Title

Human Rights of Prisoners

Subject

Public International Law

Student name

Priyanshi R Talesra

Roll number & Division

176-C

College Name

Jitendra Chauhan College of Law

Name of the faculty

Prof. Poorva Dighe

Prof. Madhulika Mundra

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I feel great pleasure that I got an opportunity to present my LLB 3rd Year Interpretaion of Statue

project before you.

Firstly I am thanking my professor, Prof. Madhulika Mundra and Prof. Poorva Dighe as they

have tried very hard and put lots of efforts to guide me, I am also thankful because they have

given their valuable time to help me.

And lastly I am also thankful to my friends and parents who guided me during the preparation of

this project

Date

7th Sep, 2022.

Place

Mumbai

Signature

Priyanshi .[Link]

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..4
2. Historical Background………………………………………………………………………..4
3. Rights of Prisoners……………………………………………………………………4-6
3.1 Fundamental Rights
3.1.1 Case Law
3.2 Rights to Privacy……………………………………………………………………….6-8
3.2.1 Rights to Privacy in Recent Times
3.2.2 Right to Privacy to Prisoners & their Spouse
3.3 Right against solitary confinement and bar fetters…………………………………...8
3.4 Right to Life and personal liberty………………………………………………….8-9
3.5 Right to Live with Human Dignity………………………………………………..9-10
3.5.1 Case Laws
3.6 Right to Health and Medical Treatment……………………………………………..10-11
3.7 Right to Speedy Trial………………………………………………………………...11-12
3.7.1 Case Law
3.8 Right to Legal Aid……………………………………………………………………12-13
3.9 Right against Inhuman Treatment……………………………………………………13-14
3.9.1 Case Laws
3.10 Right to Education………………………………………………………………….15-16
3.10.1 Right to receive books /magazines
3.10.2 Right to Publication
4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..16
5. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………17

3|Page
1. Introduction

The law governing inmates' rights has been changing throughout time. It is quite shameful that a
nation like India lacks a defined legislation on prisoners' rights. Additionally, there is no
comprehensive legislation that addresses prisoners' rights and governs their behavior while
incarcerated. However, the nation's judicial system has repeatedly upheld the prisoners'
fundamental rights while giving them the necessary respect they deserve. In the absence of
comprehensive law, it has been able to establish precedents and guiding principles that not only
serve as a guide but also bind all Indian courts in protecting the numerous rights of inmates.1

2. Historical Background

As was already established, prisoners' rights have been evolving. The change has been gradual,
starting with the Platek v. Aderhold (USA)2 case where the courts determined they had no
authority to interfere with the management of the prison or its rules and regulations and ending
with the Johnson v. Avery3 case where the court acknowledged certain rights of the prisoners.
In the Indian context, the country's judiciary has frequently cited the Constitution's Fundamental
Rights to free inmates. The Supreme Court's Justice Krishna Aiyer ruled in the well-known case
of Charles Sobraj through Marie Andre's v. The Superintendent, Tihar Jail4, that:
“..imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-
appraisal, Courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of Part III enjoyed by a free citizen”.
He further stated that the imprisonment of a prisoner is not merely retribution or deterrence but
also rehabilitation5.

3. Rights of Prisoners
As was previously highlighted, a person's conviction does not change who they are as a person.
He is still a human and ought to be treated as such. He should be granted the fundamental human

1
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
2
Platek v. Aderhold (USA), 73 F.2d 173 (5th Cir. 1934).
3
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969)
4
Marie Andre's v. The Superintendent, AIR 1975 SC 164, 1975 CriLJ 182, (1975) 1 SCC 192, 1975 (7) UJ 50 SC
5
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

4|Page
rights that apply to all men. He should not, however, be considered as a free man with all
unalienable rights and privileges. His freedom should be constrained by some rules and
regulations. Additionally, these limitations must to be sensible.

