English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC bats for prisoners’ right to dignity, issues stern directives on prison reforms

Published

on

SC bats for prisoners’ right to dignity, issues stern directives on prison reforms

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Custodial deaths indicate the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, says the Supreme Court in landmark 43-page verdict

In a landmark verdict aimed at restoring a prisoner’s right to lead a life with dignity even while being lodged in a jail and to provide for the kin of prisoners who die of “unnatural’ causes while in jail, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directives to the Centre, States and High Courts across the country.

Noting that “there seems to be no let up in custodial deaths” across the country, the apex court Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said: “This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in custody. The time to remedy the situation is long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution in sight”.

Interestingly, the judgment came not on a public interest litigation but over a letter addressed to the apex court in 2013 by its then Chief Justice RC Lahoti on the deplorable conditions of 1382 prisons across the country, which had been admitted in the form of a PIL.

Justice Lokur who authored the judgment delivered on Friday said in his 43-page verdict: “right sounding noises critical of custodial violence (in any form) cannot achieve any useful purpose unless persons in authority hear the voices of the victims or the silence of the dead and act on them by taking remedial steps.”

The verdict asks Chief Justices of all High Courts across the country to “register a suo motu public interest petition with a view to identifying the next of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural death as revealed by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) during the period between 2012 and 2015 and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate compensation has already been awarded”.

The Court’s order to compute compensation from 2012 onwards has been given on the rationale that the NCRB didn’t maintain any data for unnatural deaths in prisons in the years preceding 2012.

The Court’s directive is a welcome and radical departure from the currently established practice of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or its subsidiaries in the States deciding on and awarding compensation in cases of custodial torture, deaths, etc. The Bench possibly bore in mind that most state governments do not adhere to directives issued by the human rights panels as these commissions do not exercise any power of contempt – a right that is reserved for courts. This judgment thus sets a new precedent wherein the high court will now directly award compensation and ensure compliance by the States.

According to data with the NCRB, 551 “unnatural deaths”, including 328 suicides, had happened in prisons across the country between 2012 and 2015. A monograph by the NHRC published in December 2014 had pointed out that between 2007 and 2011, suicides accounted for 71 per cent of the total number of unnatural deaths in prison. Further, the monograph established that while the average suicide rate among the general public for this period was 11 per 1,00,000; the average suicide rate in prisons was 16.9 per 1,00,000.

The court directed the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) to ensure circulation within one month and “in any event by 31st October, 2017” of the Model Prison Manual, the monograph prepared by the NHRC, the compendium of advisories issued by the MHA to state governments, the Nelson Mandela Rules (a charter passed by the UN General Assembly which says “merely because a person is in prison, it does not mean that he or she should be cut off from the outside world) and the guidelines on investigating deaths in custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director General or Inspector General of Police in charge of prisons in every State and Union Territory.

The judgment also asks all state government to “conduct training and sensitization programmes for senior police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of prisoners.” The Bench has also said that State must appoint “counselors and support persons for counselling prisoners, particularly first-time offenders”.

Another directive issued by the Supreme Court which only emphasizes its seriousness on implementing prison reforms is that state government must “consider extending the time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of using phones and video conferencing for communications not only between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the lawyer, whether appointed through the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise.”

Observing that the “right to health is undoubtedly a human right” the Bench also directed state governments “to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary”. The Court also asked the Centre and state governments to consider the establishment of “open jails”.

The verdict also comprehensively addresses the juvenile convicts and undertrials who have died unnatural deaths while in custody or in juvenile justice homes and makes a pointed reference to how both the Centre and States were “oblivious to the possibility of death of children in custody in child care institutions” as no figure for such deaths was ever compiled. The verdict goes on to state that “it seems that apart from being ‘voiceless’, such children are also dispensable” and sets a deadline of December 31, 2017 for the Union ministry of women and child development to formulate procedures for tabulating the number of children who suffered unnatural deaths in custody or in child care institutions and take remedial measures.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com