Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Forcing Prisoner's Family To Travel From Mountains To Plains To Meet Prisoners Violate Article 21: U'khand HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Wed, Dec 1, 21, 19:11, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3988
come down to the plains to meet and interact with a relative-prisoner, prima facie, violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of prisoners and their family members.

In an extremely commendable gesture aimed at drastically ameliorating the innumerable sufferings of prisoners and his family, the Uttarakhand High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment delivered as recently as on November 17, 2021 has been forthright enough to observe that forcing the family of a prisoner to travel through the mountainous terrain and to come down to the plains to meet and interact with a relative-prisoner, prima facie, violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of prisoners and their family members.

It must be noted that this frank yet sharp observation came from the Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma while noting that the Uttarakhand government, on account of overcrowding of jails, has been transferring many inmates from jails situated in mountainous districts to the plain districts. This humane approach by the Bench has to be lauded in no uncertain terms!

To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan for a Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of himself and Justice Alok Kumar Verma sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
In compliance of the order dated 20.10.2021, Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sinha, the Secretary (Home), and Mr. Pushpak Jyoti, the Inspector General of Prisons, Uttarakhand, are present before this Court through video conference.

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that:
On 17.04.2021, the former Inspector General of Prisons, Uttarakhand, Mr. A.P. Anshuman, had submitted a detailed affidavit, which was taken on record by this Court.

Quite glaringly, the Bench then points out in para 3 that:
A bare perusal of the detailed affidavit reveals the fact that in the entire State of Uttarakhand, there is only one Central Jail. All the other jails are either District Jails or Sub-Jails. According to the chart given in the said affidavit, the total capacity in all the jails for keeping inmates is 3540. However, as of 07.04.2021, there are 6499 inmates, including 192 female inmates.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, Obviously, the jails in the State are overcrowded. In order to reduce the over-crowding, jail inmates are periodically transferred from one jail to the other. For, according to the affidavit, those who have been sentenced with life imprisonment, and are housed at District Jails Tehri, Chamoli and Pauri, are generally transferred to District Jails at Haridwar and Dehradun. Similarly, by order dated 13.04.2021, 131 inmates of Sub-jail Haldwani were transferred to the District Jail, Nainital; by another order, also dated 13.04.2021, 106 inmates from Sub-jail Haldwani were transferred to the Central Jail at Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. Likewise, prisoners from District Jails Nainital, Almora, and Sub-jail Haldwani are being transferred to the Central Jail Sitarganj.

Most crucially, what forms the heart of this extremely commendable judgment is then stated most lucidly in para 5 that:
In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically opined that generally the prisoners should not be transferred far away from their family. For, it is imperative that the familial relationship should continue between the prisoner and his family despite the fact that the prisoner is incarcerated. The family relationship is essential not only for the emotional support of the prisoner, but also as a means to reform the prisoner, and to motivate him or her to reform him or herself to the extent that he or she can be brought back into the society as a law abiding citizen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also opined that to separate a prisoner from his family is to violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is imperative that a prisoner should be kept as close to his family location as possible. Thus, it is rather surprising that prisoners from Tehri, Chamoli and Pauri, the mountainous districts of this State, are being transferred to Haridwar and Dehradun. Needless to say, such a move forces the family of prisoner to travel through the mountainous terrain and to come down to the plains to be able to meet and interact with a relative, who is now a prisoner. Prima facie, this would be in violation of Article 21 of both the fundamental rights of the family, and the fundamental rights of the prisoner to be able to interact and to maintain cordial, social and familial relationship.

Adding more to it, the Bench then forthrightly brings out in para 6 that, Despite the fact that it is an admitted position that jails are over-crowded in Uttarakhand, there is not a single suggestion in the affidavit with regard to the creation of new sets of jails. Even in Haldwani, which admittedly, has a capacity of 382 prisoners, but at present it houses 1738 prisoners. There is no suggestion or recommendation for construction of a larger jail at Haldwani. According to the affidavit, even in Pithoragarh, seven crores of rupees were invested for construction of the jail wall, but even today, Pithoragarh does not have a fully functional and furnished jail.