In the cases of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration6 and DBM Patnaik v. State of Andhra
Pradesh7, as well as other well-known cases, the Supreme Courts of India and the United States
have emphasised the importance of understanding that a prisoner is a human being in addition to
a natural person or a legal person. The act of being found guilty of a crime does not make a
person a non-person whose rights may be taken away at the discretion of the jail administration.
Because of this, the imposition of any severe punishment within the jail system is dependent
upon the existence of legal protections.

Since a long time ago, the Supreme Court of India has been debating with the federal and state
governments about how to improve the prisoners' worsening conditions, which is critical due to
jail overcrowding, a lack of people and training resources, inadequate infrastructure, etc.
Therefore, it is essential to claim the inmates' rights and constitutional protections. Such rights
constitute a violation of human faith in the criminal justice delivery system unless they are
spread and applied in every corner and throughout the entire prism8.

3.1 Fundamental Rights

In India, the core of human rights are fundamental rights. These are fundamental liberties that
cannot, under any circumstances, be restricted. Some of these rights are also guaranteed to
convicts by national law, including Articles 14, 19, and 21. To the detriment of the inmates, it is
not possible to impose the fundamental rights in their entirety. The fundamental idea of Article
21 is to grant inmates the right to a fair trial. The objective of Article 19(5) is to require
reasonableness in any restriction, and Article 14 is inimical to broad discretion degenerating into

6
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
7
DBM Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 AIR 2092, 1975 SCR (2) 24
8
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

5|Page
arbitrary discrimination. Numerous rulings from both the upper court and the subordinate courts
provide credence to each of these claims. Following is a list of some of them9.

3.1.1 Case Law

- In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir10, the Supreme Court ruled that a
person's basic rights cannot be violated just because they are in custody and that such restrictions
cannot be made so severe as to violate the detained person's fundamental rights. The Court
further declared that every prisoner preserves all of these liberties, with the exception of those
that must be forfeited due to incarceration.

- In the case of Charles Sobaraj v. Supdt Central Jail Tihar11, it was decided that although all
of the rights granted to inmates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 are restricted, they cannot be
characterised as static. When difficult situations occur, they are obligated to—or rather, they
will—achieve new human heights.

- Justice Bhagwati followed the guidelines established by Justice Douglas and Justice Marshall
in Francis Corahe Mullin v. The Administrator12, UT Delhi:
Mr Justice Dougals reiterated his thesis when he asserted: “Every prisoner’s liberty is, of
course, circumscribed by the very fact of his confinement, but his interest in the limited liberty
left to him only the more substantial. Conviction of a crime does not render one a non-person
whose rights are subject to the whim of the prison administration, and therefore, the imposition
of any serious punishment within the prison system requires procedural safeguards.” Mr Justice
Marshall also expressed himself clearly and explicitly in the same terms: “I have previously
stated my views that a prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate
and I fully support the court’s holding that the interest of inmate.”13

3.2 Rights to Privacy

9
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
10
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir, 1966 AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702
11
Charles Sobaraj v. Supdt Central Jail Tihar, 1978 AIR 1514, 1979 SCR (1) 512.
12
Francis Corahe Mullin v. The Administrator, 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516.
13
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

6|Page
One of the most important rights that Indian individuals can exercise is the right to privacy.
According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, they are an integral part of the right to life
and the right to personal liberty. Through a number of court decisions over the years, they have
also been made relevant to inmates and criminal defendants.

However, this right is likely the most frequently transgressed in India. The right to privacy with
regard to search and seizure was first brought up in the 1950s, and the top court ruled at the time
that neither search nor seizure could be construed as violating Article 19 (1)(f) of the Indian
constitution, nor does a simple search in and of itself violate or impair a person's right to
property. Even if a search or seizure had an adverse effect on that right, it would only have a
short-term impact and be considered an acceptable limitation on people's freedoms14.

