Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The petitioner in support of his claim, placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Muktaram-Sitaram Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra [1997 Crl.Law Journal 3458] which reiterated the need for appointment of non-official visitors. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1579] wherein, referring to the state of the prisoners, it was noted that prisoners are doubly handicapped, as they are housed in a walled-off world, which remains incommunicado, their voices unheard and existence invisibled. Therefore, it was reiterated that life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India shall not be kept under suspended https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis animation or concealed into animal existence without the fresh flow of air. The petitioner also referred to the decision in Re : Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons [(2017) 10 Supreme Court Cases 658] wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed concern over the custodial deaths in various prisons spread across the Country. By pointing out the said decisions, the Petitioner prayed to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to ensure the implementation of the directions and/or guidelines issued by the Joint Secretary of Home Department to the Government of India vide proceedings in F.No.16014/4/2005-PR dated 18.02.2011 and chapter 29 of the Model Prison Manual, 2003 for appointing the non-official visitors to Board of Visitors within a time that may be stipulated by this Court.

15. The Model Prison Manual, 2016 came into existence, after mulitple judicial interventions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly recommended an overhaul of prison administration by suggesting reforms in treatment of prisoners and management of prisons. The dehumanized existence of prisoners was reprimanded by Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1980 AIR 1579] and he called for an overhaul of Prison Manuals in compliance with constitutional ideals and human rights. He further emphasised on the need for an independent oversight mechanism for operationalizing prisoners’ rights and safeguards. Subsequently, after the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to examine the framing of new All India Jail Manual in Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, [(1997) 2 SCC 642], the government constituted a committee to draft a model prison manual in accordance with the rights jurisprudence and constitutional ideals. The Committee was entrusted with the responsibility to compare the state prison https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis manuals, identify the gaps in provisions related to administration and management of prisons and recommend best practices. It examined the provisions relating to internal management of prisons and treatment of prisoners and devised a framework to ensure that the prisoners are treated in accordance with the recommendations made in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, All India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-1983) and international instruments. Thus, the Model Prison Manual came into being in the year 2003 after national-level deliberations and development of a consensus. However, only after the nudge from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, [(2017) 10 SCC 658], the Ministry of Home Affairs approved the Manual after 12 years in 2016. The Model Prison Manual and the system that it envisages, has to be understood as an outcome of the repeated clarion calls and demands to safeguard prisoners’ rights and prison reforms.

17.(i) There is a catena of decisions dealing with prisoners’ rights. We may now refer exclusively to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the visitation system to understand the nature of responsibility of the prison visitors. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1579], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

"59. The Prisons Act and Rules need revision if a constitutionally and culturally congruous code is to be fashioned. The model jail manual, we are unhappy to say and concur in this view with the learned Solicitor General, is far from a model and is, perhaps, a product of prison officials insufficiently instructed in the imperatives of the Constitution and unawakened to the new hues of human rights. We accept, for the nonce, the suggestion of the Solicitor General that within the existing statutory framework the requirements of constitutionalism may be read. He heavily relies on the need for a judicial agency whose presence, direct or by delegate, within the prison walls will deal with grievances. For this purpose, he relies on the Board of Visitors, their powers and duties, as a functional substitute for a Prison Ombudsman. A controllerate is the desideratum for in situ reception and redressal of grievances.