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
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Prisoners Not To Be Engaged Or Employed By The Prison Authorities In Their Residences For Household Works: Madras HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Nov 1, 24, 16:53, 3 Weeks ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 14480
S. Kalavathi Vs. State Director General of Police and Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service to conduct frequent inspections to ensure that prisoners are not engaged or employed by the Prison Authorities in their residences for household works.

While according due paramount importance to the legal right of the prisoners to be treated with respect, it would be most significant to note that while taking the right step in the right direction at the right time, the Madras High Court in a most commendable, cogent, convincing and current judgment titled S. Kalavathi Vs. State & Ors. in W.P.No.19668 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.21529 & 21531 of 2024 that was reserved on 21.10.2024 and then finally pronounced on 29.10.2024 has most unequivocally directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service to conduct frequent inspections to ensure that prisoners are not engaged or employed by the Prison Authorities in their residences for household works. This was directed by the Madras High Court while considering a writ petition that had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a life convict’s mother praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Authorities to consider her representation and provide proper medical treatment to her 30-year-old son who has been confined in the Central Prison.

It must be also mentioned here that while ordering investigations and enquiries to continue against the erring police officers, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SM Subramaniam and Hon’ble Mr Justice V Sivagnanam explicitly held in the fitness of things that:
The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct frequent and surprise inspections to ensure that the prisoners are not engaged/employed by the Prison Authorities in their residences for household works. In the event of any complaint/information from any person, an inquiry must be conducted and all appropriate actions are directed to be initiated. Very rightly so!

Before stating anything else in this brilliant judgment, the Division Bench while mentioning about the prayer in the petition observes that:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2024 and to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner's son namely Mr.Sivakumar son of Satish, aged 30 years, CT.No.2209, convict prisoner, now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore.

To say the very least, I must say from the bottom of my heart that I am most deeply indebted to this Division Bench for revealing what Mahatma Gandhi once said so famously about which I was blissfully unaware as pointed out in the very beginning of this judgment which stands out like a crown stating so very boldly that:
All Criminals should be treated as patients and the jails should be hospitals admitting this class of patients for treatment and cure. It is a sign of a diseased mind. Absolutely right!

At the very outset, this notable judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice SM Subramaniam for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice V Sivagnanam sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The writ petition on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.07.2024 and to provide medical treatment to the petitioner’s son, who is a convict prisoner.

As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 that:
The son of the petitioner Mr.Sivakumar, S/o.Mr.Sathish is a convict prisoner (CT.No.2209) initially lodged in Central Prison, Vellore and now transferred to Central Prison, Salem, pursuant to the orders of this Court.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The convict prisoner Mr.Sivakumar was convicted in S.C.No.123 of 2014 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. He is in actual imprisonment for about 10 years. During the 4 th week of May, the petitioner, who is the mother of the convict prisoner came to know that her son was assaulted on 21.05.2024 by the Prison Authorities and detained in solitary confinement. The petitioner made a request to the Jail Authorities to permit her to see her son, but they refused to grant permission.

Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that her son was assaulted by the Prison Wardens namely Mr.Mani, Mr.Prakash and Mr.Raja Suresh, based on certain false allegation of theft for a sum of Rs.4.5/- lakhs, silver jewellery and other articles from the house of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (DIG)/3 rd respondent. On 29.06.2024, during an interview by the legal practitioner with the son of the petitioner, he was informed that the prisoner was in solitary confinement in HS-4 Block without proper medical treatment. The petitioner states that the life of the prisoner is in danger in the hands of the Prison Authorities/respondents 3 and 4. She was not permitted to see her son. No interview was permitted by stating that the prisoner is not eligible to avail the benefit for 90 days.

It is worth paying attention that the Division Bench points out in para 9 about the preliminary report that:
The Investigating Officer found that employing the convict prisoners for domestic works inside the residences of Prison Authorities is strictly prohibited, even in the quarters occupied by the Subordinate Prison Officials.

