Mutual Respect Between Lawyers And Prison Authorities Paramount To Vindicate Grievances Of Prisoners: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam added that the prison authorities were expected to provide all reasonable facilities to the lawyers and treat them with dignity while the lawyers were also expected to respect the prison authorities while performing their duties in a lawful manner.

“Mutual respect between the legal practitioners and Prison Authorities are of paramount importance to vindicate the grievances of the prisoners before the Court of Law. Both the Prison Authorities and the legal practitioners are working in tandem for the benefit of the prisoners and to redress their grievances and to defend their cases before the Courts in the manner known to Law. In the process of defending the case and while securing instructions and conversing with the prisoners, mutual respect between the Prison Authorities and legal practitioners are to be maintained,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition by Ananda Kumar to ensure facilities for unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners in the matter of interviews and letters. During the proceedings, Advocate Kasirajan, appearing for the petitioner informed the court that lawyers were not permitted to communicate with undertrial prisoners as per the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983.

Though the state informed that facilities were already provided and the practice of telephone conversations had been removed, Kasirajan and Advocate R Krishna Kumar, Secretary of Madras High Court Advocates Association submitted that the facilities prevailing as of now were inconvenient for lawyers to communicate with the undertrial prisoners.

The court noted that undertrial prisoners could not be compared with convicted prisoners and had to be provided separate reasonable facilities as provided under the Prison Manual. The court added that lapses in providing reasonable facilities to the undertrial prisoners had to be viewed seriously and disciplinary proceedings had to be initiated under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 against the concerned officials.

“The Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 contemplates procedures to be followed by the Prison Authorities, and it is to be scrupulously followed. In the event of any violation, the Authority, who committed such violation is liable for prosecution and disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 or under relevant Law,” the court said.

The court added that the purpose of the Prison Rules was to ensure that the harassment and ill-treatment caused to the undertrial prisoners inside the prison could be communicated to the egal adviser for initiating appropriate action. The court noted that this right could not be diluted or taken away by the Prison authorities at any circumstance and if these rights were not protected, there could be abuse of power by prison authorities.

The court further observed that the facilities under the prison rules should be provided on par with the current day facilities enabling lawyers to perform their duty peacefully and effectively to defend the case of the prisoners in the manner known to law.

The court thus directed the prison authorities to comply with the directions under the Prison Manual and submit a compliance report in the form of an affidavit stating the facilities already provided and the facilities proposed to be provided for the benefit of the lawyers and undertrial prisoners.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.S.Kasirajan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar Standing Counsel [For Bar Council of Tamil Nadu], Mr.R.Krishna Kumar Secretary [For MHAA]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

Case Title: P. Ananda Kumar v The Director General of Police (Prison) and Others

Case No: W.P.No.28839 of 2024