Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Rights of Prisoners, Restricts Solitary Confinement and Use of Bar Fetters in Prisons

In landmark judgment on Sunil Batra and Charles Sobraj cases, SC rules solitary confinement not authorized under Prisons Act for death row inmates pending execution; strict guidelines imposed on use of irons for under-trials, emphasizing humane treatment and judicial oversight.

In a path-breaking decision on August 30, 1978, the Supreme Court of India, in a larger bench comprising Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, P.N. Shinghal and D.A. Desai, delivered a detailed judgment on the constitutional rights of prisoners, particularly focusing on the conditions of incarceration of death row convicts and under-trial prisoners. The twin writ petitions of Sunil Batra, a death row convict, and Charles Sobraj, an under-trial prisoner, challenged the legality and constitutionality of their confinement conditions in Tihar Central Jail.

Sunil Batra's petition contended that he was subjected to solitary confinement after being sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, pending confirmation of his sentence by the High Court and ultimate execution, which he argued was unlawful and violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Charles Sobraj's petition challenged the prolonged use of bar fetters (heavy irons) imposed on him as an under-trial prisoner, alleging that such treatment amounted to cruel and degrading punishment without judicial oversight, violating Articles 14 and 21.

The Court emphatically rejected the notion that prisoners, including those under sentence of death, forfeit their constitutional rights upon incarceration. It reiterated that prisoners retain all fundamental rights unless lawfully curtailed and that prison administration must operate within constitutional boundaries, subject to judicial review. The judgment underscored the critical balance between prison security, discipline, and the humane treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners.

On solitary confinement, the Court held that Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894, which mandates that prisoners under sentence of death be confined "in a cell apart from all other prisoners" under guard, does not authorize solitary confinement as a form of punishment. Solitary confinement, defined as complete isolation from sight and communication with other prisoners, is a severe punishment that can only be imposed by a Court under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to strict limitations and medical supervision. The Court clarified that a convict is considered "under sentence of death" only after the sentence becomes final and executable—that is, after all judicial appeals and mercy petitions are exhausted.

In Batra's case, since his death sentence was pending confirmation by the Supreme Court and mercy petitions before the President were outstanding, he was not yet "under sentence of death" within the meaning of Section 30(2). Consequently, he was not lawfully liable to be kept in solitary confinement. The Court directed that death row prisoners pending finality of sentence must be kept in jail custody with reasonable amenities and community interaction, not subjected to cellular isolation.

Regarding the use of bar fetters under Section 56 of the Prisons Act, the Court recognized the Superintendent’s discretionary power to impose irons for safe custody but imposed stringent safeguards. The power must be exercised only when absolutely necessary to prevent escape or violence, based on objective and tangible reasons related to the prisoner's character and safety concerns. The Superintendent must record specific reasons in the prisoner’s history ticket and journal, communicate them in a language understood by the prisoner, and review the necessity daily. Prolonged or indiscriminate use of fetters, especially on under-trials presumed innocent, was condemned as cruel, degrading, and unconstitutional. The Court ordered the immediate removal of fetters from Sobraj and laid down that irons shall not be imposed without procedural fairness, including a hearing and oversight by higher authorities such as the Inspector General of Prisons or judicial officers.

The judgment also addressed systemic issues such as the inaccessibility of prison laws to prisoners, the colonial hangover in prison manuals with archaic rules like whipping and the ban on Gandhi caps, and the urgent need for prison reform emphasizing rehabilitation, dignity, and human rights. The Court called for legislative and administrative action to align prison laws and practices with constitutional values and modern penological principles.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 30 and 56 of the Prisons Act but read them down to exclude solitary confinement except as a court-imposed punishment and to severely regulate the use of irons to prevent abuse and safeguard prisoners’ dignity. The Court reinforced that prisons are not beyond the reach of constitutional justice and that prisoners, though lawfully deprived of liberty, retain fundamental human rights. This judgment marks a watershed moment in Indian jurisprudence on prison reform and prisoners’ rights, setting a precedent for humane treatment and judicial oversight in correctional institutions.

Statutory provisions

Prisons Act, 1894 Section 30(2), Section 56; Indian Penal Code Sections 73, 74; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 366(1) and (2), 415; Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 20(2), 21, 32, 72, 136, 161

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 105360