Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions to the Central Government to establish guidelines for the release of undertrial prisoners on bail due to overcrowding in prisons. 

The court noted that a similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of RE-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services & Ors. It also acknowledged a letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs directing States/Union Territories to follow a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

The bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora held, “A perusal of the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court and the SOP framed by NALSA reveals that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner at prayers (i) to (iv) do not arise for consideration and already stand addressed in the aforesaid writ petition”.

The petition further sought directions for the formation of a committee comprising a District Judge, Deputy Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate, and two public members selected by the Chief Justice to draft these guidelines. 

Advocate Praveen Agrawal representing the petitioner, argued that the PIL aimed to address the suffering of undertrial prisoners stuck in overcrowded jails awaiting trial, citing data from the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) indicating a significant gap between prison capacity and actual population, particularly in Delhi. ‘1319 prisons in the country, with actual capacity of 4,25,609, against which 5,54,034 prisoners are lodged in these jails’, the petition stated. 

Additionally, Agrawal highlighted the high percentage of undertrial prisoners in Delhi compared to the national average and their extended detention periods. He also pointed out low rates of charge sheeting and conviction, indicating a violation of undertrial prisoners' fundamental rights.

Assistant Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Union, noted similar issues under Supreme Court consideration and referred to the SOP adopted by the Supreme Court in 2018. Standing Counsel Santosh Tripathi for the State mentioned governmental efforts to improve infrastructure and opposed an extra-judicial mechanism.

Upon reviewing the aforementioned orders from the Supreme Court and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) established by NALSA, the court noted that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner were addressed. The court noted that an Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) was constituted, as outlined in Part I, clause (d) of the SOP. Secondly, the SOP identified 14 categories of inmates eligible for early release. Thirdly, the UTRC has the responsibility to ensure timely benefits for under-trials falling within these categories. Lastly, the UTRC was directed to hold regular meetings to implement the SOP and submit progress reports to the relevant State Legal Services Authority, which are then forwarded to NALSA and filed before the Supreme Court. However, the writ petition remains pending before the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the bench noted that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of overcrowding by directing each State Government to establish a designated Committee. This Committee was focused on establishing new jails, expanding existing facilities, and leveraging technology to improve inmate conditions.

“In this regard, the Supreme Court has issued directions to each State Government to set up a designated Committee, which has its focus on taking steps for setting up new jails, expanding the existing facilities in the jails and providing facilities to the inmates through the use of technology. Thus, the issue of overcrowding urged in the present petition is also directly under consideration in the pending writ petition before the Supreme Court”, the bench further stated. 

Consequently, since the matter of overcrowding raised in the present petition was already being addressed directly in the pending writ petition before the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the same. 

Advocates for Petitioner:  Advocates Praveen Agrawal, Rajesh Ranjan Singh, Preeti Chaudhary and Stanzin Uron
Advocates for Union: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Standing Counsel Apoorv Kurup with Advocates Akhil Hasija, Vinay Yadav, Nidhi Mittal, Saurabh Tripathi and Vikramaditya Singh, and Amit Gupta, 
Advocates for GNCTD: Standing Counsel Santosh Kr. Tripathi with Advocates Prashansha Sharma and Mr. Kartik Sharma, 
Advocates for DHC: Advocates Beenashaw Soni, Mansi Jain, and Ann Joseph. 

Case Title: Gautam Kumar Laha v Union Of India & Ors. (2024:DHC:3259-DB)