Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the prison administration needs to be reformed to create a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to a dignified life under Article 21.

"It is essential to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. The State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person. His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The court emphasised that discipline and order should be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners.

"Thus, the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently," the court said.

Restoring an order to transfer a gangster from one prison to another in Jharkhand, the court directed the state government to formulate or expedite the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the applicable provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective prison administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison authorities.

The bench set aside the Jharkhand High Court's order of August 21, 2023, which quashed an order of May 17, 2023, by Inspector General of Prisons, Ranchi to transfer a prisoner Vikash Tiwary alias Bikash Nath from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka, within the State.

The respondent, convicted in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment, was branded a gangster as 10 other FIRs were lodged against him during his prison stay between 2015 and 2023. The order to shift from Hazaribagh to Dumka jail on the basis of tangible inputs was to avoid gang war and only to protect the life and liberty of the respondent and to ensure security of the prison.

Referring to the Jail Manual, 1925, the court noted the Inspector General was empowered to shift or transfer a prisoner from one jail to another jail on sufficient grounds. However, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, it highlighted.

In the case, the bench held the order to transfer on administrative grounds was in accordance with law.

Referring to the Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, the court said that if the situation necessitates transfer of the prisoner from one jail to another, it can be done by the authority concerned.

Relying upon Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav (2005), the bench said it is lucid that the transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision and hence, the same cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary and contrary to law. The court pointed out it has been held that the Right of a prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution to be lodged in a jail and general prohibition against his transfer to a distantly located jail in the State or out of the State is not absolute.

"The prison authorities are charged with the duties of maintenance of discipline and peace within a prison. At the same time, there can be no manner of doubt that the transfer of prisoners from one jail to another is not a matter of routine and must be approached with circumspection. In the present case, the reason given for transfer was the existence of imminent possibility of a gang war and due to insufficient kachpals, the prison authorities would find it difficult to effectively manage such a situation, if it arises," the bench said.

Thus, the court held that transfer of the respondent to some other jail was not only lawful, but also necessary for his safety and security.

"However, the High Court erred in setting aside the same, by the order impugned herein, which is liable to be set aside," it said.

The court also pointed out that the Indian Prison System has been under the close scrutiny of judiciary/ District Magistrates, who have been given a responsibility to closely monitor the administration and management of prisons under their jurisdiction and to inspect them periodically.

"This court has repeatedly recommended an overhaul of prison administration by suggesting reforms in treatment of prisoners and management of prisons," the bench said, citing Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration (1980).

The bench pointed out that after the direction of the court to examine the framing of the New All India Jail Manual in Rama Murthy Vs State of Karnataka (1997), the Model Prison Manual came into existence in the year 2003 and the same was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, only in the year 2016, pursuant to the direction of this Court in yet another decision in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017).

"The Model Prison Manual and the system that it envisages, has to be understood as an outcome of the repeated clarion calls and demands to safeguard prisoners’ rights and prison reforms," the bench said.

The court noted as far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, there is no clear-cut picture regarding prison administration and the facilities available to the prisoners in the prisons.

In Court on its own motion Vs State of Jharkhand, pending before the Jharkhand High Court, it was apprised regarding the drafting of a Jharkhand Jail Manual based on the Model Prison Manual, 2016, the court noted.

"The current status of the same however remains unclear. Hence, we deem it necessary to issue appropriate directions to the Government of Jharkhand for implementing effective prison administration and to protect the interests of prisoners," the bench said.

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand & Others Vs Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary & Bikash Nath