SUNIL BATRA ETC. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 30-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 33 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'A. 
c 
[D 
I' 
E 
F 
G 
H 
•
SUNIL BATRA ETC .. , 
v. 
DELW ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. ETC. 
August 30, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J:, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, S. MURTAZA FAZAL 
-~, :'c-.~--ALI, P; N. Sll!NGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
~ 
\ .' . 
. 
' . 
-- Prisons Act 1894--Seclion 30-Scope ·of-Solitary confinement-Imposition 
of bar-fett"ers ulider s. 56 on a prisoner-Whether violates Artic(es .. 14,_ 19, 21 
of _the Constitution 1950.- :-~ -
Practice and Procedure-ll/ecessity of social welfare organisation to inten·ene 
in the litigative procesJ . 
. -. 
P~iso~ Act 1894.~nd Punjab Jail Manual-Need for revision to re-fleet the 
deeper rneaning in the behavioural norms, correctional a!ti:ude1 and hunrane 
Orientdtion for the prison staff and prisoners alike. 
-- ·-- --=::-
Words & Phrases-~Under sentence of Death'. and 
~apart /rOm all other 
prisonerJ'-Meaning of. 
. Section 30(2) _of the Prisozis Act provides that every priSoner under sentence 
of death shall be confined in 3: cell aPart from all other prisoners and shall · be 
placed by day and by night under the charge of a giiard. 
The petitioner in W.P. No. 2202 of 1977 who was a convict under sentence 
of death challenged his solitary confinement. 1It was contended on his behalf 
that s. 30(2) does not authorise placing a prisoner under sentence of death 
in solitary confinement and that the jail authority could not arrogate to itself 
the power to impose such punishment under the garb of giving effect to s. 30(2). 
On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State that the section merely 
permits statutory segregation for safety of the prisoner in the prisoner's own 
interest and that instead of striking down the provision, the Court should adopt 
a course of so reading down the section as to denude it of its ugly inhuman 
features. 
The petitioner in W.P. 565 of 1977 contended· that s. 56 of the Prisons Act 
which confers unguided, uncanalised, and arbitrary powers on the Superintendent 
.to confine !J. prisoner in. irons is ultra vires Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
Dis~ing the petitions. 
HEID~; -(~ Chandrachud CJ. Fazal Ali, Shinghal and Desai, JJ.). 
1. Section 30(2) does not empower the prison authority to impose solitary 
confinement upon a prisoner under sentence of death. 
Even jail 
discipline 
inhibits solitary confinement as a measure of jail punishment. [499H] ' 
2. It ha'; been well established that convicts are not by mere reason of the 
conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. 
For example a man of profession who is convicted would stand stripped of his 
right to hold consultations while serving out his sentence; but the Constinition 
guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property 
for the exercise of which incarceration can be no impediment. 
Likewise even 
• 
• 
\' , 
) -
- ~ 
• 
SUNIL BATRA v. DELHI ADMN. (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
393 
a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 that he shall 
A 
not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure 
established by law. 
[4950-H] 
Procunier v. Martiney 40 L. Ed. 2d. 224 at 248; Wolff v. Mcdonnel 41 L. 
Ed 409 at 501; D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 
[1975] 2 SCR 24 referred to. 
3. Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code leave no room for doubt 
that solitary confinement is by itself a substantive punishment which can be 
imposed by a court of law. It cannot be left to the whim and caprice of prison 
authorities. 
The limit of solitary confinement that can be imposed under 
Court's order is strictly JJrescribed by the Penal Code, [498 B-C] 
4. Solitary confinement is so revolting to the modern sociologist and law 
reformer that the Law Commission recommended that the punishment of solitary 
confinement is out of tune with modern thinking and should not find a place in 
the Penal Code as a punishment to be ordered by any criminal court even 
though it may be necessary as a measure of jail discipline. [498 F-G] 
5. The explanation to s.44(8) of the Prisons Act makes it clear that a 
person is not wholly segregated from other prisoners in that he is not removed 
from the sight of other prisoners and he is entitled to have his meals in associa-
tion with one or more other prisoners. Even such separate confinement cannot 
exceed three months, Para 847 of the Punjab Jail Manual, if literally enforced 
would keep a prisoner totally out of bounds
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.