3.2.1 Rights to Privacy in Recent Times

Over time, the idea of a right to privacy has changed. Its reach has recently been expanded to
provide people with the greatest potential advantage. Additionally, a distinction is being made
between physical and mental privacy.
The court ruled in the case of Rohit Shekha v. N.D. Tiwari15 that no one should ever be forced
to undergo any of the techniques in question, even when it is being done as part of an
investigation for a criminal prosecution. Such actions would result in an unjustified invasion of
an individual's personal freedom. Equally crucial is the provision of enough room for the
voluntary application of the contested methods in the context of criminal justice, provided that
certain protections are in place. The court also conducted a brief analysis of the legal precedents
supporting mandatory testing and the involuntary collection of samples, concluding that these
precedents typically arise in criminal prosecutions for serious offences such drug-related crimes,
manslaughter, murder, or sexual offences. In each of these decisions, the court carefully
considered the admissibility of mandatory testing while weighing the interests of justice in
relation to public policy and an individual's right to privacy.16

14
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
15
Rohit Shekha v. N.D. Tiwari, FAO(OS) No. 547/2011
16
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

7|Page
3.2.2 Right to Privacy to Prisoners & their Spouse

The accused in Rahmath Nisha v. Additional Director General of Prisoner and Others17
received a 10-day leave of absence to see his wife. But by the time he got home, his wife had
been admitted to the hospital's intensive care unit owing to a terrible illness. However, the police
escort that was with the accused refused to let him go to the hospital, claiming that only
authorization to visit home had been granted. The Madras Court ruled that the prisoner should be
permitted to see his wife while she is in the hospital and that their meeting should not be watched
upon.

According to the court, a prisoner may want to clasp his wife's hands when they are reunited. It
makes sense that his emotions would manifest physically. Therefore, it is crucial to strictly
protect the prisoners' rights to privacy and dignity. It's crucial that the prisoner's interactions with
his or her spouse or partner remain private.18

3.3 Right against solitary confinement and bar fetters

In solitary confinement, the prisoner or convict is placed in a separate cell with little to no
contact from other prisoners. Additionally, the individual's habits and behaviour are strictly
monitored. Solitary confinement is intended to instil discipline on infamous criminals while
protecting other prisoners from them.

In the well-known case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration19, the Supreme Court examined
the legality of solitary confinement and emphasised that it should only be used in exceptional
circumstances where the prisoner is so violent or dangerous that segregation becomes absolutely
necessary. Keeping inmates in bar fetters day and night lowers them to the status of an animal
and worsens their mental health, the court further found. Therefore, the courts have expressed
significant opposition to solitary confinement and described it as being extremely degrading and

17
Rahmath Nisha v. Additional Director General of Prisoner and Others, Writ of Mandamus 12695 of 2019
18
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
19
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557.

8|Page
insulting in nature. Additionally, they have claimed that such restrictions go against the spirit of
the Indian Constitution.20

3.4 Right to Life and personal liberty

The Honorable Supreme Court has frequently upheld the relevance of Article 21 and applied its
ruling in several cases. The meaning of the word "life," as used by Field J. in the well-known
case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP21, has been broadened. In the aforementioned instance, the
court decided that the term "life" refers to more than just an animal's existence. The prohibition
against its loss applies to all the limbs and faculties that are used to enjoy life. The provision also
forbids the mutilation of the body through the removal of an eye, an arm, a leg, or any other
organ that serves as a conduit for the soul's communication with the hereafter. It can be argued
that the right to life does not only apply to animal existence. It implies more than just a being's
ability to survive physically.22

3.5 Right to Live with Human Dignity

The constitution guarantees everyone the right to live in dignity. Since their conviction does not
automatically make them inhuman, the inmates are likewise granted this privilege. This right is a
crucial component of the Indian constitution's provision of the right to life. Every person's life is
valuable, and regardless of the situation, he or she should be treated with dignity to enable them
to live. The courts have expanded Article 21's purview to cover this right. Numerous instances of
its occurrence could be identified. Some of them are enumerated below:

3.5.1 Case Laws

20
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
21
Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
22
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

9|Page
1. The Supreme Court of India introduced a new interpretation of Article 21 in the case of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India23, stating that the phrase "right to life or live" encompasses
more than just the ability to exist physically. It also refers to the ability to live in dignity.