The preliminary report revealed certain facts and the findings of the Investigating Officer are as under:

  1. It has come to light that the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Vellore Range has utilized few convict prisoners to do her household chores. The rules/guidelines with regard to utilizing convict prisoners for this kind of job will be clarified with the help of senior prison officials.
     
  2. One of such convict prisoners, Mr. Sivakumar, had stolen a few silver articles, electronic equipment, and cash amounting to Rs. 4.25 Lakhs from the house of DIG, Prisons, Vellore Range. Apart from those articles, Mr. Sivakumar had stolen cash kept in the almirah and shelf on various occasions prior to this episode.
     
  3. In order to recover those stolen materials, Deputy Inspector General of Prison Mrs. Rajalakshmi used the help of her subordinates, who in turn assaulted him on a few occasions to enforce recovery. The nature of injury will be ascertained by subjecting the victim Mr. Sivakumar to a medical examination by a Medical Board. Further, all co-prisoners who were lodged with the victim Mr. Sivakumar during the period of detention in the High Security Block and Closed Prison Block are to be examined further to ascertain the nature of alleged torture.
     
  4. It has been further ascertained that during the course of recovery, he was frequently shifted from one cell to another, viz., High Security Prison, Closed Prison, etc. The Standard Operative Procedures/Rules with regard to shifting the prisoner from one detention cell to another within the prison will be examined by getting clarification from the prison officials.


It cannot be glossed over that the Bench lays bare in para 10 disclosing that, Again the case was adjourned and subsequently the Superintendent of Police, CBCID filed further status report of the Investigating Officer on 21.10.2024. The second status report reveals that the Investigating Officer collected further details and documents were collected. The co-prisoners / convicts confined in the High Security Block (HS4) and Closed Prison (CP) of Central Prison, Vellore were examined and their statements are recorded.

The co-prisoners seems to have informed the Investigating Officer that the victim Mr.Sivakumar along with another convict Manikandan were beaten up. Further inquiry revealed that the convict prisoner Mr.Sivakumar along with other convict prisoner had been engaged in household chores at the residence of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, since July 2023.

Most forthrightly and most significantly, the Division Bench enjoins in para 13 stating that:
It is necessary to send a strong message to the Prison Authorities that they are not supposed to abuse their official position. The convict prisoners inside the prison are in disadvantageous position. Therefore, any kind of exploitation by the Prison Authorities cannot be subjected to normal view, but serious actions are highly warranted. Prison Authorities are solely accountable and responsible for the happenings inside the prison to the convict prisoners.

When the convict prisoners are utilised for residential works in the residences of the Prison Authorities and monitored by the Subordinate Prison Authorities, both the actions are offences and illegal, and serious actions against such Prison Authorities engaging prisoners as well as the Uniformed Personnel are just and necessary. There cannot be any compromise in dealing with such nature of offences and misconduct by the Prison Authorities.

Most commendably, the Division Bench mandates in para 15 postulating that, Jails are places, where Jail authorities are given more power over the rights of the prisoners. In such circumstances, power must be exercised with care and caution. Abuse of power when having control over powerless prisoners will create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. Nobody can unduly exercise power over another individual in this free world but it is only in places like prisons where authorities have been given power over certain rights of prisoners.

When such is the case, any misuse or abuse of powers shall not be taken in a normal manner but needs to be dealt with seriously. Already the prisoner is bereft of his fundamental right to liberty which is a punishment rendered in consonance with the procedures established by law. But on top of that to strip him of his other basic necessities, rights and eligibilities is a gross abuse of power and cannot be viewed leniently. Further inflicting pain and inhuman torture over powerless individuals is antithesis to Justice.

On the face of it, the Bench then points out in para 16 that:
The main reason for having prisons is to restrict the fundamental right to liberty of the prisoner by restricting his movement and preventing him from further committing crimes. Meanwhile, steps for reformation is undertaken inside the prison to ensure that once the prisoner walks out free, he can mingle with the society and carry on with his life in a more reformed way.

