Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
In Sunil Batra's case certain directions were given by the Supreme Court with a view to bring about reforms in the jail administration.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 July, 1984
These directions are to be found in paragraph 79 of the Report and we will like to draw the attention of the Goa Government towards the said directions as well as towards the Division Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale v. State of Maharashtra and others (Supra) and ultimate directions issued by the Division Bench in that behalf, which read as under:
Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 1983
2. Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 58 has reiterated the view expressed in the earlier decisions, that term 'Life' in Article 21, has an extended meaning. Therefore, citizens who are detained in Prisons either as undertrials or as convicts are also entitled to the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Sanjay Suri & Anr vs Delhi Administration, Delhi & Anr on 9 December, 1987
In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, the State Government is obliged to reconstitute the Visitor's Board as per the guidelines laid down in that behalf and we direct accordingly.
The Prisoners Act, 1900
Poola Bhaskara Vijayakumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 24 April, 1987
7. Then, a grievance is made in the petition that the wage system as incorporated in Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Facilities to Prisoners) Rules 1968 and the wages paid are wholly unreasonable. It is also contended by Shri Rebello, the learned Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, that the wages paid are violative of citizens fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in, (In the matter of Prison Reforms Enhancement of Wages of Prisoners), A.I.R. 1953 Ker. 261 and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Poola Bhaskara Vijaykumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, and the cases referred to therein. In our view, it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether the Rule relating to the payment of wages is violative of Article 21 or Article 23, since in any case, it could safely be held that the wages paid have no basis. In spite of our repeated queries, it was not possible for the respondents to indicate as to on what basis these wages are fixed. According to Shri Rebello, the basis could be only the minimum wages payable to the workers in the similar employment because as held by the Supreme Court, payment of anything less than the minimum wage will amount to 'begar' within the contemplation of Article 23 of the Constitution. We do not propose to examine this contention in details. However, since no basis is being disclosed for the fixation of the wages, a scrutiny of the whole question is absolutely necessary. Hence, we direct the State Government to appoint a committee of experts to go into this question and re-fix the wages, in accordance with law.
1