India News

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

Published

9 years ago

September 16, 2017

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:MHA NCRB Nhrc Supreme Court

Up Next

Gorkhaland Total Bandh Enters Fourth Month As Leaders Duck

Don't Miss

Now self-styled godman Mahant Pratibhanand arrested for BSP leader’s murder

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

3 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

3 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

4 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.