RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS (JI) versus .
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 1001, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Ratio
[2016) 7 S.C.R. 1001 
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS (JI) 
A 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of2013) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Right to life - Right to live 
with dignity - Inhuman conditions in prisons - Over-crowding in 
prisons to the extent of more than 150% of the permissible limit - In 
spite of direction of Supreme Court, prison authorities not able to 
take effective steps for reducing over-crowding in jails - Held: 
Prisoners, both under-trials and convicts, have certain fundamental 
rights and human rights, which cannot be ignored - The States and 
the lnspedor General of Prisons directed to prepare a viable Plan 
of Action for reducing the prison population - Union Government 
through Ministry of Home Affairs directed to obtain status of 
compliance of orders passed - Prison - Under trial prisoners -
Convict prisoners. 
Juvenile Justice - Prison Manual - Manual for juveniles in 
custody -
Preparation of - Delay - Held: Minist1y of Women and 
Child Development to expedite the preparation of the Manual and 
ensure it is ready on or before 30'1' November, 2016 - Jzn1enile Justice 
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 
D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
(1975) 3 SCC 185: 1975 (2) SCR 24; State of 
Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri AIR 
1966 SC 424: 1966 SCR 702; Sunil Batra v. Delhi 
Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494: 1979 (1) SCR 392; 
Charles Sobraj v.
Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar (1978) 4 
SCC 104: 1979 (1) SCR 512; Francis Coralie Mullin 
"Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 
608: 1981 (2) SCR 516; Nilabati Behera v. State of 
Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746: 1993 (2) SCR 581; D.K. 
Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1996 (10) 
Suppl. SCR 284; Mehmood Nayyar Azam " State of 
Chhattisgarh (2012) 8 SCC 1: 2012 (8) SCR 651 -
relied on. 
Re-Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons v. (2016) 3 SCC 
700: 2016 (1) SCR 1090 - referred to. 
1001 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
a 
H
1002 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 7 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
2016 (1) SCR 1090 
referred to 
Parat 
1975 (2) SCR 24 
relied on 
Para8 
1966 SCR 702 
relied on 
Para8 
1979 (1) SCR 392 
relied on 
Para 9 
1979 (1) SCR 512 
relied on 
Para 10 
.1981 (2) SCR 516 
relied on 
Para 10 
1993 (2) SCR 581 
relied on 
Para 10 
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 
relied on 
Para 10 
2()12 (8) SCR 651 
relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 406 
of2013 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Gaurav Agrawal, (AC), Adv., for the Petitioner. 
Neeraj Kishan Kaul,ASG., Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., C.D. Singh, 
Suryanarayana Singh, Mahaling Pandarge, Sanchar Anand, A. 
Mariarputham, AA Gs., Ms. Sushma Manchanda, R.M. Bajaj, Ms. Bi nu 
Tamta, G.S. Makker, B.K. Prasad, Ashok Kumar Singh, D. Mahesh 
Babu, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Samir Ali Khan, Chandra Prakash, Kuldip 
Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, M~. Prer11a Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, (for Mis 
Corporate Law Group), Rudreshwar Singh, Gautam Singh, Krishna Kant 
Dubey, M.S. Doabia, S.S. Rawat,Apoorv Kurup, V.C. Shukla,Anshuman 
Srivastava, Apoorva Bhumesh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, 
Ms. Aagam Kaur, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Sunil 
Fernandes, Puneeth K.G., Ms. Astha Sharma, Tapesh Kumar Singh, 
Mohd. Waquas, Adity Pratap Singh, Lagnesh Mishra, Parikshit P. Angadi, 
V.N. Raghupathy, Mishra Saurabh, Nishant Katneshwarkar, Sapam 
Biswajit Meitei, Naresh Kumar Gaur, Ms. Linthoin Gambi
Thongam, 
Ashok Kumar Singh, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Pragyan Sharma, Shikhar 
Garg, T. G. Narayanan Nair, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit 
Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Anindita Pujari, 
Santosh Kumar, Pranav Kumar, Apoorv Singhal, S.S. Shamshery, Amit 
Sharma, Prateek Yadav,Ankit Raj, Ms. Ruchi Kohii, Ms. Aruna Mathur, 
Yusuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, (for Mis
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS JN 1382 PRISONS (II) 
Arputham Aruna & Co.), Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Varsha 
Poddar, B. Balaji, Muthuvel Palani, A. Arvind, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, 
Baskula Athik, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Utkarsh Sharma, Ashutosh Kumar 
Sharma, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Soumik Ghosal, 
Parijat Sinha, Balasubramanian, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G Indira, 
Franklin C«esar Thomas, Chand Qureshi, M.P. Siddiqui, V.G. Pragasam, 
T.N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, T. Veera Reddy, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. By our order dated S1h February, 
2016 1 we had drawn attention to over-crowding in prisons and had given 
directions wi1ich would assist in reducing the prison population and 
generally improve the living conditions of prisoners. 
