Prisoners Have Fundamental Right To Get Compensation For Work Related Injuries Suffered In Jail: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for cases where an inmate or convict sustains work related injuries in prison, observing that there is no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address such cases.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that when there is no employee or employer relationship between prisoners and jail authorities, such inmates must be provided protection and remedies for work related injuries as the Constitutional vision does not permit any citizen to be left remediless for availing compensation for injuries even as a prisoner.

Noting that there are no rules regarding compensation to prisoners against industrial injury or occupational diseases in Delhi, the court observed:

“The justice for an inmates who has suffered disability due to an injury suffered which is work related in the prison, has fundamental right to get justice and compensation as per law.”

It directed that when a convict suffers work related amputation or life threatening injury, the Superintendent of Jail will be duty bound to immediately inform the concerned Jail Inspecting Judge within 24 hours from the incident.

The court added that a Three-Member Committee consisting of Director General (Prisons), Medical Superintendent of a government hospital and Secretary of DSLSA of the concerned district will be constituted to assess and quantify compensation to be paid to the inmate, after perusing the opinion of a board of doctors which will be constituted at their request by the treating hospital.

“The government hospital wherefrom the victim will be medically examined/treated for the injury or the disability, if any, the same will be put up before the above mentioned committee for assessment of compensation,” it said.

The court further directed that for assessing the injury or disability, the contributory negligence, if any, of the victim in question will be kept in mind.

“It is clarified that the above guidelines will be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life threatening injury, arising out of work related injury, sustained by the convict. The essential interim compensation will be provided to such victim in case of amputation or life threatening injury,” it said.

The court clarified that the arrangement in terms of the guidelines will remain in place until necessary guidelines or rules are made or amended in the Prison Act, 1894 or in Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.

“While this judgment does not intend to create new rights of prisoners, it expresses and reiterates the recognition of right to equality, right to life and human dignity of a prisoner who has been convicted. This Court vide this judgment has tried to give meaning to the existing rights of the prisoners,” it said.

Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea moved by a convict of Tihar Jail who suffered amputation of three fingers of right hand while working in jail factory.

Noting that since the petitioner had already been provided interim compensation by Jail authorities, the court said that the inmate’s case qua enhanced compensation and for providing functional prosthesis will be decided in light of the guidelines laid by it, within three months.

The court observed that a convict does not voluntarily enter into an agreement or contract to work and thus, there is no question of there being an employer-employee relationship between the inmate and prison authorities.

“Therefore, the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be held applicable to prisoners or inmates. Even otherwise, the inmates are not hired for work by the jail authorities and their wages are to be paid by the concerned department of the government,” it said.

Observing that the Constitutional jurisprudence is “mature and portrays sign of a progressive mature society”, the court said that the living and working conditions of prisoners have to be hassle free and healthful and liability has to be established in case of an inmate suffering from injury while working in prison.

“The duty cast on the police authorities to protect prisoners from harm, their duty to take care of the inmates and to take reasonable steps to protect them from self harm and harm from other inmates or work related injuries, etc. are statutory. It is the duty of the Jail authorities to provide medical care to the inmate,” it said.

The court observed that the remedies for a convict and a free civilian cannot differ, though they may be assessed on different criteria due to absence of employee-employer relationship in case of a convict or undertrial prisoner.

“The doctrine of fairness has to be kept in mind towards the convicts which includes procedural fairness in cases as the present one, since the employer-employee relationship does not exist in such cases in absence of any rule or procedure which may reasonably require,” it said.

Justice Sharma also said that the fundamental rights should not remain on paper, adding that it is the duty of courts to ensure that they become living law and in practicality assist, help and guide the citizens.

 “The injury and disability suffered by the applicant in this case cannot be assessed to be lesser in pain and suffering compared to a free citizen. Pain from an injury cannot be different for a convict and a free citizen. The Court has to hear the voiceless and feel and treat the pain and suffering suffered by the convict not as pain of a prison inmate but as that of a human being. Under the Constitutional system of India, the Courts have always stood guard and have acted as refuge for people who may be helpless, out-numbered, or may stand in position of power imbalance,” the court said.

It observed further said that it is time that the authorities of prisons which are correctional homes act as guardians of the prisoners for their health and safety and not merely consider themselves as guards of the inmates.

“The plight of the imprisoned in a democracy sheds light on the State as to how should States care for them since very few care for the imprisoned. The attitude of the majority towards the imprisoned viz. under trials or convicts is not very positive and those who speak on behalf of prisoners are at times considered callous towards victims of crime,” it said.

The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to Director General (Prisons), Secretary, DSLSA of all districts, Secretary of Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Secretary of Delhi Government’s Department of Health and Family Welfare, for taking note and ensuring its compliance.

Case Title: VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158

Click Here To Read Order