Prisoners Are Not Slaves, Cannot Be Tortured In Inhuman Ways To Punish Them For Their Crimes: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam made the observations in a plea by a prisoner's mother alleging that he was being treated inhumanly by the prison authorities and was even made to do household work of the officers.

“It is to be understood that prisoners are neither slaves nor are they to be tortured in such inhuman ways to punish them for their crimes. In our legal system, any kind of torture to any fellow human being should be shunned. Human lives have its own value. The convicts ought to be punished only in the manner known to law,” the court observed.

The court also observed that the power given to the jail authorities must be exercised with care and caution as abuse of power would create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. The court emphasised that nobody could unduly exrcise power over another and such misuse of power had to be dealt with seriously.

“Abuse of power when having control over powerless prisoners will create havoc and undermine the ethos of criminal justice system. Nobody can unduly exercise power over another individual in this free world but it is only in places like prisons where authorities have been given power over certain rights of prisoners. When such is the case, any misuse or abuse of powers shall not be taken in a normal manner but needs to be dealt with seriously,” the court said.

The court had previously directed the Vellore Chief Judicial Magistrate to visit the prison, meet the petitioner's son and conduct an inquiry. The court remarked that the report of the Magistrate shocked the conscience of the court. The court had also directed the CBCID to register criminal cases. Following this, a status report was filed by the Superintendent of Police revealing that the prisoners were employed in the house of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, in violation of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983. Thus, the report of the Superintendent made out a prima facie case against the prison authorities.

The court thus noted that it was necessary to send out a strong message that prison authorities were not supposed to abuse their official position. The court added that the convicted prisoners were already in a disadvantageous position inside the jail and any kind of exploitation had to be dealt with seriously.

“The convict prisoners inside the prison are in disadvantageous position. Therefore, any kind of exploitation by the Prison Authorities cannot be subjected to normal view, but serious actions are highly warranted. Prison Authorities are solely accountable and responsible for the happenings inside the prison to the convict prisoners. When the convict prisoners are utilised for residential works in the residences of the Prison Authorities and monitored by the Subordinate Prison Authorities, both the actions are offences and illegal, and serious actions against such Prison Authorities engaging prisoners as well as the Uniformed Personnel are just and necessary. There cannot be any comprise in dealing with such nature of offences and misconduct by the Prison Authorities,” the court observed.

The court added that prisons should be for the reform of the prisoners and the jail authorities must be aware that their duties and powers should be used in a responsible manner. the court added that power is not given to be used against the powerless but rather to be used in a responsible manner for the benefit of the people and society at large.

The court thus directed the Superintendent of CBCID to proceed with the investigation in the criminal case and directed the trial court to expediate the process. The court also directed the disciplinary proceedings to be proceeded with under the relevant rules.

The court also directed the Principal Secretary to Government and the Director General of Police to conduct frequent and surprise inspections to ensure that the prisoners are not engaged or employed by the Prison authorities in their residence for household work and if any complaint was received, inquiry was to be conducted and all appropriate actions were to be initiated.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Pugalenthi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

Case Title: S Kalavathi v State and Others

Case No: W.P.No.19668 of 2024