Supreme Court Upholds Intra-State Prison Transfer for Security Reasons: State of Jharkhand vs. Vikash Tiwary (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 79

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can prison authorities transfer a convict within the state for security reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the transfer of a convict, Vikash Tiwary, within the state of Jharkhand. The core issue revolved around the powers of the Inspector General of Prisons to order such transfers based on administrative grounds, particularly when there are concerns about security and potential gang violence within the prison.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment, with Justice R. Mahadevan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Vikash Tiwary was convicted on 22 September 2020, in connection with a case arising out of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.610/2015, for offences including murder, criminal conspiracy, and violations of the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, while serving his sentence at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, an order was issued on 17 May 2023 by the Inspector General of Prisons, transferring him to Central Jail, Dumka, within the State of Jharkhand. This transfer was based on concerns about potential gang violence and security issues within the Hazaribagh jail.

Tiwary challenged this transfer order in the High Court of Jharkhand, arguing that it violated principles of natural justice and that no opportunity was given to him. The High Court quashed the transfer order, leading to the present appeal by the State of Jharkhand.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the legal basis for the transfer order, focusing on Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, and Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual. Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, states:

“29. Removal of prisoners – (1) The State Government may, by general or special order, provide for the removal of any prisoner confined in a prison – (a) under sentence of death, or (b) under, or in lieu of, a sentence of imprisonment or transportation, or (c) in default of payment of a fine, or (d) in default of giving security for keeping the peace or for maintaining good behaviour, to any other prison in the State. (2) Subject to the orders, and under the control of the State Government, the Inspector General of prisons may, in like manner provide for the removal of any prisoner confined as aforesaid in a prison in the State to any other prison in the State.”

Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual provides:

“Rule 770( B) – Long -term prisoners on admission to District Jails, who are certified fit to travel by the Medical Officers may be transferred to the affiliated Central Jails, irrespective of their age. Nothing in this rule contained, shall be deemed in any way to interfere with the power of the Inspector General for sufficient reason, in his discretion, by general or special order to direct that any class or class of prisoners shall be confined in or tra nsferred to any jail or class of jails”.

The Court noted that Section 29 empowers the State Government and, subject to its control, the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer prisoners under certain conditions. Rule 770(b) further grants the Inspector General the power to transfer prisoners for sufficient reasons.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Jharkhand):

• The respondent is a notorious gangster with a history of criminal activity, and multiple FIRs have been registered against him even while in prison.
• The transfer was necessary due to the apprehension of gang war between rival groups within the jail, as communicated by the Jail Superintendent and District Commissioner.
• The Inspector General of Prisons has the authority to order intra-state transfers under Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, and Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual.
• The transfer was aimed at ensuring the safety and security of the respondent and other inmates, as well as maintaining order within the prison.
• The High Court erred in relying on the decision in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh, as that case dealt with undertrial prisoners, while the respondent is a convict.

Arguments by the Respondent (Vikash Tiwary):

