Rama Murthy v State of Karnataka (1997)

It is the survey judgment of Indian prison law. It collects the whole line of prisoners' rights decisions, states the general condition of Indian prisons on the evidence of a District Judge's inspection and of the National Human Rights Commission, identifies nine major problems afflicting the system, and issues ten directions. For the fourth module it is the single most useful case, because a question on prison reform, on the efficacy of imprisonment, or on open prisons can be answered from it end to end.

The petition originated in a letter dated 12 April 1984 by a prisoner of the Central Jail, Bangalore — one Rama Murthy — to the Chief Justice, making grievance about some jail matters. The letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition.

The epistolary power had been invoked before, when Sunil Batra wrote to a Judge of the Court from Tihar Jail. The judgments in his cases and in that of Charles Sobraj are beacon lights so far as the management of jails and the rights of prisoners are concerned; approached either by formal writ petition or by letter treated as one, the Court in those cases laid bare the constitutional dimension and the rights available to a person behind stone walls and iron bars.

The grievance was denial of rightful wages to prisoners despite doing hard work in different sections of the prison, together with non-eatable food and mental and physical torture. On the allegations being denied, the Court on 26 November 1992 directed the District Judge, Bangalore, to visit the Central Jail and find out the pattern of payment of wages and the general conditions of the prisoners — residence, sanitation, food, medicine. He reported in April 1993 in a report of more than 300 pages with voluminous annexures.

Satisfactory: the general condition of the prisoners and their treatment by the jail authorities; the quality, quantity and timely supply of food; the pattern of payment of wages, correctly recorded and paid as per rules; and the medical facilities and supply of medicines, though two doctors and their staff could not cope with over-population.

Unsatisfactory: sanitation, because of acute scarcity of water, though improving after the opening of borewells; medical attendance on women prisoners, for want of a lady doctor and women staff; the visits of prisoners to their homes, not prompt or regular for want of police escorts, causing dissatisfaction and depression; the production of prisoners in courts on the dates of hearing, again for want of escorts and vehicles, affecting the disposal of custody cases and greatly agitating the prisoners; the production of prisoners in outside hospitals; the retention in jail of mental patients and prisoners with serious diseases for want of accommodation in hospitals; the place and procedure for interviews with kith and kin, friends and visitors; and canteen facilities, articles being sold above market prices to make a profit.

The national picture. The Court declined to confine itself to Bangalore, having in view all prisoners in 1,155 prisons of different kinds in India, whose population at the end of 1993 was 1,96,240, of whom 1,37,838 were unconvicted remandees or undertrials. The National Human Rights Commission's report described prisons that were overcrowded, such as Tihar, while others such as the open jail in Hyderabad were under-utilized, pointing to the need for a more rational State-wide use of facilities; a few jails notably clean with reasonable diet, and many others squalid; some taking care to separate juveniles from others and petty offenders from hardened criminals, and others where no such care was taken and the atmosphere appeared to nurture violence and criminality; some making major efforts to generate employment in a worthwhile and remunerative way, to encourage education and restore dignity, and others where callousness prevailed, prisoners were seen in shackles, and mentally disturbed inmates were incarcerated with others. Where prisoners worked, their remuneration was often a pittance, offering scant hope of savings for future rehabilitation; and by and large the positive experiences were the exceptions rather than the rule, dependent more on the energy and commitment of individual officials than on the capacity of the system to function appropriately on its own.

