LexCHARLES SOBRAJ versus THE SUPTD., CENTRAL JAIL, TIHAR, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c )) E F G H 512 CHARLES SOBRAJ V. THE SUPTD .• CENTRAL JAIL. TIHAR. NEW DELHI August 31, 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0, CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J Pol11ers of the Supre1ne Court to interfere tO right the ll'rong and restore the rule of law-Constitution of India 1950, Art. 136. Funda11ze11tal Rights-Whether the prisoners can invoke their constitutional rights under Part III of the Constitution-Prison justice and Art. 21 of the Con- stitution--Prison justice is a sort of solemn covenant running with the power of the Court to sentence the accused-Judicial discretion vis-a-vis priso11 acllninis· tration and p1 l~oners' rights, explained-Correctional confinen1e1tt and Court's. jurisdiction. The petitioner a convict having to serve two sentences of long imprison- ment, plus record of one escape and one attempt of suicide and interpol reports of many crimes abroad in addition to several cases pending in India against him, through this writ petition contended that barbarity and inhuman· trcatn1ent have been hurled at him and that intentional discrimination has· been his lot throughout and, therefore, sought the assistance of this Court for directing the jail authorities to give him finer foreigners as companions, and to re111ove him from a high security ward like Ward-I to a more relaxed \vard .. by invoking the provisions of Artit:les 14, 19 and 21 of the Ccnstitntion. Disn1issing the Writ Petition the Court, HELD : ( 1) Imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights. although, by a realistic re-appraisal, Courts will refuse to recognise the fulf panoply of Part III of the Constitntion enjoyed by a free citizen. Whenever fundamental rights are flouted or legislative protection ignored to any prisoner's prejudice, this Court's writ will run breaking through stone \Valls and iron bars, to right the wrong and restore the rule of law. Then the parrot-cry of disci- pline \ViU not deter, of security will not scare, of discretion will not dissuade, th~ judicial process. For if courts 'cave in' when great rights are gouged \Vithin the sound-prOOf, sight-proof precincts of prison houses. where often dis- senters and minorities are caged, Bastilles will be re-enacted. \Vhen ]a\\' ends. tyranny begins; and history whispers, iron has never been thtJ1 ans\\·er to the· rights of men. [514 H, 515 A-BJ (2) Art. 21 of the Constitution read with Art. i9(i)(d) an<l (5) is capa- ble of wider application than the imperial mischief which ga.ve its birth and must dral\' its meaning from the evolving standards of decency and dignity that mark the progress of a mature society. Fair procedure is the soul of Art. 21f reai;onableness of the' restriction is the· essence of Art. 19(5) and sweeping dis- cretion degenerating into arbitrary discrimination is anathema for Art. 14. Constitutional Karuna is thus injected into incarceratory strategy to produce prison justice. [515 C-Dl Sunil Batra v. Delhi Adn1n. & Ors. and Charles Gur1anukl1 Sobraj v. State of Delhi [1979] 1 SCR 392 referred to. • qIARlES SOBRAJ v. SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL (Krishna Iyer, J.) 513 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., [1964] 1 SCR 357; applied. A (3) P1ison justice implies Court's continuing duty and authority to ensure that the judicial warrant which deprives a person of his life or Jiberty i~ not exceeded~ subverted or stultified. It is a sort ·of solemn covenant running with the power to sentence. Where a prison practice or internal instruction pla~es harsh restrictions on jail life, breaching guaranteed rights, the Court directly comes in. Every prison stntence is a conditioned deprivation of life and liberty, with civiliz.ed· norms built in and unlimited trauma interdicted. Jn this sense judicial· policy of prison practices is implied in the sentenci~g power. The Criminal judiciary have thus a duty to guardian their sentencees and visit prisons \\-·hen necessary. The penological goals which may be rega-rded as reasonab1e justification for restricting the right to move freely within the confines of a penitentiary are now well settled. And if prisoners have title to Articles 19, 21 and 14 rights, subject to the limitations, there must be some correlation between depriviation of comfort and legitimate function of a correctional system. [515 G. 516-E, F-G] (4) Deterrence, both specific and general rehabilitation, and institutional secmity are vital considerations. Compassion wherever poss
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.