Supreme Court Forms Committee on Prison Reforms: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (25 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018
Citation: W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can the judiciary intervene to address the systemic issues of prison conditions when the executive fails to implement existing laws and guidelines? The Supreme Court of India, in this public interest litigation, grapples with this question, highlighting the need for prison reforms and accountability. This judgment showcases the Court’s commitment to ensuring the fundamental rights of prisoners and addressing the critical issues of overcrowding, unnatural deaths, inadequate staffing, and lack of proper training in Indian prisons. The bench comprised of Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur.

Case Background

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated based on a letter received by the Supreme Court of India from a former Chief Justice of India, R.C. Lahoti, raising concerns about the conditions of prisons in India. The letter highlighted four major issues: overcrowding in prisons, unnatural deaths of prisoners, gross inadequacy of staff, and the available staff being untrained or inadequately trained. The petition sought judicial intervention to address these systemic issues and ensure the rights of prisoners are protected.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court observed that the failure of the State to implement laws and guidelines, and to take remedial steps when there is no operative law, has resulted in the need for judicial intervention through public interest litigation. The Court also noted the various reports and recommendations made by committees and organizations over the years, including:

• The Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-1983 (Mulla Committee).
• The Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners Report, 1987.
• The Law Commission of India’s 78th Report.
• The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) Report, 2007.
• The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report on Prison Visiting System in India, 2005.
• The Centre on the Death Penalty of the National Law University, Delhi, two-volume report, 2016.

Arguments

The State initially resisted the petition, but with the intervention of the learned Attorney General, there was a recognition of the need for introspection and reform. The Union of India showed a positive and constructive expression of interest in addressing the issues raised.

The main arguments in favor of intervention were:

• The inhuman conditions in prisons violate the fundamental rights of prisoners.
• Overcrowding, unnatural deaths, inadequate staff, and lack of training are serious issues that need immediate attention.
• Previous reports and recommendations have not been fully implemented.
• There is a need for a comprehensive review of prison administration and management.

The State’s initial resistance was based on the argument that the judiciary should not interfere in matters of policy. However, this argument was not sustained in the face of the overwhelming evidence of systemic failures.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a numbered list but rather outlined the following terms of reference for the newly formed committee:

• Review the implementation of the Guidelines contained in the Model Prison Manual 2016 by States and Union Territories (UT’s).
• Review the implementation by the States and UTs of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women in its report titled ‘Women in Detention and Access to Justice,’ and the advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in this regard.
• To review the two training manuals for prison personnel prepared by Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D), ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Officers 2017’ and ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Warders 2017’ and forwarded to States and UTs.
• Review the recommendations made in the report of the Ministry of Women and Child Development in collaboration with the National Commission for Women and the National Law University Delhi on ‘Women in Prisons’.
• Review the recommendations made in the report of the National Commission for Women on ‘Inspection of Prisons/Jails/Custodial Homes housing Women’.
• Review the implementation by States and UTs of the Guidelines contained in ‘Living conditions in Institutions for Children in Conflict with Law’ prepared by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) and the Model Rules and Procedures prepared by the MWCD under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.
• Review the status of the implementation of the guidelines and advisories issued by MHA to the States and UTs.
• The Committee may give its consolidated recommendations based on the above and suggest measures to improve the implementation of the aforementioned guidelines and advisories, subject to budgetary resources available with the States and the UTs.
• To examine the extent of overcrowding in prisons and correctional homes and recommend remedial measures, including an examination of the functioning of Under Trial Review Committees, availability of legal aid and advice, grant of remission, parole and furlough.
• To examine violence in prisons and correctional homes and recommend measures to prevent unnatural deaths and assess the availability of medical facilities in prisons and correctional homes and make recommendations in this regard.
• To assess the availability and inadequacy of staff in prisons and correctional homes and recommend remedial measures.
• To suggest training and educational modules for the staff in prisons and correctional homes with a view to implement the suggestions.
• To assess the feasibility of establishing Open Prisons, the possibility of and the potential for establishing Open Prisons in different parts of the country and give effect to the recommendations.
• To recommend steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor children of women prisoners, including their education and health.
• To examine and recommend measures for the health, education, development of skills, rehabilitation and social reintegration of children in Observation Homes, Places of Safety and Special Homes established under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• Generally, any other recommendation that the Committee may deem appropriate, fit and proper in furtherance of reforms in prisons and correctional homes.
• The Committee while giving its suggestions and recommendations may also suggest changes or amendments to various guidelines contained in the Modern Prison Manual, 2016 and also various directives issued by the Government of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various reports, committee recommendations, and previous judgments in arriving at its decision. These authorities were relied upon to highlight the systemic issues in prisons and the need for reforms. The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, recognizing the dire need for prison reforms, decided to form a committee to look into the various issues raised in the petition and other related matters. The Court’s decision was influenced by the acknowledgment of the failure of the State to implement existing laws and guidelines, and the need for a comprehensive review of prison administration and management.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court acknowledged the importance of the reports and recommendations made by various committees and organizations, highlighting the need for implementation.
• The Court relied on its previous decisions to underscore the fundamental rights of prisoners and the need for judicial intervention in cases of administrative failures.