1. State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar — the aid of Article 21 was made available perhaps for the first time to a prisoner, on his right of reading and writing books while in jail.
2. Suresh Chandra v State of Gujarat and Krishan Lal v State of Bihar — parole described as a penological innovation to check recidivism, with liberal use recommended.
3. Bhuvan Mohan Pattnaik v State of Andhra Pradesh — resort to oppressive measures to curb political beliefs could not be permitted, the prisoner being a Naxalite put in quarantine and subjected to inhuman treatment; but a prisoner could not complain of the installation of a high-volt live wire mechanism on the jail walls to prevent escape, as no prisoner has a fundamental right to escape from lawful custody.
4. Charles Sobraj v Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar — the Court will intervene even in prison administration where constitutional rights or statutory prescriptions are transgressed to the injury of a prisoner; the complaint there was of incarceratary torture.
5. Sunil Batra (I) v Delhi Administration — whether prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights apart from fundamental rights, and when solitary confinement may be imposed; the parameters of solitary confinement were also considered in Kishor Singh v State of Rajasthan.
6. Prem Shankar v Delhi Administration — putting undertrial prisoners in leg-irons prohibited.
7. Sunil Batra (II) — prison vices, the prisoners protected from them with the shield of Article 21; prisons are built with the stones of law.
8. Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi — a prison rule permitting only one interview a month with family or legal adviser held violative of Article 21.
9. Veena Sethi, Sant Bir and Sheela Barse — when an insane person may be detained in a prison; in Sheela Barse it was held that jailing of non-criminal mentally ill persons is unconstitutional, with directions to stop such confinement. When Assam was found not to have complied, a Senior Advocate was appointed Commissioner in 1994; his report of 532 pages told a story too wet for tears — all concerned were ignorant of the 1993 decision, and a disturbing nexus between the judiciary, the police and the administration came to light.
10. Mohammad Giasuddin v State of Andhra Pradesh — the reformative aspect emphasised, the State having to rehabilitate rather than avenge, and the sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturalisation.
11. The right of speedy trial of undertrials, extended by orders for release on bail where trial is protracted: the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case, directing release of undertrials under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act detained for a period exceeding half of the punishment provided; Shaheen Welfare Association, classifying TADA undertrials into four categories with different orders for bail; and the more comprehensive FD Upadhyay, on Tihar, and Common Cause, applying to jails across the country, to pending and future cases alike.

The Court's own summary of the journey: it commenced in 1966 and in thirty years has planted many milestones, but there are yet promises to keep and miles to go.

Constitutional rights of prisoners must be interpreted so that larger public interest does not suffer while trying to be soft and considerate towards prisoners. It has to be seen that more injury than is necessary is not caused to a prisoner; at the same time efforts must be made to reform him so that when he comes out of prison he is a better citizen and not a hardened criminal.

1. Overcrowding. In Tihar, against a housing capacity of 2,500 in 1994-95, there were 8,500 prisoners, the percentage varying from prison to prison. Whether overcrowding itself violates a constitutional right is controversial; it contributes to a greater risk of disease, higher noise levels and surveillance difficulties, increases the danger level, and makes life more difficult for inmates and work more onerous for staff. In Wolff v McDonnell the American Supreme Court held that the principle of one man, one cell cannot be read into the Due Process Clause, and that placing two detainees in a cell meant for one was not unconstitutional — on facts where detainees spent only seven or eight hours a day in their cells and stayed on average sixty days. In Rhodes v Chapman the Court found no violation of the Eighth Amendment absent evidence that double-celling inflicted unnecessary or wanton pain or was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crimes, concluding that the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons. Article 21 nonetheless prohibits cruel punishment, as Deena v Union of India shows. Even if overcrowding is not constitutionally impermissible, it affects health and adversely affects hygienic conditions and must be taken care of. Remedies: the recent bail directions, since undertrials constitute the bulk of prison population; the recommendations in Chapter 9 of the Law Commission's Seventy-Eighth Report on Congestion of Undertrial Prisoners in Jails, including liberalisation of the conditions of release on bail — and it is already held that imposing unjust or harsh bail conditions violates Article 21; alternatives to incarceration, namely fine, civil commitment and probation; and release on parole, whose liberal use had been recommended. Chapter 20 of the Mulla Committee report — the All India Committee on Jail Reforms headed by Justice A. N. Mulla, 1980-83 — deals with remission, leave and premature release, and states that premature release is an accepted mode of incentive to a prisoner, saving him extra incarceration and helping in reformation and rehabilitation. A further harm: overcrowding does not permit segregation between those punished for serious and for minor offences, so hardened criminals spread their influence over others; and juvenile offenders kept in jails for want of alternative places get mixed up with others and are likely to be spoiled further.

