P&H High Court Sets Aside Order Limiting Open Atmosphere Exposure Of High Risk Prisoners To 2 Hours, Says Inmates Enjoy Basic Human Rights

Observing that "inmates are not to be unnecessarily subjected to cruel or degrading treatment", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside an order passed by Additional Director General of Police (Jails), Punjab, which limited the release of prisoners lodged in high security zone to only two hours in the open atmosphere.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said, "Prisons/Correctional facilities being a crucial part of the Criminal Justice System, plays a significant role. It is paramount that the rehabilitation and reformation of offenders represent the ultimate aspiration of jail administration."

The court added that the fundamental principle of humanity is that every person, regardless of their legal status, deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Inmates are not to be unnecessarily subjected to cruel or degrading treatment, thus upholding their basic human rights provided by the Constitution of India itself under Article 21.

"This may also involves offering psychological support to help inmates. Noteworthy among these considerations is the imperative of allowing inmate’s access to adequate outdoor exposure, as the absence of such provisions may exacerbate tension, precipitate incidents of violence, and pose risks to the inmates' well-being".

These observations came in response to a plea challenging limitation of high risk prisoners' release in the open atmosphere to one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.

The State contended that after the escape of high risk prisoners from High Security Jail, Nabha in 2016, specific orders had been made for safety and security of the prisoners as per Section 329(1) of the Punjab Jail Manual, 1996.

After hearing the submissions, the court perused provisions of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 and an earlier decision in Rajia v. State of Punjab and others, in which similar order was challenged and it was held that:

“Security measures can be imposed only up to a limit and this limit is placed by Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which are available even to prisoners. Simultaneously, strict measures need to be adopted against jail personnel so that those, guilty of aiding the criminals are punished in an exemplary manner. Such steps, based on available information, appear to be lacking in their quest for improving jail discipline and making prisons crime free. Instead, the authorities have gone overboard and have violated valuable Fundamental Rights of the prisoners. Intention behind the act is immaterial as the act fails the test of reasonableness."

It also took note of the Apex Court's decision in State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors., where it was held that a prisoner, whether a convict or undertrial, does not cease to be a human being and while lodged in jail he enjoys all his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India including the right to life.

While setting aside the order, Justice Bhardwaj said, "While the Court is conscious of the need to put an effective security mechanism to avoid any untoward incident, however, the pretext of security cannot be projected to deprive a prisoner of his basic rights. State would be within its power to take effective measures to undo threat but such measures need to satisfy the legal tests of human dignity and right to life."

Observing that the balance which needed to be maintained had not been struck by the impugned order, the court allowed the plea.

Advocate Komal Preet Kaur appeared for petitioner

AAG Niharika Sharma appeared for State

Case Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, CWP 3474-2021 (O&M)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 248

Click here to read/download judgment