Scheme On Support To Poor Prisoners Pending Before Supreme Court, Will Be Implemented "To Its Hilt": P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the 'Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme' of the Union Government will be implemented as the Supreme Court is in "seisin of the matter."

The Ministry of Home Affairs has formulated the 'Support to Poor Prisoners' for providing relief to poor prisoners, who are unable to pay the fine imposed on them or are unable to secure bail due to financial constraints. The scheme aims to ensure that prisoners are not unjustly detained in jail despite having a bail order.

While noting that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal noted, "It is obvious that the highest Court of the land is in seisin of the matter and, therefore, the petitioner should be rest assured that the 'Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme' would be ensured to be implemented to its hilt."

Sunpreet Singh, a practising advocate of the Punjab & Haryana High Court filed the PIL highlighting that in 2023 the Union Government formulated a scheme to provide financial assistance to poor prisoners to pay time and secure bail. 

"In October and January, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs forwarded letter to all The ACS/ Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Home/Jails) of all States and UTs and to The DG/IG (Prisons of all States/UTs for Implementation of the Scheme for Support to Poor Prisoners. The states and UT's were asked to urgently implement and activate the scheme on urgent basis and provide a confirmation to MHA in this regard," the plea added.

Seeking implementation of the scheme, Singh submitted in the plea that it would solve the problem of overcrowding of prisons in Punjab and Haryana.

The occupancy rate of Punjab Prisons is "116% and for Haryana is 121.6%" the plea added.

"For successful implementation of scheme for support for poor prisoner, it is important that respective states should appoint Social workers in prisons as it has been mentioned in Standard Operating Procedure," the petitioner submitted further.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "the issue is being adjudicated upon by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 titled Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, where all the State Governments including the Union Territory, Chandigarh as well as the States of Punjab and Haryana are represented and are filing their respective affidavits showing compliance/ non-compliance as well as in SMWP (Crl.) No. 4/2021 titled In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail."

Consequently, speaking for the bench the Chief Justice said, "the petitioner should be rest assured that the 'Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme' would be ensured to be implemented to its hilt."

While disposing of the plea, the bench added that "the petitioner is always free to re-visit the Court in case his grievance remains un-redressed."

It is worthwhile to mention that addressing the menace of "illegal" demand for money by people who identify the authenticity of sureties, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed verification of sureties through the MAADHAR application, to check the "unethical" practices.

While granting bail to the accused, Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "When the accused is not in a position to furnish surety, it may be brought to the notice of the concerned Officer/Court which is accepting the bonds, and if the said Officer/Court is satisfied with the petitioner's inability, then it shall be permissible for the said Officer/Court to reduce the bond amount or even exempt surety bond."

Title: Sunpreet Singh v. Union of India and others

Mr. Sunpreet Singh, Advocate (petitioner-in-person).

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel,

for Union of India.

Mr. J.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 7.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for respondent No. 8.

Click here to read/download the order