2. In Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration24, the court further expanded on the

aforementioned idea by holding that "life" encompasses everything that comes with it, including
the bare necessities of life like adequate nutrition and food, clothing and a roof over one's head,
facilities for reading and writing (education), the ability and opportunity to express oneself in a
variety of ways, moving freely, and mixing and mingling with other people.
3. The idea of "life" was further broadened by the Supreme Court in Pandit Parmanand v.
Union of India25, which decided that it extends beyond simply the time before death. Therefore,
the court determined that it amounted to a breach of the right to life under Article 21 when a
person was given the death penalty (as in this case) but the dead corpse was not lowered even
after half an hour and the doctor had already issued the death certificate. It is clear that the right
to life endures even after death and include the right to respectful handling of the deceased or a
suitable burial.26

3.6 Right to Health and Medical Treatment

A significant right is the right to health. Every person has a constitutional right to the best
possible level of bodily and mental health, according to provisions in the Indian Constitution.
The highest court in the land has ruled repeatedly that the right to health care is a key component
of Article 21. The State is required to protect a person's life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court ruled in Parmannd Katara v. Union of India27 that a physician employed by a
government hospital has a duty to provide any kind of medical help necessary to preserve life. In
order to save his life, every doctor has a professional duty to extend his services to patients

23
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
24
Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration, 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516.
25
Pandit Parmanand v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997.
26
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.
27
Parmannd Katara v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997.

10 | P a g e
(regardless of who they may be) with diligence and knowledge. Therefore, no legal body may
interfere to prevent the medical profession's members from fulfilling the obligations and duties
placed on them. In Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal28, the court
also emphasised that a government hospital cannot refuse a patient the right to treatment on the
basis that there are no beds available. This would be a violation of Article 21, which emphasises
the "right to life." As the protection of human life is of the utmost importance, this article
imposes strong obligations on the State to provide the required medical help to an aggrieved
individual.
The right to receive medical care is one of the fundamental human rights that should be
guaranteed to everyone, according to the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Rasikbhai Ramsing
Rana v. State of Gujarat29. The court further instructed the relevant jail staff to provide the
inmates who were ill with any sickness with sufficient mental and physical health care.

The Central government must provide all Central and District jails with amenities like ICCUs,
pathology labs, qualified doctors, enough staff members, including nurses, and the most up-to-
date medical equipment, according to directions issued by the same court in a suo moto writ30.

3.7 Right to Speedy Trial

Justice delayed is justice denied, as is often said. Regardless of the offence for which a person is
imprisoned, every prisoner has a right to a prompt trial. A quick trial is seen as a crucial
component of the delivery of criminal justice. When someone is accused, they must face quick
trials in order to either convict them of the crime they did or clear them of it if they are not. No
one should be forced to endure protracted, boring trials since doing so not only violates the rights
of the person being tried but is also regarded as a complete denial of justice. Thus, the right to a
prompt trial has been acknowledged as a fundamental human right. Moreover, the right to a
prompt trial is also contained under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All of the
complaints and concerns of convicts could be addressed if this Cr.P.C clause is adhered to and
carried out in its genuine meaning.

28
Paschim Bengal Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal, 1996 SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43.
29
Rasikbhai Ramsing Rana v. State of Gujarat, 1999 CriLJ 1975, (1999) 1 GLR 176.
30
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

11 | P a g e
3.7.1 Case Law

1. The Supreme Court did not provide a set time limit for the trial of offences in AR Antulay v.
RS Nayak31, but it did lay down extensive instructions for defendants found guilty in criminal
cases. The court ruled that Article 21 gives rise to the right to a prompt trial, and that this right
covers all phases of an investigation, including the inquiry, trial, appeal, review, and retrial. The
court further said that a defendant's right to a speedy trial cannot be denied on the grounds that
he did not request one. It was also emphasised that the length of a trial should be determined by
taking into account a variety of factors, including the type of the offence, the number of accused,
the number of witnesses, the workload of the court, etc.