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 17 that:
Jail Authorities must be more aware of their duties and the power accorded to them by law, which must be used in a responsible manner. Power is not granted for exhibiting it over powerless people. It is given by law to use it in a responsible manner for the benefit of people and society at large.

Most sagaciously, the Division Bench points out in para 18 that:
There exist a common sentiment among people that eventually prisoners are criminals and they can be treated harshly. Such commoner outside the jails living in the free world fail to understand the level of freedom guaranteed to them by our Constitution. To be inside a prison is a punishment in itself and to top that with such brutal torture is against the essence of right to life of any individual. Prison was not a liveable place at one point, it was through the birth of present day civilisations that we have come a long way in building a healthy criminal reformation system.

Fundamentally speaking, the Bench underscores in para 19 observing that:
The idea behind prisons is to keep the convict away from the society, (a) To bring down the crimes and protect the peace in the society and (b) to reform them. Rather to torture them is never an object nor a healthy process.

Most remarkably, the Division Bench very rightly emphasizes in para 20 stating that:
Prisoners lodged in prison belong to different social and economic strata of the society. More often people from vulnerable and disadvantaged sections of the society are voiceless and are unable to fight for even their basic rights. It is the duty of the ‘State’ and the prison officials to treat all equally and make sure that steps for reformation are taken rather than imposing more and more punishments on them, thereby, promoting them to commit further crimes. There are no good or bad people. It is always the circumstances that turn a man into a different person either for good or bad. And that choice is always with the person facing such pressures. Once a person enters a prison as a convict, they are already faced with a hardship of a bleak future. And jail should serve as a place of introspection to bring out more humaneness from them. Rather putting them through further torture and mental trauma pushes them towards commission of further crimes, thereby inhibiting their reformation process. The object of jails is reformation and not subjugation.

Quite remarkably, the Division Bench also points out in para 21 mentioning in the present context that:
The rights of the prisoners are well enumerated by the Constitutional Courts across the Country. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the rights of the prisoners. When there are large scale allegations of employing prisoners in the residences of the Prison Authorities and engaging Uniformed Personnel working last Grades for residential purposes are to be condemned and it amounts to abuse of power by the Prison Authorities.

Frankly speaking, the Division Bench also observes in para 22 that:
In this context, the Director General of Prison has to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the prisoners and the Uniformed Personnel are not engaged for household works in the residences of the Prison Authorities. However, in this regard, the Prison Authorities, who have misused their position have been suspended by Government vide G.O.(2D).Nos.317, 318 and 319, Home (Prison-I) Department dated 22.10.2024.

In the fitness of things, the Division Bench rightly specifies and directs in para 23 stating that:
In the present case, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, criminal case has been registered and departmental actions are also initiated at the instance of the Director General of Prisons. Action initiated must be proceeded with and all the offenders are to be tried in the manner known to law.

Resultantly and as a corollary, the Division Bench then directs in para 24 specifying that:
In view of the facts and circumstances, the following orders are passed;

  1. The Superintendent of Police, CBCID is directed to proceed with the investigation in the criminal case registered in FIR No.1 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024 by following due procedures. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible.
     
  2. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules and conduct an inquiry by following the rules and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
     
  3. It is made clear that pendency of a criminal case is not a bar of concluding departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Services Rules. All the records are available with the Government and the Director General of Prisons and CBCID. Therefore, there is no impediment for the Government to conduct the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same and pass appropriate final orders independently even during the pendency of the criminal case registered.
     
  4. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct frequent and surprise inspections to ensure that the prisoners are not engaged/employed by the Prison Authorities in their residences for household works. In the event of any complaint/information from any person, an inquiry must be conducted and all appropriate actions are directed to be initiated.


Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 25 that:
With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

In conclusion, there can be no gainsaying that the Madras High Court has very rightly pointed out in simple and straight language that prisoners are not to be engaged or employed by the prison authorities in their residences for household works. This must be implemented in totality by the jail authorities. It was also made indubitably clear by the Court that in cases where there is violation and abuse of power by the jail authorities then in such cases serious actions are highly warranted! No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) 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