2. When this petition was listed on l 41h March, 2016 we had noted 
that the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Government 
oflndia had set up a Committee on 241h February, 2016 for drafting a 
Manual similar to the Prison Manual prepared by the Ministry of Home 
Affairs of the Government of India concerning issues pertaining to 
juveniles in custody either in Observation Homes or Special Homes or 
Places of Safety in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act, 2015. We were informed that although the Committee 
was required to submit its report by 31" May, 2016 the time given was 
rather sroi:J:. We were in agreement with the
Member Secretary of the 
Committee in this regard and had expressed the view that there was no 
need to showunduc :-.aste in the preparation of the Manual or produce a 
half baked document. We had also suggested the inclusion of 
representatives from academia and NGOs in the drafting process~ 
3. The matter was again taken up on 61h May, 2016 when we 
were informed by learned Amicus thatthe Manual for juveniles in custody 
would take about three months for completion. With regard to over-
crowding in jails, the learned Amicus submitted that there are several 
jails where over-crowding is to the extent of more than 150%, meaning 
thereby that there are more than one and a half times the number of 
prisoners than the permissible limit. It was submitted that an excessive 
prison population has its own problems of hygiene, sanitation, 
management, discipline etc. The problem of over-crowding cannot be 
1 (2016) 3sec100 
1003 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1004 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
looked at in isolation. He submitted that in the first instance the States 
may be directed to identify jails in which over-crowding is to the extent 
of l50% or more so that further directions could be given. On the basis 
of this submission we called for information and now find that the situation 
continues to be not only tragic but also pathetic. Learned Amicus has 
drawn our attention vide his Note dated 20.9.2016 to over-crowding to 
the extent of 150% or more in jails in Assam (8), Chhattisgarh ( 17), 
Jharkhand (3), Karnataka (7), Kerala (21 ), Madhya Pradesh (5), 
Maharashtra ( 16), Rajasthan (2 I), Uttar Pradesh ( 47) and Delhi (12). It 
is unfortunate that in spite of our directions the prison authorities have 
not been able to take any effective steps for reducing over-crowding in 
jails. 
4. On the submission of the learned Amicus for issuance offurther 
directions, we had vi de our order dated 61h May, 2016 expanded the 
mandate of the under-trial Review Committee to examine the cases of 
under-trials who fall in the following categories: 
a) Become eligible to be released on bail under Section 
167(2)(a)(i)&(ii) of the Code read with Section 36A of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (where 
persons accused of section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A or 
for offences involving commercial quantity) and where 
investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days; 
b) Are imprisoned
for offences which carry a maximum 
punishment of2 years; 
c) Are detained under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure 
Code i.e. under Sections I 07, 108, I 09 and 151 ofCr.P.C.; 
d) Become sick or infirm and require specialized medical 
treatment (S.43 7 of the Code); 
e) Women offenders (S.437 of the Code); 
f) Are first time male offenders between the ages 19 and 2 I 
G 
who are in under trial custody for offences punishable with 
less than 7 years of imprisonment and have suffered at least 
l/4'h of the maximum sentence possible; 
H 
g) Are of unsound mind and must be dealt under Chapter XXV 
of the Code;
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS (II) 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
h) Are eligible for release under Section 437(6) of the Code, 
wherein in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person 
accused of any non-bailable offence has not been concluded 
with in a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking 
evidence in the case; 
5. We had also required the States and the Inspector General of 
Prisons to prepare a Plan of Action either to reduce over-crowding or to 
augment the infrastructure so that there is more space available for 
each prisoner. 
6. On the basis of the above, we heard learned counsel for the 
parties and the learned Amicus and find that more than sufficient time 
has elapsed but the Manual for juveniles in custody has not yet been 
prepared by the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the 
Government of India. Accordingly, we are left with no option but to 
direct the said Ministry to expedite the preparation of the Manual and 
ensure that it is ready positively on or before 301h November, 2016. 