The court ultimately decides that charges of a conviction should be annulled where a convict's
right to a speedy trial has been violated in the interest of natural justice.

2. In the case of Madheshwardhari Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar32, Justice S. S. Hasan of
the Patna High Court firmly asserted that there would come a day in the future when it would
become clear that a period of less than ten years in providing justice to a party would be
considered as an unjustified delay. After that, it would be attempted to be brought down to two
years, and it would be on that day that justice, in the true sense. He also placed his faith in the
nation's courts, hoping that they would be mindful of the right of an accused person to a prompt
disposition of his or her indictment and also take into account the suffering that had been given
to the parties as a result of such delays that were out of their control.33

3.8 Right to Legal Aid

An accused person awaiting trial, or any prisoner or convict, for that matter, depends heavily on
legal aid. Free legal services were inserted into the Indian Constitution as part of Article 39A
under the heading Directive Principles of State Policy by the 42nd Amendment (1976). The
concepts emphasised in this article are extremely important, even if it is a component of the

31
AR Antulay v. RS Nayak, 1988 AIR 1531, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 1
32
Madheshwardhari Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar, 1986 CriLJ 1771.
33
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

12 | P a g e
directive principles of state policy and therefore not enforceable. The State is required to bear
this article in mind while establishing laws and norms for detainees, offenders, or convicts.

In 1987, the Legal Services Authorities Act was passed by the parliament, providing legal aid.
Additionally, it instructed different state governments to create Legal Aid and Advice Boards
and design programs intended to offer Free Legal Aid. This was done in order to give effect to
Article 39-A of the Constitution. Legal aid has a wider scope and is available in cases involving
civil, administrative, or financial issues as well as criminal ones, according to the human rights
law of India.
In the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. the State of Maharashtra34, the Supreme
Court of India's three-judge bench emphasised that the national government has a responsibility
to assist and provide legal services to the convicted or accused person by citing Articles 21 and
39-A, Article 142, and Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code together.

"The right to provide legal aid is the State's obligation and not Government's charity," Justice
Krishna Iyer proclaimed forcefully.35

3.9 Right against Inhuman Treatment

Every prisoner has the right to protection from any form of cruel or inhumane treatment. In a
number of cases, the Supreme Court of India called attention to the harsh treatment inmates get
and ordered state and prison administrators to monitor and control the situation. The use of tools
like handcuffs, chains, irons, and straitjackets to punish the captives was also outlawed by the
court. Other forms of restraint are acceptable, but only under limited situations. These
circumstances are mentioned herein:

1. Using constraint devices to prevent escape during the transport of detainees, provided that
they are removed when the prisoner is brought before an administrative or judicial body.

34
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SCC 1548, (1978) 3 SCC 544.
35
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

13 | P a g e
2. If the medical officer authorises it for the same medical reasons;

3. When it is difficult to stop a prisoner from harming themselves or the property around them,
the director, in collaboration with the medical officer, may order that the prisoner be
restrained by placing him or her in restraints after reporting the situation to a higher
administrative authority.

The central jail administration will determine the frequency and method of using restraints. Such
devices should not be used for any longer than absolutely necessary.
3.9.1 Case Laws

1. The petitioners in Sunil Gupta v. the State of MP36 had willingly turned themselves in.
They even declined to post bail and chose to remain in custody for the greater welfare of
society. Despite the fact that the escort party handcuffed them and took them to court.
According to the court, the escort party's actions were inhumane and in violation of Article
21 of the Constitution. The government was also ordered by the court to take prompt and
suitable action against the defaulting escort component for handcuffing the inmates in an
unfair and unreasonable manner.

