English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

9 years ago

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

10 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

11 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com