Multiple Inmates Kept In Separate Cell Due To Threat Perception Of Jail Authorities Not Solitary Confinement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently rejected a transfer petition from three inmates at the Chinsurah District Correctional Home, Hooghly upon holding that keeping them in the same prison cell, away from the main population due to jail authorities’ perception of violence from other inmates, did not tantamount to solitary confinement, or a violation of their human rights.

On an earlier occasion, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had taken on record the State’s report on the facilities extended to the petitioners in their time as inmates.

Petitioners had submitted that their incarceration had led to several human rights violations, on counts of solitary confinement, lack of medical assistance, denial of visitation rights from their relatives and advocates, etc.

During the present hearing, the Bench noted the petitioner’s response to the report filed by the State, and held that, while the confinement of the petitioner’s could not be construed to be solitary confinement, the jail authorities would be under a duty to provide them with necessary medical facilities during their incarceration. It said:

Some amount of discretion is required to be left to the jail authorities as well, since if the prisoner’s perception is to be the sole criteria of oppression, there would be a negative bias attached to it. Hence, the court cannot be oversensitive to such an extent that the practical realities are overlooked.

The respondent-authorities have clearly opined that there is risk to the safety and security of the petitioners from rival groups, also incarcerated in the same prison, if they are confined together with the said groups. As such, the petitioners have been kept together in a particular cell. The writ petition has not alleged anywhere as to the measurements of their cell or that the constraints of the same are not suitable for housing three persons. In fact, there is no allegation or anything on record to indicate any comparison between the per person ratio of the other cells of the correctional home and the petitioners’ cell. Thus, the court cannot reach a conclusion that the petitioners are segregated to such an extent that the same is inhuman. Hence, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, the only apparent aspect on which the petitioner’s lot can be improved immediately appears to be on the medical front.

Upon noting that the petitioner’s incarceration would not tantamount to solitary confinement, because of the perceived threat against them by jail authorities, the Court directed the authorities to ensure that the medical and visitation facilities sought by the petitioners were made available to them during the period of their incarceration.

The petitioners were also given liberty to apply before the Inspector-General (Prisons) in case they wished to be transferred to a different cell or facility. The Court concluded:

“Medical Officers of the Hooghly District Correctional Home [directed to] regularly check-up the physical and mental health of the prisoners. Routine check-ups both on the psychiatric and physical fronts much be undertaken for every prisoner housed in the said correctional home, including the petitioners, at least once every two months and necessary medical facilities be extended to them, in the event so required, over and above the medical check-ups. The jail authorities shall also ensure that the petitioner’s right to have interviews with their relatives and friends as well as with their lawyers as and when so required, subject, of course, to the Rules framed in that regard by the State Government. The petitioners are given liberty to apply to the Inspector General of Correctional Services for being transferred to alternative correctional homes. If such applications are made, it will be open to the IG of Correctional Services, upon undertaking proper enquiry, to consider such application and take a decision at the earliest.”

Case: Bishal Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors

Coram: Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 233

Click Here To Read/Download Order