled to the same facilities as other prisoners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of prisoners, particularly their right to life and dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the need for a humanitarian and compassionate approach when dealing with prisoners, especially those on death row. The Court was also keen to ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, but rejected interpretations that would allow for differential treatment of prisoners based solely on the fact that they have been sentenced to death by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, a prisoner is entitled to the same rights and facilities as other convicts.

The Supreme Court held that a prisoner can be considered on death row only when their sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny, which includes the dismissal of any challenge to the rejection of a mercy petition. Until then, prisoners are entitled to all the facilities available to other convicts. The Court emphasized that the rights of prisoners are not merely a matter of administrative convenience but are rooted in constitutional and international human rights law.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The interpretation of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, must be consistent with the constitutional rights of prisoners.
• Prisoners are entitled to basic human rights, including access to facilities and opportunities, until their sentence is final.
• Solitary confinement is not permissible and death row prisoners are entitled to move within the confines of the prison.
• Prisoners on death row should have the opportunity to work, participate in educational programs, and have access to other facilities.
• Prisoners on death row should be allowed to meet with lawyers, family and mental health professionals.

The Court quoted from the judgment in *Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration* [(1978) 4 SCC 494]:

“…a prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a prisoner whose sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible and which cannot be annulled and voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure.”

The Court quoted from the judgment in *Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan* [(1981) 1 SCC 503]:

“We cannot agree that either the Section or the Rules can be read in the absolutist expansionism the prison authorities would like us to read. That would virtually mean that prisoners are not persons to be dealt with at the mercy of the prison echelons.”

The Court quoted from the judgment in *Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi* [(1981) 1 SCC 608]:

“…as a part of the right to live with human dignity, a prisoner is entitled to have interviews with members of his family and friends and no prison regulation and procedure to the contrary can be upheld as being constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution unless it is reasonable, fair and just.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, the judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench.

The judgment upholds the rights of prisoners on death row, ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect until their sentence is final. The Court’s interpretation of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, ensures that prisoners are not deprived of their basic rights and facilities merely because they have been sentenced to death by the Trial Court. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a humanitarian approach to prison administration.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the rights of prisoners on death row. It clarifies the point at which a prisoner can be considered a death row prisoner and ensures that their rights are protected until that point. The judgment also reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional and international human rights standards in prison administration.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced, the Court reiterated the existing legal position.

Key Takeaways

• Prisoners sentenced to death are entitled to the same facilities as other convicts until their death sentence is final.
• Solitary confinement of death row prisoners is unconstitutional.
• Death row prisoners are entitled to move within the confines of the prison.
• Prisoners on death row should have access to work opportunities, educational programs, and vocational training.
• Death row prisoners are entitled to have meetings with lawyers, family members, and mental health professionals.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the way death row prisoners are treated in prisons across India. It reinforces the importance of upholding their basic human rights and ensures that they are not subjected to inhumane treatment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to modify their prison manuals, regulations, and rules to comply with the principles laid down in this judgment and in previous judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court also requested the Justice Amitava Roy Committee to look into the issues raised in the application in greater depth.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a prisoner can be considered on death row only when their sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny. This judgment did not change the previous position of law but reiterated and clarified the existing legal principles regarding the rights of prisoners on death row.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that prisoners sentenced to death are entitled to the same facilities and treatment as other convicts until their death sentence is final. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding the basic human rights of all prisoners, and ensures that they are treated with dignity and respect. The judgment also provides clear guidelines for prison authorities to follow, ensuring that the rights of death row prisoners are protected.