D. BHUVAN MOHAN PATNAIK & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 09-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1.4 
D. BHUVAN MOHAN PATNAIK & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
Septiember 9, 1974 
[H. R. KHANNA, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Constit111ion of India, Articles 32. 21 and 13-Prison,g Act, 1894-Whether 
pri~oner has /1111damenta/ right-Validity of live wiJ•e mechanism atop jail wall--
Posting Police out·side i•~il-Validily of. 
The petitioners are UIJ.der·going sentences in the Central Jail at Vizagapatnam. 
The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for the reliefs that the armed 
Police Guards posted around the Jail should be ren~oved and that live wire elec-
trical mechanism fixed on top of jail wall should be dismantled. It was contended 
by the petitioners that ( 1) under section 3(1) of the Pri~ons Act, 1894 prison 
includes all lands and buildings appurtenant thereto. The policemen occupied 
huts appurtenant to jail and, therefore, oo:upied a part of the prison, which is 
calculated to cause substantial interfere.nee with the fundamental rights of the 
petitioners. (2) N'axalite prisoners were segregated and inhuman treatment was 
me'te.d out to them as if they were inmates of a fasdst concentration camp. (3) 
The liw wire mechanism fixed atop the jail walls is uncoostiiutional bccauBe a 
prisoner attempting to escape is by the use of the device virtually subjected to 
a death penalty, Under the Penal Code a prisoner who escapes or attempts to 
escape is liable to a maximum sentence of 2 years and a fine. 
The live wire 
gadget lacks the authority of law and is in flagrant violation of the personal liberty 
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 
It was contended by the respondent that (I) the usual watch and ward stair 
of the Jail having been found to be inadequate, servic~s of the Andhra Pradeosh 
Special Police force had to be requisitioned to guard the jail from outside. (2) 
The prisoners were not subj~:ted to inhuman treatrnent and were on ihe other 
hand afforded all the facilities necessary for a decent and reasonahly comfortable 
existence. 
(3) The live wire instaJled atop the wall is 14 ft. from ground level, 
height of the wall itself being 13 ft. 
It rests on enamelled non-conducton. 
The wire has no direct contact with the wal'1 and there is no possibility of the 
electrical current leaking through the wall The prison walls themselves arc 
situa~d at a distance ot about 20 ft. from the cells· where the petitioners are 
lodged. An electrician inspects the system regularly. The mechanism is not a 
secret trap as aH prisoners are warned of its existence. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : (i) Convicts are not by mere reason ol~ the conviction, denuded of 
all the fundamental rights which they otherwise posse1s. A prisoner is deprived 
of fundamental rights like the right to move freely throughout the territory of 
India or the right to practise a profession. But other freedoms like the right .to 
acquire, hold or dispose of property are available to the prisoner. He is also 
entitled to the right guaranteed by Art. 21 that he shall not be den"ived of his 
life or the personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 
Therefore. under ou.r Constitution the right of perso11al liberty and some of the 
other fundamental freedoms are not to be totally denied to a convict during the 
period of incarceration. [260-F; 27B] 
(ii) The petitioners are not denied any of their fundamental rights by posting 
of Police Guards immediately outside the jail. As mar1y as 156 Naxalite prisoners 
were lodged in the Vizagapatnam jail, as a result of which the usual watch and-
ward arrangement proved inadequate. · 11 Naxalite prisoners indluding ·2 out of 
the 3 petition.ers escaped from the prisop in 1969. It was decided thereafter to 
take adequate measures for pr.eventing !the scape of prisoners from jail. The 
Policemeri have no access to the jail which is enclosed by high walls. 
Their 
presence in the immediate. vicinity Of the jail can cause DO interference With the 
peniolial liberty or the lawful pre-occuJllltiOns of the 1~risoners. (27B-D; G] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.. 
D. B. PATNAIK V, A. p, STATE (Chandrachud, 1.) 
25 
(iii) The court is not satisfied about the ·truth of the allegations of inhuman 
trelllment though the court does not accept the rosy picture drawn by the Jail 
Authorities. There are subtle forms of punishment to which e0nvicts 
and under trial prisoners are sometimes subjected but it 
must 
be 
realized · 
that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.