The Court used the authorities to build a case for the necessity of immediate and comprehensive prison reforms. The reports highlighted the systemic issues, while the previous judgments established the Court’s authority to intervene in such matters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to form a committee on prison reforms was primarily influenced by the following:

• The recognition of the failure of the State to implement existing laws and guidelines related to prison administration.
• The need to address the systemic issues of overcrowding, unnatural deaths, inadequate staffing, and lack of proper training in prisons.
• The acknowledgment of the violation of fundamental rights of prisoners due to the inhuman conditions in prisons.
• The positive and constructive expression of interest shown by the Union of India in addressing the issues.
• The wealth of material available on record, including reports and recommendations by various committees and organizations.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual conditions of prisons and the systemic failures, with legal principles serving as a framework for intervention.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court of India is committed to ensuring the fundamental rights of prisoners.
• The judiciary will intervene in cases of administrative failures and systemic issues that violate fundamental rights.
• A comprehensive review of prison administration and management is necessary to address the issues of overcrowding, unnatural deaths, inadequate staffing, and lack of proper training.
• The formation of the Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms is a step towards implementing necessary changes.
• The State Governments and Union Territories are expected to cooperate with the Committee and facilitate its work.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India shall forthwith issue a notification constituting a Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms.
• The Committee will give its recommendations on the issues outlined in the Terms of Reference.
• The Committee is requested to give its recommendations in respect of the first three Terms of Reference, preferably within a period of three months.
• The Committee will make its recommendations as soon as feasible and may consider sending reports on any of the matters as and when the recommendations are finalized.
• The Committee will devise its own procedure and formulate modalities necessary for accomplishing the task.
• All State Governments, UT Administrations and the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government will furnish such information, documents and other assistance as required by the Committee.
• The Committee may visit the States and interact with authorities concerned of the State Governments.
• The Committee shall be at liberty to approach this Court to seek any further clarification or direction, if felt necessary.
• The Government of India will make the services of an Additional Solicitor General of India, as and when required by the Committee for any assistance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can and will intervene to protect the fundamental rights of prisoners when the executive fails to implement existing laws and guidelines. This judgment reinforces the Court’s role as a protector of fundamental rights and highlights the need for accountability and transparency in prison administration. The judgment does not change any previous position of law, but rather emphasizes the need for the existing laws and guidelines to be implemented effectively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons is a significant step towards addressing the systemic issues plaguing Indian prisons. By forming a committee to review and recommend reforms, the Court has reiterated its commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of prisoners and ensuring accountability in prison administration. This judgment underscores the importance of judicial intervention in cases of administrative failures and highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to prison reforms.