The Right to Life in Prison
Chapter One Hundred Fifty
Syllabus topic 6, "Imprisonment"
Pages 644 to 648 of 806
In one line
Article 21 is the whole of prison law that the Prisons Act 1894 does not contain, and the sentence that unlocks it is that a prisoner keeps his fundamental rights.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. A sentence of imprisonment deprives a prisoner of liberty of movement lawfully, but it does not deprive him of life, of the dignity that Article 21 protects, or of the requirement that any further deprivation be by a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable. That is the source of every prisoner's right in Indian law.
The structure of the argument
Four steps, and a candidate should set them out in this order.
One: the sentence removes only what it removes. A sentence of imprisonment authorises confinement for a term. It does not authorise anything else, and everything a prison does beyond confining the person requires its own justification.
Two: the prisoner keeps the rest. Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, (1978) 4 SCC 104: imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights, though not the full range of Part III. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494: convicts are not by mere reason of conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights they otherwise possess, and even a convict is entitled to the protection of Article 21.
Three: any further deprivation needs a fair procedure. Charles Sobraj: fair procedure is the soul of Article 21.
Four: and the remedy is in public law. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746: compensation for the contravention of a fundamental right is a remedy in public law, based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity is no defence, and it is distinct from and additional to the private law remedy in tort.
What Article 21 has produced inside a prison
The specific protections, each with its case, and this table is the answer to a question on the right to life in prison.
| Protection | Source |
|---|---|
| Against solitary confinement imposed by the prison | Sunil Batra: it is a court's punishment, and section 30(2) does not authorise it |
| Against bar fetters as a routine or class measure | Sunil Batra: only for safe custody, after application of mind to the individual prisoner |
| Against routine handcuffing | Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526 |
| Against handcuffing without a Magistrate's permission | Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam, (1995) 3 SCC 743 |
| Against torture, and to the responsibility of the Superintendent for it | Sunil Batra (II), (1980) 3 SCC 488 |
| To legal aid and confidential legal consultation | Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96; and section 40 of the Prisons Act 1894 for the undertrial |
| To a speedy trial | Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 |
| To compensation for a custodial wrong | Nilabati Behera |
| To access to a court: a letter treated as a petition, grievance boxes, visiting judges | Sunil Batra (II) |
The rest of this chapter
Module one is free. The rest of this chapter comes with the LL.M. Criminal Law and Criminal Administration Semester 3 notes.
You are reading a chapter from a later module. Everything in module one of every subject stays free, and so does every question paper and the syllabus.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or notes only: ₹499
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Free either way: question papers, the syllabus, and module one of every subject.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.