LexINHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS I.A. NO. 26542 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013 versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. RE : INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS I.A. No. 26542 of 2018 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 DECEMBER 13, 2018 [MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Prisons Act, 1894 – Rights of prisoners on death row – Held: Convict on death row is entitled to have meetings with his immediate family members, lawyers or even mental health professionals – Such convict is entitled to move within the confines of the prison like any other convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment, however, certain restrictions may be necessary for security reasons, but even then, it would be necessary to comply with natural justice provisions with an entitlement to file an appeal – All other issues left open for consideration by the Justice Amitava Roy Committee – Committee to look into the issues raised in the present application in greater depth – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 21. Prisons Act, 1894 – s.30 – Prisoner, when a death row prisoner – Held: A prisoner can be said to be a death row prisoner when his sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny and would be operative without any intervention from any other authority. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others (1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979] 1 SCR 392 – followed. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488 : [1980] 2 SCR 557 ; Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 1 SCC 503 : [1981] 1 SCR 995 ; Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 : [1981] 2 SCR 516 ; Rakesh Kaushik v. B.L. Vig (1980) Suppl. SCC 183 : [1980] 3 SCR 929 – relied on. Case Law Reference [1979] 1 SCR 392 followed Para 5 [1980] 2 SCR 557 relied on Para 6 [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1230 1230 A B C D E F G H 1231 [1981] 1 SCR 995 relied on Para 6 [1980] 3 SCR 929 relied on Para 8 [1981] 2 SCR 516 relied on Para 10 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. 26542 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Gaurav Agrawal, A.C. A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Yash V., R. M. Bajaj, Ms. Binu Tamta, R. Bala, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Aarti Sharma, G. S. Makker, B. V. Balram Das, Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Satyendra Kumar Srivastav, Shuvodeep Roy, Somnath Banerjee, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh V.N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit P. Angadi, C. K. Sasi, Ms. Nayantara Roy, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Leisangthem Roshmani Kh., Maibam Babina, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ranjan Mukherjee, K. V. Kharlyngdoh, Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, K. N. Madhusoodhanan, Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan, T. G. Narayanan Nair, Rajesh Srivastava, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh Anindita Pujari, Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Geetanjali for M/s Arputham Aruna & Co., Shuvodeep Roy, Rituraj Biswas, M. Yogesh Kanna, Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, S. Partha Sarathi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi for M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Harish Pandey, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amit Verma, Abhishek Manchanda, Ms. Kajal Dalal, Ms. Dimple Nagpal for M/s PLR Chambers, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, T. N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mrs. T. Veera Reddy, Advs. for the appearing parties. RE : INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS A B C D E F G H 1232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. The Order of the Court was passed by MADAN B. LOKUR, J 1. This application for directions and declarations has been filed in which it is prayed, inter alia, that prisoners sentenced to death by any court have a right to be treated at par with other convicted prisoners and should be provided all similar facilities as are provided to other prisoners. It is also prayed that solitary confinement of prisoners on death row or their separate and cellular confinement be struck down as unconstitutional. 2. We do not think it necessary to go into all the issues raised in the application but find i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.