Death Row Prisoner Kept In Solitary Confinement? Supreme Court Directs District Judge To Conduct Inspection

The issues to be covered by the District Judge in their report, though not exhaustively, were delineated by a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha as under -

"The report shall concentrate on the location of the barracks in which the cells of Death Row Convicts are situated.

[...]

The inspection shall cover issues whether the inmates of the concerned cells are allowed to intermingle with fellow prisoners, the way the meals are served to them and the duration for which the inmates are allowed to come out of their individual cells. These are only illustrative pointers. What we want to gather is the typical life-style of Death Row Convicts and how their days are spent."

The petitioner was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 376, 302 and 392 IPC and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Bangalore City on 26.10.2006. The Karnataka High Court affirmed the conviction and also the sentence based on the finding that there was no possibility of reformation, given his conduct and criminal antecedent. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the category of rarest of rare cases and it upheld the decision of the Courts below. Stating that the aggravating circumstances outweighs the mitigating ones, the Apex Court also dismissed the review petition.

The petitioner had submitted a mercy petition before the President of India, which was rejected. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the executability of his death sentence, primarily, on four grounds -

1. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
2. Delay in adjudicating the mercy petition;
3. Petitioner being put in solitary confinement and
4. Scope of judicial review

The High Court noted that in Indian jurisprudence, examination of 'excessive delay' in deciding the mercy petition is relatively less liberal as compared to foreign jurisdictions, like Europe. In India, the systemic delays in prosecution of mandatory and discretionary appeals is excluded and only the delay attributable to the State is taken into consideration. Considering that the delay of one and a half years is attributable to the State Government rather than the Centre and given the fact that there was overlap between judicial proceedings and disposal of mercy petition, the High Court was of the opinion that the "the delay claimed by the petitioner, howsoever inordinate would disappear into the background and cannot be taken notice of." On the issue of solitary confinement the High Court was of the view that when a person is segregated, but not separated, and kept at a distance, but in such a way that he has other prisoners in his view, he cannot be said to be in solitary confinement. Moreso, it noted, that the petitioner claimed to be suffering from mental health issues and the State was only providing treatment, and kept him in a separate cell for his own protective custody. Thus, it rejected the writ petition.

Advocate, Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that although the High Court had recorded a finding that there was avoidable delay of 550 days in disposing of the mercy petition filed by the petitioner, it refused to grant any relief. He apprised the Bench that as per the letter written by a Medical Officer, which was not disputed by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner was kept in solitary confinement for about 11 years, right from the decision of the Sessions Court awarding death sentence in 2006. The same is in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration And Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 494. He relied on various documents including Prison Manuals to substantiate his argument that the petitioner was segregated and kept in a separate cell, and thus was in solitary confinement as per the law laid down in Sunil Batra (supra). It was also pointed out that the High Court had failed to take into account that the said letter clarified that given the psychological condition, the petitioner was unable to make a mercy petition and hence the delay.

Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka, Mr. Nikhil Goel controverted the contention raised by the petitioner, even though no reply assailing the said allegation was filed before the High Court. He urged the Bench to direct the concerned authorities to arrange for video conferring so that the Bench can have the knowledge of the circumstances in which the petitioner had been lodged in a separate cell.

The Court noted that the Bench hearing Sunil Batra's case had physically visited the jail premises to get first-hand knowledge about the condition in which he was confined. In the light of the same, the Bench thought it fit to engage the District Judge, who is also the Chairman of the District Services Committee, Belgaum for local inspection. Accordingly, it directed the District Judge, Belgaum to inspect and place a report along with photographs by 25.04.2022. It clarified that the cells allotted to persons about to be executed are different from cells in which the Death Row Convicts are kept.

Addressing the query raised by the Bench regarding the manner in which the Mercy Petition of the petitioner was processes, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sonia Mathur, appearing for the Union of India, placed a file before it. The Bench directed the Registry to return the file to her after making copies of the same and thereafter keep the said copies on a sealed cover.

The matter will be next heard on 26.04.2022.

[Case Title: B.A. Umesh v. Union of India SLP (C) 890 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order