2. The court voiced its outrage at witnessing four petitioners who were only under trial
detainees awaiting their trial chained in leg shackles in the case of Kadra Pehadiya v. the
State of Bihar37. According to the court, such actions constitute flagrant violations of all
prison rules as well as the standards established in the Sunil Batra case. The court then
ordered the Superintendent to immediately take the leg irons from the four petitioners' feet.
The court further ordered that no inmate awaiting trial or a convict be placed in leg irons
unless it is in compliance with the ruling in Sunil Batra's case.38

36
Sunil Gupta v. the State of MP, 1990 SCR (2) 871, 1990 SCC (3) 119.
37
Kadra Pehadiya v. the State of Bihar, Writ Petition No. 5943 of 1980.
38
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

14 | P a g e
3.10 Right to Education

Every citizen of the nation should have access to education because it is a Fundamental Right. It
is necessary to provide the appropriate kind of education in addition to schooling. In
Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of AP39, the court made an effort to restrict the type of
employment and instruction given to jail inmates. It instructed the state government to examine
the sort of employment and instruction supplied to the inmates and make sure that the work is
"not of a boring, mechanical, intellectual or like type coupled with a title manual labour...” The
court additionally ruled that convicts who are interested in pursuing higher or more advanced
education must also be provided with the opportunity to connect via correspondence courses.
Additionally, rudimentary education in areas like doll-making, needlework, and tailoring should
be made available to the female convicts. Additionally, the opportunity for the educated inmates
to perform some type of mental/manual productive activity should be provided.
3.10.1 Right to receive books /magazines

In the matter of George Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra40, the court was made aware of the
fact that the superintendent of the Nagpur Central Jail had set a limit of 12 books for each
prisoner. Although as a superintendent he may forbid a book by describing it as "unsuitable," he
did not have the authority to make such choices. The Bombay Conditions of Detention Order,
1951, was followed in stating this.

"All the constraints on liberty, that no knowledge, learning, and pursuit of happiness is the most
annoying and least reasonable," the court continued. The development of the intellect cannot be
stopped absent extraordinary and justified circumstances. Books of instruction and universal
acclaim have been written in prison cells, as is well known.

3.10.2 Right to Publication

The Bombay Detention Order, 1951 does not forbid a prisoner from authoring or publishing a
book, the Supreme Court ruled in a case where the prisoner was denied access to a scholarly

39
Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of AP, 1977 AIR 1926, 1978 SCR (1) 153.
40
George Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 66 BOMLR 185.

15 | P a g e
 book. It noted that the book the prisoner wished to read ("Inside the Atom") was just a work of
science and could not be considered harmful to the public interest or safety as stipulated by the
Defence of India Rules, 1962.
Additionally, the court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir41 found that
it was against Article 21 for an accused who was being held under preventive detention to give
his unpublished book to his wife for publishing.

In yet another instance of Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu42, the Supreme Court ruled that
there was no legal basis for preventing the prisoner Auto Shanker's autobiography from being
published in the past because of concern for their reputations as renowned IAS and IPS
personnel. Only if the publications are false can the concerned officials act after they are
published.43

4. Conclusion
Prisoners retain their humanity even after being locked up. In order to prevent inmates from
becoming victims themselves, the Supreme Court of India and numerous other courts have
reaffirmed this position in numerous cases and are given a suitable rehabilitation environment to
aid in their improvement and development as better human beings. The Central and State
Governments have a responsibility to not only provide the prisoners with acceptable living
conditions, but also to inform them of their rights so that they are not violated by the powerful
inside the prison.

One may argue that whenever the legislative and executive branches have erred, the country's
judiciary has been instrumental in defending the rights of detainees. It has repeatedly protected
the prisoners' fundamental rights and served as their saviour. Through judicial activism, it has
fully utilised its authority and consistently created new solutions and instruments to defend
people's rights to life and personal freedom. But there is still a lot to be done. In this regard,
widespread distribution of inmates' access to human rights, extensive media coverage of

41
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir, 1966 AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702
42
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632.
43
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

16 | P a g e
 prisoners' rights, and round-the-clock prison security may be some of the keys to protecting
prisoners' rights and safeguarding their safety inside the facility.44

5. Bibliography
1) Iblogpleader
2) Legal Service
3) SCC Online
4) Shodhganga - Article

44
Ref: [Link] visited on 20th August, 2022.

17 | P a g e