Read Time: 08 minutes
“In the context of prison administration, any deviation or omission that compromises these constitutional mandates risks violating the prisoners’ rights and undermines the rule of law. Therefore, strict compliance with these principles is essential to uphold justice and the fundamental human rights of those incarcerated”, the bench of Justice Anish Dayal held.
The Delhi High Court, on November 11, held that Article 21 is extended to include the rights of prisoners including dignity, humane treatment of prisoners, and procedural fairness. The court held that any breach in prison administration that compromised these mandates risked violating prisoners' rights. Thus, strict compliance was necessary to uphold justice and human rights for prisoners.
The court made these observations in a writ petition filed by the accused seeking premature release after 26 years of incarceration. The petitioner, convicted in September 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment, was in custody since 2001, serving over 23 years.
Per the facts, the petitioner demonstrated satisfactory conduct, receiving parole and furlough multiple times and earning recognition for good behavior. Despite compliance and contributions to various prison programs, the State Review Board (SRB) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) repeatedly denied his requests for premature release between 2019 and 2023, citing the nature and gravity of the crime and police opposition. The petitioner became aware of some rejections only when preparing this petition, which challenges the sixth denial issued in November 2023.
Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was in prolonged custody for approximately 26 years, with remission. His conduct in jail was exemplary and satisfactory. He had been granted parole and furlough at least 10 times without misusing his liberty. The rejection of his plea by the SRB was solely based on mechanical grounds, without proper consideration of the facts.
Advocate Bhandari also contended that the petitioner consistently received certificates of good conduct and good work. He had worked in both Semi-Open and Open Prisons and was assigned duties at a Tihar Jail outlet at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in an unsecured area from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Additionally, it was argued that the SRB failed to adhere to the prescribed rules and guidelines in rejecting the petitioner’s plea for premature release six times.
The court noted that the legal framework for premature release emphasizes balancing the reformation of the offender with public safety, based on prison conduct and reports from various authorities. The petitioner’s positive prison record, including participation in semi-open and open prison programs, raised concerns about the lack of consideration for rehabilitation in the SRB’s decisions. The court referred to the necessity of a "speaking order," with a clear rationale for the rejection, as a requirement for transparency and fairness.
Despite the petitioner’s demonstrated reform, the SRB continued to reject his release, citing the seriousness of his original crime. The court remarked, “A rigid adherence to guidelines that ignore positive conduct and rehabilitation perpetuates despair, denies the value of good behaviour, and reflects an unyielding societal harshness, negating the very principle of reformative justice”.
The court outlined that the authorities are expected to ensure there was no omission or deviation that could violate prisoners' rights. The constitutional safeguards under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution had to be adhered to with utmost commitment. Article 14 guaranteed equality before the law and protection from arbitrary treatment, requiring the State to act fairly and non-discriminatory, including towards those deprived of their liberty.
The court noted that Article 21 also includes the right to live with dignity, humane treatment of prisoners, and procedural fairness. Any failure to comply with these constitutional mandates in prison administration risked violating prisoners' rights and undermining the rule of law. Strict adherence to these principles was essential to uphold justice and human rights.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and released the petitioner.
For Petitioner: Advocates Vrinda Bhandari, Anandita Rana, Shrutika Pandey and Yamina RizviFor Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari with Advocates Spriha Bhandari, Charu Sharma, Arijit Sharma, Vaibhav Vats, Sushant Bali and Ishan Swarna SharmaCase Title: Vijay Kumar Shukla v State (2024:DHC:8738)
Please Login or Register