2. Delay in trial. The recent judgments requiring release of undertrials on bail where trial is protracted would hopefully take care of much of the hardship. On the frequent grievance of non-production of undertrials in courts on remand dates, generally attributed to want of police escorts: production before the court on remand dates is a statutory obligation and has a meaning, because it gives the prisoner an opportunity to bring to the notice of the court that ordered his custody any ill-treatment or difficulty faced during remand; actual production must therefore be ensured before further remand is ordered. Since the police force is overworked, it is a matter for consideration whether the duty of producing undertrials should not be entrusted to the prison staff, which would need escort vehicles.

3. Torture and ill-treatment. There are horror stories: the cellular jail in Port Blair resounds with the cries of prisoners subjected to various forms of torture, now brought home in the light and sound programme organised in that jail, which after independence has been declared a national monument; other jails would tell similar stories. Apart from torture, physical ill-treatments such as fetters and iron bars are generally resorted to, some under the colour of provisions in Jail Manuals. If what is being done is to enforce prison discipline mentioned in Jail Manuals, there is a strong need for a new All India Jail Manual to serve as a model; and the century-old Indian Prison Act 1894 needs a thorough look and is required to be replaced by a new enactment which would take care of the thinking of independent India and of our constitutional mores and mandate. Some Jail Manuals have even retained flogging or whipping as a punishment, which would not be permissible in view of Article 21. In Hudson v McMillian the United States Supreme Court held, by seven to two, that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even where the inmate does not suffer serious injury.

4. Neglect of health and hygiene. Chapters 6 and 7 of the Mulla Committee report show the pathetic position of most jails in hygienic conditions and their lack of proper facilities for treatment; the recommendations are in Chapter 29. Society has an obligation towards prisoners' health for two reasons. First, prisoners do not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens have: their incarceration limits access — no physician of choice, no second opinions, and few if any specialists. Second, because of the conditions of their incarceration they are exposed to more health hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore suffer from a double handicap.

5. Insubstantial food and inadequate clothing. The rules in the Jail Manuals on food and clothing are not always fully complied with. Those entitled to inspect jails should do so after giving the shortest notice, so that the reality becomes known on inspection; the system of the complaint box introduced in Tihar needs to be adopted in other jails; complaints must be fairly inquired into and appropriate action taken against the delinquent; and above all, prisoners must receive full assurance that whoever lodges a complaint will suffer no evil consequence for lodging it.

6. Prison vices. Many of the vices are related to sexual urge, which remains unsatisfied because of the snapping of the marital life of the prisoner. If something could be done to keep the thread of family life unbroken, some vices may take care of themselves, as sexual frustration may become tolerable. That is a more rational way to deal with prison vices than awarding hard punishment — which is not to say that jail authorities need not act against prisoners indulging in vices, but that in the situation in which they are placed a sympathetic approach is also required.

7. Deficiency in communication. While in jail, communication with the outside world is snapped, so that the inmate does not know what is happening even to his near and dear ones, which causes additional trauma. A liberalised view relating to communication with kith and kin is desirable, and the model Jail Manual should provide for it. Whatever the rationale for restricting visits, there is no plausible reason to deny an inmate easy facility of communication by post.

8. Streamlining of jail visits. Visits fall into three categories: relatives and friends; professionals; and lay persons. In the first comes the spouse, whose visit has special significance, because research on Indian prisoners showed that the majority were in the age group 18 to 34 and so were young and perhaps had a married life before imprisonment; for such persons denial of conjugal life during the entire period of incarceration creates emotional problems. Visits may be difficult where prisoners are geographically isolated; in many jails the facilities available to visitors are degrading and even privacy is not maintained; and if offenders and visitors are screened, that emphasises their separation rather than retaining common bonds and interests. Frequent jail visits by family members go a long way in the acceptance of the prisoner by his family and small friendly group after release, as the visits continue the personal relationship during the term of imprisonment and bring about a psychological communion between him and other members of the family. As to visits by professionals, that is by the lawyer, the same has to be guaranteed to the required extent for a pre-trial detainee, in view of the right conferred by Article 22(1).

