Skip to main content

Rights of Prisoners-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

 Rights of Prisoners-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

The law regarding inmates' rights has evolved. It's a shame that a country like India lacks a prisoner's rights code. Detainees' rights and behaviour are not covered by detailed legislation. However, the country's judiciary has repeatedly upheld the inmates' fundamental rights. In the lack of comprehensive law, it has established precedents and principles defending prisoners' rights that guide and bind all Indian courts.

As previously stated, a person's conviction does not dehumanise them. He is still a human and deserves respect. He should be granted the basic human rights enjoyed by all men. But he should not be treated as a free individual with total rights and privileges. His freedom should be limited by law. These limits should also be appropriate.

The Supreme Court of India has been deliberating with the national and state governments for a long time to improve the prisoners' worsening health, which is critical due to jail overcrowding, a lack of training facilities, personnel, and inadequate infrastructure, among other factors. As a result, it is obligatory to invoke the prisoners' rights and constitutional protections. Unless and until these rights are spread and executed across the prism, they are a nullity and a violation of human faith in the criminal justice delivery system.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in Charles Wolff v. McDonnell, and the Supreme Court of India, in well-known cases such as DBM Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, have both stated emphatically that it must be recognised that a prisoner is a human being as well as a natural or legal person. When a person is convicted of a crime, he is not reduced to the status of a non-person whose rights may be snatched away at the jail administration's whims. As a result, administering any significant punishment within the jail system is contingent upon the absence of procedural safeguards.

Fundamental rights are at the heart of India's human rights system. They are citizens' fundamental rights that cannot be revoked under any circumstances. The country's law also grants some of these rights to convicts, including Articles 14, 19, and 21. It cannot, however, enforce all of the fundamental rights to the benefit of the convicts. Giving prisoners the right to a fair trial is at the heart of Article 21. Article 19(5) is all about requiring reasonableness in any restriction, and vast discretion devolving into arbitrary discrimination is antithetical to Article 14. All of these assertions are backed up by several lower court and appellate court decisions. Several of these are detailed below.

In Francis Corahe Mullin v. The Administrator, UT Delhi Justice Bhagwati observed the rules laid down by Justice Douglas and Justice Marshall :

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.”

In the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, the court held that a prisoner is entitled to all the fundamental rights unless curtailed by the constitution. 

Rights Of Prisoners include:

  • Right to Privacy of prisoners and their spouses

  • Right against solitary confinement and bar fetters

  • Right to Life and personal liberty

  • Right to live with human dignity

  • Right to health and medical treatment

  • Right to a speedy trial

  • Right to legal aid

  • Right against Inhuman treatment

  • Right to Education

  • Right to publication

Behind bars, prisoners are still human beings. So that convicts do not become victims, the Supreme Court and numerous other Indian courts have reinforced this position. And are properly rehabilitated to help them improve and become better people. The Central and State governments must not only provide reasonable living circumstances but also educate the convicts on their rights so that they are not abused by the powerful inside the prison.

Whenever the legislative and executive have erred, the country's judiciary has stepped in to protect inmates' rights. It has often saved prisoners and defended their fundamental rights. It has continually devised new remedies and methods to preserve the human right to life and personal liberty. But much remains to be done. In this sense, widespread distribution of prisoners' rights, media coverage of prisoners' rights, and constant prison surveillance may be important to protecting prisoners' rights and ensuring their safety.

Vedant Karia


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree