Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed for issuing directions to the Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service, and Deputy Inspector General of Prisons to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner’s son., a convict prisoner, confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, JJ. gave the following directions:
-
The Superintendent of Police was directed to proceed with the investigation in the criminal case by following due procedures. The Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible.
-
The Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, along with the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, were directed to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the relevant rules. They were instructed to conduct an inquiry promptly and thoroughly. Additionally, the authorities were mandated to carry out frequent and surprise inspections to ensure that prisoners are not unlawfully employed by prison officials for household tasks. In cases of complaints or information regarding such practices, a thorough inquiry should be conducted, and appropriate actions must be taken to address any violations.
-
The Court clarified that the pendency of a criminal case does not prevent the conclusion of departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Services Rules. It noted that all relevant records were available to the Government, the Director General of Prisons, and the Superintendent of Police. Consequently, there were no obstacles for the Government to carry out the departmental proceedings, reach a conclusion, and issue appropriate final orders independently, even while the criminal case was ongoing.
The convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The petitioner, who is the mother of the convict, came to know that her son was assaulted by the Prison Authorities and detained in solitary confinement. Thus, she made a request to the Jail Authorities to permit her to see her son, but they refused to grant permission. The petitioner stated that the life of the convict is in danger in the hands of the Prison Authorities. She was not permitted to see her son. No interview was permitted by stating that the prisoner is not eligible to avail the benefit for 90 days.
In view of the serious allegations of assault and harassment inside the prison to a life convict , this Court had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore to visit the prisoner and find out his position. The Court had expressed shock upon reviewing the report, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations against the Prison Authorities, including the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. The convict’s detailed incidents of torture, and the Court had remarked that these accounts could not be prima facie disbelieved. Additionally, the Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted a thorough inquiry, providing a careful assessment and opinion on the matter, which underscored the gravity of the situation.
Thus, the Court noted that it had directed the Government and the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service to register a case and initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department registered a case in against the Prison Authorities. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Service recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings to the Government.
After taking note of the status report filed by Superintendent of Police, the Court said that prima facie case has been made out against the Prison Authorities, who have been implicated in criminal case and in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Some of the prison officials are already placed under suspension.
The Court mentioned that it is necessary to send a strong message to the Prison Authorities that they are not supposed to abuse their official position. The convict prisoners inside the prison are in disadvantageous position. Therefore, any kind of exploitation by the Prison Authorities cannot be subjected to normal view, but serious actions are highly warranted. Prison Authorities are solely accountable and responsible for the happenings inside the prison to the convict prisoners. When the convicts are utilised for residential works in the residences of the Prison Authorities and monitored by the Subordinate Prison Authorities, both the actions are offences and illegal, and serious actions against such Prison Authorities engaging prisoners as well as the Uniformed Personnel are just and necessary. There cannot be any comprise in dealing with such nature of offences and misconduct by the Prison Authorities.
The Court emphasised that prisoners are not slaves and should not be subjected to inhumane treatment as punishment for their crimes. It affirmed that our legal system must reject any form of torture, highlighting the intrinsic value of human life. Punishment should be administered solely according to the law, as inflicting cruelty does not reduce criminal behavior but rather perpetuates it. The Court underscored that subjecting prisoners to such treatment only contributes to a cycle of crime, undermining the principles of justice and rehabilitation.
The Court added that jails are places where jail authorities are given more power over the rights of the prisoners. In such circumstances, power must be exercised with care and caution. Abuse of power when having control over powerless prisoners will create havoc and undermine the ethos of the criminal justice system.
The Court asserted that jail authorities must be acutely aware of their responsibilities and the legal powers granted to them, emphasising that these powers should be exercised responsibly. It highlighted that such authority is not intended for the oppression of vulnerable individuals but is meant to serve the public good and promote the welfare of society as a whole.
The Court stated that there is a common sentiment among people that prisoners, being criminals, can be treated harshly. However, it emphasized that those living in the free world often fail to appreciate the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court noted that being in prison is a punishment in itself, and adding brutal torture is a violation of the right to life. It highlighted that while prisons were once inhumane places, modern civilization has made significant strides in establishing humane systems for criminal reform and rehabilitation. The Court underscored the importance of treating prisoners with dignity and focusing on their rehabilitation rather than further punishment.
The Court underscored the fundamental purpose of prisons: to separate convicts from society, reduce crime, maintain peace, and facilitate rehabilitation. It emphasised that the aim is not to inflict torture but to promote reform.
The Court directed the Director General of Prison to initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the prisoners and the Uniformed Personnel are not engaged for household works in the residences of the Prison Authorities.
[S. Kalavathi v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6144, decided on 29-10-2024]