Furthermore, the Bench then also reveals in para 7 that:
Although, the affidavit claims that there is an endeavour to upgrade the skills of the prisoners, but there are no concrete details with regard to quantity for production of such items as carpentry, or electric work, or welding work.

Most remarkably, the Bench then gracefully acknowledges in para 8 that:
Since the retributive theory of punishment is no longer in vogue, since it is the reformative theory of punishment, which is presently being implemented all over the world and within the nation, it is rather surprising that the prisoners in Uttarakhand continue to languish in jail without proper facilities, and without any endeavour to upgrade their skills. The reformative theory of punishment clearly teaches that it is, indeed, possible to reform a criminal, and to bring him back to the society as a contributory member of the society. But, a full-fledged, systematic and a sympathetic effort has to be made to reform a criminal. After all, a person is not born a criminal, but due to circumstances, many a times beyond his control, a person slowly but surely turns into a criminal. But merely because a person has become a criminal does not absolve the society of its responsibility to reform him, and to bring him within the folds of the society.

While pooh-poohing the State's tall claims, the Bench then minced no words to state in para 9 that:
Although the State does claims that it has a shortening of sentence policy, which was promulgated on February 09, 2021, but even the said policy is full of lacunae. Therefore, even the said policy would need to be re-considered and re-examined by the State.

While rapping the State on its knuckles, the Bench then further added in para 10 that:
Similarly, the State claims that it has a policy for suspending a sentence, in case, there is an emergency in the family or an urgent situation arises vis-à-vis a convicted prisoner. But, even the said policy is a flawed one. While, on the one hand, it states that in case a prisoner's family faces an urgent situation, the prisoner would be released for a maximum of three months, yet Clause 7 of the Policy prohibits the suspension of sentence of those prisoners, who are convicted for murder, dacoity, rape, POCSO offences, until and unless, they complete four years of sentence. There is no reasonable justification for denying a convicted prisoner, of offence under Section 302 IPC, of an opportunity to go out and tackle the urgent situation being faced by his family. Therefore, even this particular clause of the policy would have to be re-examined by the State.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 11 holding that:
Therefore, this Court directs the learned Inspector General of Prisons to first visit each of the jails functioning in the State, and to submit a detailed report about the conditions of the jail along with photographs of the jail. He is further directed to put forth the vision for improving and reforming the conditions of the jail. He is further directed to give his opinion on the issue whether, more open air jails should be created within the State, or not? For, presently we only have a single open air jail functioning in the State. Lastly, he is directed to convey his vision for improving the entire jail administration, including the jails which may be required for the future needs of the State.

What's more, the Bench then also directed in para 12 stating that:
The said report shall be submitted by him on or before 07.12.2021.

Going forward, the Bench then further directed in para 13 stating that:
Both, Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sinha, the learned Secretary (Home), and Mr. Pushpak Jyoti, the learned Inspector General of Prisons, Uttarakhand, are directed to remain present before this Court through video conferencing on 08.12.2021.

Not stopping here, the Bench then also directed the Registry in para 14 stating that:
The Registry is directed to tag Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 333 of 2021 with this batch of cases.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 15 that:
List this case on 08.12.2021, along with connected matters.

No doubt, it is a very progressive, path-breaking and powerful judgment by the Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma by which prisoners will benefit immensely. What all has been directed by the Uttarakhand High Court as mentioned aforesaid needs to be implemented forthwith and that too in totality and not piecemeal. It brooks no more delay anymore.

Of course, it merits no reiteration that the State must take promptly all such requisite steps as the High Court has pointed out to ameliorate the shabby condition of the prisoners in jail and to alleviate the innumerable sufferings which they and their family have to face most disgracefully! This is the crying need of the hour also! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top