7. We also find that not a single State or Union Territory has 
bothered to prepare a Plan of Action and bring it to our notice or to the 
notice of the learned Amicus. Consequently, we are left with no option 
but to direct the States and the Inspector General of Prisons to prepare 
a Plan of Action as already directed on 61h May, 2016 for reducing the 
prison population. In this context we may mention that the learned Amicus 
has informed
us on the basis of affidavits filed by some of the States, 
that there are proposals for constructing additional barracks or jails but 
these appear to be ad hoc proposals with no time limit specified for 
completion and in some cases it is not clear whether provision has been 
made for providing resources for the construction. A viable Plan of 
Action should be prepared within the next six months and in any event 
by 31" March, 2017. Information in this regard should be given to the 
learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Amicus. 
8. We are a little distressed to note that even though this Court 
has held on several occasions that prisoners both under trials and convicts 
have certain fundamental rights and human rights, little or no attention is 
being paid in this regard by the States and some Union Territories including 
the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Certainly fundamental rights and 
human rights of people, however they may be placed, cannot be ignored 
only because of their adverse circumstances. We need only remind the 
1005 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Union of India and the State Governments that as far back as in 1975 
this Court reminded us in D. Bliuwm Moli"n P"tn"ik v. St"te of And/1r" 
Pradesh= (referring to a decade old decision· in St"te of Mallaraslltra 
v. Prabhakar Pandurang SangzgirP ) that : . 
B 
c 
D 
"Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of 
all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. A 
compulsion under the authority oflaw, following upon a conviction, 
to live in a prison-house entails by its own force the deprivation of 
fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout 
the territory of India or the right to "practise" a profession. A man 
of profession would thus stand stripped of his right to hold 
consultations while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution 
guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and 
dispose of property for the exercise of which incarceration can 
be no impediment, likewise, even a convict is entitled to the 
precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he 
shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according 
to procedure established by law." 
9. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court held in Sunil Batrtt 
v. Del/ii Administration" in paragraph 213 of the Report as follows: 
"It is no more open to debate that convicts are not wholly denuded 
E 
of their fundamental rights. No iron curtain can be drawn between 
the
prisoner and the Constitution. Prisoners are entitled to all 
constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally 
curtailed (see Procunier v. Martinex5). However, a prisoner's 
liberty is in the very nature or things circumscribed by the very 
fact of his confinement. His interest in the limited liberty left to 
F 
him is then all the more substantial. Conviction for crime does not 
reduce the person into a non-person whose rights are subject to 
the whim of the prison administration and, therefore, the imposition 
of any major punishment within the prison system is conditional 
upon the observance of procedural safeguards (see Wolff v. 
G 
McDonel/. 6)." 
10. There are a host of decisions rendered thereafter by this Court 
2 (1975) 3 sec 185 
3 AIR 1966 SC 424 
• (1978) 4 sec 494 
'40 L Ed 2d 224 at 248 (1974) 
H 
'41L.Ed.2d935 at 973 (1974)
RE - INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS (II) 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
on the same subject of the fundamental rights and human rights of 
convicts and under trial prisoners repeated every decade over the last 
so many years. We may mention only a few of them: Cltarles Sobraj v. 
Supdt., Central Jail, Ti/tar, 7 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, 
Union Territory of Del/ii, 8 Nilabati Be/1era v. State of Orissa9 and 
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. 10 More recently, in Mel1mood Nayyar 
Azam v. State of Cltltattisgarli 11 this Court observed in paragraph 38 
of the Report as follows: 
"It is imperative to statethat it is the sacrosanct duty of the police 
authorities to remember that a citizen while in custody is not 
denuded of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the 
Constitution. The restrictions imposed have the sanction of law 
by which his enjoyment of fundamental right is curtailed but his 
basic human rights are not crippled so that the police officers can 
treat him in an inhuman manner. On the contrary, they are under 
obligation to protect his human rights and prevent all forms of 
atrocities." 
Unfortunately, it seems that the views of this Court over the 50 years 
(since Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri in 1966) have continuously 
fallen on deaf ears and the situation does not seem to be changing even 
now. 
11. Unless due importance is given to the fundainental rights and 
human rights of the people, the. right to life and the right to live with 
dignity under
Article 21 of the Constitution will ,have no meaning. 
12. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to direct the 
Union oflndia through the Ministry of Home Affairs to obtain the status 
of compliance of our orders passed on S'h February 2016 and 61h May, 
2016 as on 30'h September, 2016. The information should be collated by 
the Ministry of Home Affairs and shared with the learned Additional 
Solicitor General and the learned Amicus so that even the rights of 
prisoners, whether convicts or under trials are given due importance. 
The needful be done before the next hearing, that is l 81h October, 2016. 
Ankit Gyan 
1 (1978)4 sec 104 
' ( 1981) 1 sec 608 
• (1993) 2 sec 746 
10 (1997) 1sec416 
11 (2012) s sec 1 
Matter adjourned. 
1007 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H