9. Management of open air prisons. Open air prisons play an important role in the scheme of reformation, which has to be one of the desiderata of prison management; they represent one of the most successful applications of the principle of individualization of penalties with a view to social readjustment. Their features include release of offenders on probation, home leave to prisoners, introduction of a wage system, release on parole, and educational, moral and vocational training. In financial terms an open institution is far less costly than a closed establishment, and the scheme has the further advantage that the Government is able to employ in work, for the benefit of the public at large, a jail population that would otherwise remain unproductive; the monetary returns are positive and, once put into operation, the camps pay for themselves. The whole thrust is to see that after release the prisoners do not relapse into crime, for which purpose they are given incentives to live a normal life and are trained in agriculture, horticulture and the like; games, sports and other recreational facilities forming part of the routine inculcate a sense of discipline and social responsibility, and regular prayers provide spiritual strength. In the closed Tihar Jail, Vipassana meditation was introduced in a big way in 1993-94 and, according to one of the Jail Superintendents, brought about a radical change in the living and thinking of the prisoners. Open air prisons create their own problems, which are basically of management; but for the greater good of society, which consists in seeing that inmates come out not as hardened criminals but as reformed persons, no managerial problem is insurmountable. So let more and more open air prisons be opened, to start with at all the District Headquarters of the country.

1. To take an appropriate decision on the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 78th Report on the congestion of undertrial prisoners in jails.
2. To apply mind to the Mulla Committee's suggestions on streamlining the remission system and premature release, and then to do the needful.
3. To consider entrusting the duty of producing undertrials on remand dates to the prison staff.
4. To deliberate about enacting a new Prison Act to replace the century-old Act of 1894; the National Human Rights Commission had prepared an outline of an all-India statute, and all States must try to amend their own enactments in harmony with the all-India thinking.
5. To examine the framing of a model new All India Jail Manual.
6. To reflect on the Mulla Committee's Chapter 29 recommendations on medical facilities and hygienic conditions and take the needed steps.
7. To ponder the need for a complaint box in all the jails.
8. To think about the liberalisation of communication facilities.
9. To take steps for the streamlining of jail visits.
10. To ruminate on the introduction of open air prisons at least in the District Headquarters of the country.

The concerned authorities were required to take appropriate decisions within six months.

The Court concluded that the exercise would not prove futile if what it had said were taken seriously and our prisons become reform houses as well, in which case the social and economic costs of incarceration would become more worthwhile. Talk about treatment and training in prisons is not rhetoric; it can prove to be real, given zeal and determination, and we cannot afford to fail in this sphere, since a sound prison system is a crying need of our time against the background of the great increase in the numbers of prisoners of various types and from different strata of society. The resolution was to improve the prison system by introducing new techniques of management and by educating the prison staff about our constitutional obligations towards prisoners.

- On prison reform, give the nine problems as your skeleton and hang the evidence on them; that structure alone will carry a full answer. - On the efficacy of imprisonment and the search for substitutes, use the overcrowding section: the three alternatives to incarceration, the bail directions, parole and premature release, and the segregation harm. - On open prisons, this is the only sustained treatment available: give the definition as individualization of penalties with a view to social readjustment, the features, the financial argument, and the direction to open them at District Headquarters. - On the Prisons Act 1894, do not treat it as a live reform statute. The Court's own view is that it is a century-old Act needing to be replaced by a new enactment reflecting the thinking of independent India and our constitutional mandate, and that a model All India Jail Manual is required. - On prisoners' rights, use the eleven-point resume as a map of the field and then take two or three cases in depth rather than listing all of them. </content>