"Education Will Provide Hope, Better Life When Free": Madras HC Asks Prison Authorities To Give Books, Basic Facilities To Undertrial Prisoner

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman observed that a prisoner was entitled to basic human rights and his right to education was a part of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court also added that the Basic Principles for Treatment Of Prisoners 1990 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly specifically provided that all prisoners had the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.

“A prisoner is entitled to basic human rights. Prisoners also have a right to education which is also a part of the right of personal liberty. A prisoner's education can provide a scope for hope. It also helps them lead a better life when they are free,” the court said.

The court added that the rights of undertrial prisoners had been reiterated by the constitutional court time and again to ensure humane treatment and legal protection of the prisoners. The court observed that the prisoners had legally enforceable and guaranteed rights which, the prison authorities could not deny, and in case of such denial, the prisoner had a cause to approach the court.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Fakrudeen, seeking to remove him from solitary confinement and to provide basic facilities. Fakrudeen, who had been a remand prisoner for the past 11 years submitted that he was being treated inhumanly and even basic facilities were not provided to him. He added that he was kept in solitary confinement and not allowed to read newspapers. He further submitted that he was pursuing a bachelor's degree in political science but the prison authorities were even denying him academic books.

The prison authorities, on the other hand, submitted that Fakrudeen had been causing inconvenience to them and prison punishment, as per the rules, had been imposed on him. The Additional Advocate General also submitted that he was being given facilities as per the prison manual and submitted that the authorities have acted as per law.

Though the court remarked that the argument of the petitioner were allegations at this stage, the court asked the higher prison authorities to ensure that the rights of the undertrial prisoners are not affected inside the prisons.

“In the present case, allegations of solitary confinement have been raised. Allegations of inhuman treatment is also put forth. Though it remains as allegation before this court, it has to be looked into by higher prison authorities to ensure the rights of undertrial prisoners,” the court said.

Facilities in special court

During the course of the hearing, Fakrudeen also informed the court that leading practitioners were not accepting briefs in the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases in Poonamallee where his case was pending. He submitted that lawyers often complained of long travel and lack of facilities while rejecting briefs.

The court also noted that one of the reasons for prolonging the trial was the situations prevailing in the special court. During the hearing, members of the bar informed the court that they were not treated with courtesy or even allowed to drink water in the court in between long trials. The court was also informed that there were no toiler or drinking water facilities on the court campus and bar rooms were also not available. The lawyers also informed the court that the special court did not permit lawyers to appear through VC.

Noting that VC facility had to be provided as per rule, the High Court asked the Special Court to allow lawyers and litigants to conduct their cases through video conferencing and to permit the VC facilities, which were already existing in the court, for the benefit of the lawyers. The court also requested the Registrar of the City Civil Court to ensure that washrooms and drinking water is available for lawyers, litigants, and other persons appearing in the court.

Though a request was also made by the lawyers to consider shifting the special court from its current premises to somewhere inside the city, the bench said that it could not order the same as it was an administrative decision.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. S. Nadhiya

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. Kumaresan, AAG, Assisted By Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, APP

Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

Case No: WP NO. 2207 of 2025