• There was no evidence of any untoward incident involving the respondent inside the prison.
• The transfer order was passed without proper inquiry and with mala fide intention, as evidenced by the character certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent stating his character was satisfactory.
• The respondent is an undertrial prisoner in other cases, and his transfer to a distant jail would prejudice his ability to defend himself.
• The transfer poses a threat to his life, as seen in the case of Aman Singh, who was transferred and later killed in suspicious circumstances.
• The High Court rightly exercised its power of judicial review and set aside the order of intra-State jail transfer of the respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of intra-State jail transfer of the respondent passed by the Inspector General of Prisons?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh [(2012) 13 SCC 192]: The High Court erroneously relied on this case, which dealt with undertrial prisoners, while the present case involves a convict.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) Vol. III SCC 284]: This case was cited to justify the transfer of a prisoner from one jail to another for security reasons.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others [(1978) 4 SCC 494]: The respondent referred to this case to argue that transfer to a distant prison may adversely affect his right to defend himself.
• Geerinder Kaur v. State of Punjab: This case held that the place of detention is an administrative choice and courts should interfere only if there is a violation of law or mala fides.
• State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor Hasan Gulam Hussain [1995 Crl.LJ 765 SC]: This case held that classification of prisoners and their placement in different prisons is a policy decision, and courts should interfere sparingly.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980 AIR 1579]: This case emphasized the need for an overhaul of Prison Manuals in compliance with constitutional ideals and human rights.
• Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 2 SCC 642]: This case led to the framing of the Model Prison Manual.
• Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re [(2017) 10 SCC 658]: This case led to the approval of the Model Prison Manual by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900: This section empowers the State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer prisoners under certain conditions.
• Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual: This rule empowers the Inspector General to transfer prisoners for sufficient reasons.
• Rule 9.01 of the Prison Manual 2016: This rule provides for grounds under which a transfer can be made, including security.
• Rule 35 of the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023: This rule deals with the safe custody and security of prisoners and empowers the Head of Prisons to transfer a prisoner to any other prison in the State/UT.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court distinguished the case of State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh [(2012) 13 SCC 192], stating that it pertained to undertrial prisoners, whereas the present case involved a convict. The court relied on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) Vol. III SCC 284], which held that a prisoner can be transferred for security reasons, even if the jail manual does not explicitly provide for it. The Court also referred to Geerinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor Hasan Gulam Hussain [1995 Crl.LJ 765 SC] to emphasize that the place of detention is an administrative decision and courts should interfere sparingly. The Court also referred to Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980 AIR 1579], Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 2 SCC 642] and Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re [(2017) 10 SCC 658] to emphasize the need for prison reforms and the implementation of the Model Prison Manual.

The Court applied Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual to affirm the Inspector General’s authority to order the transfer. The Court also referred to Rule 9.01 of the Prison Manual 2016 and Rule 35 of the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 to emphasize the security concerns and the power of the authorities to transfer prisoners.

The Court reasoned that the transfer order was based on genuine concerns about potential gang violence and the inability of the prison authorities to manage the situation effectively. The Court emphasized that the safety of the prisoner and the maintenance of order within the prison were paramount considerations. The Court also noted that the character certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent was contradictory to his earlier communication expressing apprehension of gang war and therefore it cannot be relied upon.

“The substantive right flows from the Section and Rules as applicable, enables the Inspector General of Prison s, on discretion to transfer a prisoner from one prison to another or from one class to another . The only caution, we may add , is that such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrar ily.”

“Thus, it is vivid that if the situation necessitates transfer of the prisoner from one jail to another, it can be done by the authority concerned.”

“There is a duty on the Inspector General of Prisons to ensure the safety of all the inmates in the prison. This measure was essential to ensure not only the safety of the prisoner but also to disrupt and neutralize the potential for gang -related violence within the prison.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain security and order within the prison system. The court emphasized the administrative powers of the Inspector General of Prisons and the necessity to ensure the safety of all inmates. The court also considered the potential for gang violence and the need to disrupt such activities. The court did not give weightage to the character certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent as it was contradictory to his earlier communication expressing apprehension of gang war.

Key Takeaways

• Prison authorities have the power to transfer convicts within the state for security reasons.
• The Inspector General of Prisons can order such transfers based on administrative grounds, as per Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual.
• Courts will generally not interfere with such administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of law.
• The safety and security of prisoners and the maintenance of order within prisons are paramount considerations.
• Character certificates issued by Jail Superintendents are not conclusive and can be disregarded if contradictory to other evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The authorities shall ensure that the respondent’s life, basic and fundamental rights to the extent available in accordance with law, are protected.
• The State of Jharkhand shall, if not already done, formulate or expedite the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the applicable provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective prison administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison authorities.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Inspector General of Prisons has the authority to order intra-state transfers of convicted prisoners for security reasons, based on Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual. This judgment reinforces the administrative powers of prison authorities to maintain order and security within prisons. It also clarifies that the courts should not interfere with such administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of law. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State of Jharkhand, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the transfer order issued by the Inspector General of Prisons. The Court held that the transfer was lawful and necessary for the safety and security of the prisoner and the prison. The Court also directed the State of Jharkhand to formulate a Jail Manual based on the 2016 Model Prison Manual.

Disclaimer

This document is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. For legal advice, please consult a qualified legal professional.