Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 69 (0.86 seconds)Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons ... vs State Of Assam on 13 December, 2018
6. The above view has been reiterated in Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi
Administration2 in paragraph 42 of the Report and in Kishore Singh
Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan3 in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Report.
In paragraph 10 of the Report in Kishore Singh, it was held that there is no
difference between a separate cell and solitary confinement. Therefore, a
convict on death row is entitled to move within the confines of the prison
like any other convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment. However,
certain restrictions may be necessary for security reasons, but even then, it
would be necessary to comply with natural justice provisions with an
entitlement to file an appeal.
Barkat vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 October, 2018
In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 1 SCC 503 the petitioners sent a telegram to a learned judge of this Court complaining of solitary confinement of prisoners. The telegram was treated as a habeas corpus petition and the concerned persons were directed to be released from solitary confinement.
Lawrance vs The Deputy Director Of Central Prisons on 12 February, 2021
S.No. Cause Title
1 D.Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik and Others vs. State of A.P. &
Others1
2 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another2
3 Sunil Batra (I) vs. Delhi Administration3
4 Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration4
5 Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev and others vs. State of
Rajasthan5
6 K. Valambal and others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu6
6 Besides, Mr. Sankarasubbu placed further reliance on Section 491
Lovish Mahajan vs State Of U.T., Chandigarh on 19 May, 2022
In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan
the petitioners sent a telegram to a learned judge of this Court
complaining of solitary confinement of prisoners. The telegram
was treated as a habeas corpus petition and the concerned
persons were directed to be released from solitary confinement.
Acharaparambath Pradeepan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2003
The above decision was followed again by the Supreme Court in Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625 : (1981 Cri LJ 17).
Smt. Sudha Gupta And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 24 November, 1998
4. The petitioners prayed for a direction requiring a thorough probe by Central Bureau of Investigation in the incidents relating to five unnatural deaths, which had taken place in the Central Jail, Gwalior, during a short span of one month under mysterious circumstances and into the high corruption amongst the jail authorities and none or less supply of food, clothes and medical facilities to the prisoners, praying further for a direction to prosecute the responsible Jail authorities for such unnatural deaths. Another direction was sought for requiring the concerned Jail authorities of Central Jail, Gwalior not to keep in isolation or in solitary confinement or with fetters any of its inmates following the decision of he Apex Court in the case of Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1981 SC 625 : 1981 Cri LJ 17 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 SC 939 : 1981 Cri LJ 481. Another direction sought for was for payment of compensation for unnatural and mysterious death of Vinod Kumar Gupta, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/-.
Sudha Gupta vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 24 November, 1998
4. The petitioners prayed for a direction requiring a thorough probe by Central Bureau of Investigation in the incidents relating to five unnatural deaths, which had taken place in the Central Jail, Gwalior, during a short span of one month under mysterious circumstances and into the high corruption amongst the jail authorities and non or less supply of food, clothes and medical facilities to the prisoners, praying further for a direction to prosecute the responsible Jail authorities for such unnatural deaths. Another direction was sought for requiring the concerned Jail authorities of Central Jail, Gwalior not to keep in isolation or in solitory confinement or with fetters any of its inmates following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kishor Singh Ravinder Singh Dev v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1981 SC 625 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1981 SC 939. Another direction sought for was for payment of compensation for unnatural and mysterious death of Vinod Kumar Gupta, the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 and 4, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/-.
Shri Rama Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 1996
(5) Sunil Batra (I) dealt with the question whether
prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights, apart
from fundamental rights. In that case this Court was called
upon to decide as to when solitary confinement could be
imposed on a prisoner. in Kishor Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 2625 (#1981 (1) SCC 503) also the
Court dealt with the parameters of solitary confinement.
Pardeep Kumar vs Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh on 10 March, 2015
In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev & others Vs. State of Rajasthan
(1981) 1 SCC 503, the petitioner was confined in cells with fetters. The
Court considering the case of one convict Surjit Singh, who was given
punishment of solitary confinement and cross-bar fetters for the reason that
he was "loitering in the prison", behaving insolently and in an "uncivilised"
manner tearing off his history ticket. The affidavit of the Superintendent
was not found to be satisfactory though not lacking in bona fides.
Considering the punishment under Section 46 of the Act, the Court held as
under: