KISHOR SINGH RAVINDER DEV ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 04-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

995 
KISHOR SINGH RAVINDER DEV ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
November 4, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER & R . S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Prisons A ct, 1894-Section 46-Keeping of Prisoners in solitary confine-
ment and putting bar fetters for loitering and insolent behaviour-Validity of 
Natural Justice-Prison authorities, 
if should give an opportunity of 
being heard before imposing punishment 011 prisoners. 
One of the petitioners, in a telegram to one of the Judges of this Court 
complained of insufferable, illegal solitary confinement. 
He also complained 
that he was kept in iron fetters alongwith the other two \)etitioners. By an 
order of this Court, the petitioners were directed to be set free from solitary 
confinement and brought before the Court. When the prisoners were brought 
before the Court they alleged that, while in transit, violence had been used 
by the escort police on the person of one of the petitioners resulting in deep 
wounds on his person. The Superintendent of Prisons who was present in 
the Court was directed to take special care of the prisoner after giving him 
proper medical treatment. 
Allowing the petition 
HELD: 
1. Article 21 would become dysfunctional unless the agencies 
of the law in the police and prison establishments have sympathy for the 
humanist creed of that Article. 
The State must re-educate the police and 
inculcate a respect for the human person. If any of the escort were found 
to have ·misconducted themselves they should be given condign punishment. 
{999G, D, E] 
2. By keeping the prisoners in separate solitary rooms for long periods 
ranging . fr6m 8 to 11 months, putting cross· bar fetters for several days on 
the flimsy grounds of loitering in the prison, behaving insolently and in an 
uncivilised manner the prison authorities have acted in utter disregard of the 
mandate of this Court in Sunil Batra. [lOOOD·E] 
3. The Jail Superintendent's version that he had given a hearin~ to the 
prisoners before punishing them cannot be believed. 
Neither section 46 of 
the Prisons Act nor Rule 79 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules can be read in 
the absolutist expansionism, the Prison Authorities would like them to be 
read. . That would virtually mean that prisoners are not persons to be dealt 
with at the mercy of the prison echelons. 
Articles 14, 19 and 21 operate 
within the prisons in the manner explained in Sunil Batra (1). A separate Cell 
is not different from solitary confinement. [lOOIB, 1002G·H] 
(i) If special restrictions of a punitive or harsh character have beeu 
imposed for convincing security reasons, it is necessary to comply 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
with natural justice ~s indicated in ·sunil Batra. il'here must be an 
H 
appeal from a prison authority to ·a judicial organ when such treat-
ment ia meted out. [1003A] 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) · 1 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
(ii) Section 46 of the Prisons Act and Rules 1(0 and 79 of the Rajastban 
Prison Rules are valid subject to the directions given, by this. Court 
in Rakesh Kaushik. [1003Gl 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(iii) The Sessions Judges in the State of Rajasthan should remember the 
rulings of this Court in Sunil Batra I and II and Rakesh KaUshik and. 
act in such manner that judicial 
authority 
over sent~nces. and the 
conditions of their inCarceration are not eroded by judicial in·action. 
[1004AJ 
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1979] 1 SCR 392 Sunil Batra v. Delhi 
Administration [1980] 2 SCR S51, Rakesh Kaushlk v. B. L. Vig, Superi•.ttndent 
Central Jail, New Delhi [19801 3 S.C.R. 929. applied. 
· 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 5287 of 1980. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution). 
P. H. Parekh, Amicus Curiae for the "Petitioner. 
B. D. Sharma for the Respondent. 
, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The moral of this case is P,Oignant: So long 
as an iron curtain divides the law set by the Constitution and lit 
by the Supreme Court from the minions of the State, so long shall 
this Court's writ remain a mystic myth 
and 
harmless half-truth 
making law in the books and law-in-action distant neighbours. This 
shall not be. 
, The sombre scenario unfurled by this habeas corpus proceeding· 
begins with 
a telegram 
(dated 
3-10-1980) on 
behalf of the 
prisoners-:-the petitioners- to one of us, complaining, manu · brevi. 
or insufferable, illegal solitary confinement punctuated by periods of 
iron fetters, a lot shared by two others with him in Jaipur Central 
Jail. . This trauma-

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