"Prison Walls Cannot Obstruct Fruits Of Article 21": Allahabad HC Issues Directions For Welfare Of Children Living In Prison With Parents

While hearing a bail plea of an accused mother living with her minor son in prison, the Allahabad High Court has issued several directions to various state authorities regarding the protection and welfare of children who are living with parents lodged in prisons.

Stressing their right to education and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that

“Prison walls cannot obstruct the onrush of the fruits of Article 21 for children.”

Background

The applicant's 5-year-old son has been residing with her in jail since her incarceration. It was argued that the child's rights under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and other laws were being violated as he was in prison. The applicant sought bail on the grounds that the child's life would be affected by such confinement.

While the State Counsels submitted that the State was making all endeavours to provide a congenial environment and build adequate support systems for the child and other children in prison, the Court noted that it cannot shut its eyes to the collateral damage caused to the dependent children as a result of their parent's confinement.

Court's verdict

Though the Court noted that it is the duty of every parent to ensure the well-being of their children, neglecting the children confined in prison because of their parents is a failure attributable to the State.

“Fair administration of justice in bail jurisdiction commands this Court to ensure that adverse consequences accruing to the child as a result of rejection of the bail application of their parent (mother in this case) are mitigated and the rights of minor children of inmates residing in jails are protected.”

Inter alia, the Court relied on Rule 339 (f) of Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022 read with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India to hold that children whose parents are in prison cannot be denied the fundamental right to receive education.

Relying on Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Justice Bhanot observed that the Secretary, the District Legal Services Authority must educate the inmates about their child's right to education.

“Life of a child under Article 21 will not be defined by the adverse circumstances presented by fortuitous events, but their right to life will be determined by the luminous mandate of Article 21 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India propounded in constitutional law.”

Noting that each child is different and may have different needs, the Court observed that for nurturing each child's potentials, separate and individual care plans catering to their needs can be prepared.

“Each child is unique. Children are not units in a crowd. Every child in distress is a victim of peculiar adversities. The baleful influence of jail environment on the said category of children are externalities (circumstances which are not caused by them and over which they have no control). Nature endows children with special gifts and potentialities which are peculiar to each child. Influences which negatively impact a child's psychology have to be addressed in facts of each case.”

Structured programmes for development of children 

The Court directed the State Government to create structured programmes regarding “education, health, wellness and holistic development” of such children to protect them for any negative influences of the jail. Inter alia, the Court directed that the children must be protected and housed in a separate area to avoid contact with other prisoners. The Court issued directions regarding development of programmes for physical, creative, emotional and psychological development of the children.

“It is open to the State Government to enlarge the list of activities and support systems as and when required. Other ministries and authorities including the ministries/departments of Law, Jails, Education, Medical and Health and any other department of the state as may be required shall fully cooperate with the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of U.P.”

Further, the Court directed the Jail Authorities to ensure communication with Child Welfare Committee as soon as child is brought into the prison with an accused parent. It was directed that there must be barricading between the place where the child is housed with the parent and other prisoners to avoid contact between the prisoners and the child.

Further it was directed that the child be sent to a preschool/kindergarten/playschool/primary school, as the case may be, which is located outside the premises of the prison. The Jail Authorities have been directed to provide playgrounds, creches and other areas which may help is creative development of the child.

The Child Welfare Committee and the District Probationary Officers have been directed to create individual plans for holistic development of each child along with plans of how to shield the child from the negative influences of the prison.

Noting that the affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Women and Child Development) Government of UP, Lucknow showed poor coordination between various state departments, the Court observed that

“Lack of coordination and cooperation between various State departments is obstructing the implementation of law and delaying the realization of rights of children in jails. This situation cannot go on and has to be addressed squarely and promptly.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to call upon all State Functionaries involved to execute the directions of the Court.

Noting that the applicant was the primary accused in murder of her step child, the Court denied her bail. However, the Trail Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the applicant's trail.

Case Title: Smt. Rekha vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25993 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49

Counsel for Applicant : Rahul Upadhyay

Counsel for Opposite Party : R.P.S. Chauhan

Click Here To Read/Download Order