Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Mr. Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 July, 1991
9. The question to which we are confronted is as to whether those recreational activities, which might endanger the very security of the jail premises and/or are capable of being misused by hard-core/ professional criminals, should be allowed to be provided or not without militating against the object of Article 21 of the Constitution of India? There can be no exception that the protection of Article 21 extends to all "persons" and not merely to the citizens of our country as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments starting from Anwar v. State of J & K, AIR 1971 SC 337 and later on followed and reiterated in several cases including (i) National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996(1) SCO 742; (ii) Louis De Raedt v. Union of India} 1991(3) SCC 554; (iii) State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram Chakma, 1994 Supp.
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000
(l) SCC 615; (iv) Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Dass, 2000(2) SCC 465.
State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri And ... on 6 September, 1965
10. The scope of Article 21 of the Constitution has been further expanded by extending its protective umbrella even to the persons imprisoned, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Parbhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, AIR 1966 SC 424 and in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675. True, 'it is that right to life is something more than just survival or animal existence and it includes the right to live with human dignity. In fact, right to life enshrined in Article 21 includes all those facets of life which make human life meaningful, complete and worth living in a civilized society, therefore, it inherently includes the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. Even in the case of prisoners, despite the restrictive meaning, the right to life has been held to be inclusive of bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter over the head, facilities for reading, writing, interviews with members of his family and friends, subject of course, to prison's regulations, if any.
Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
14. Development brings along prosperity and problems both. The invention of electronic devices and their consumption to make the human life more informative and/or to facilitate in day-to-day functions, undoubtedly, is a solace but the sorrow lies in their misuse. From the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, we have no doubt in our mind that the facilities of television, cable network, mobile phones and pagers, etc., have been blatantly and abrasionaly misused by a group of hard-core terrorists including a life convict. The ban upon the use of such equipment, therefore, can be well protected within the exceptions carved out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case holding that the prison administration is entitled to impose conditions in relation to recreational activities for maintaining internal order, discipline and prevention of escape and the like. However, an absolute ban upon the use of all such items would not only deprive majority of the inmates who are mere "under-trials" even from the amenity of viewing TV, it might cause adverse effects upon the reformatory methods required to be adopted in the model, jails even in relation to the convicts. In the modern era, the television has become the fastest source of information. It is a component of the right to read and write which has since been recognised as a right under Article 21 of the Constitution even for the "prisoners".
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 13 January, 1981
The rights of prisoners in terms of Article 21 have been well explained and re-stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis CorallinaUin v. U.T. Delhi Administration, AIR 1981 SC 746 and (ii) A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710. Thus even after a person is convicted and imprisoned under sentence of the Court, he does not lose all his fundamental rights guaranteed under our Constitution excepting those which he cannot be permitted to enjoy owing to the fact of his incarceration, such as right to move freely, right to practice of profession. However, in Parbhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri and Sunil Batra's cases (supra), the freedom of expression which includes the freedom of reading and writing was held to be a permissible right of the prisoner, A prisoner thus notwithstanding his imprisonment is entitled to those minimum human rights such as "recreation, freedom from extremes of heat and cold, freedom from indignities like compulsory nudity or other vulgarities over and above those restrictions which the present administration is entitled to impose for maintaining internal order, discipline, prevention of escape and the like, which follow from the sentence of imprisonment. " (emphasis applied).
People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 December, 1996
11. Needless to say that the liberal interpretation given to Article 21,makes it the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, is in conformity with the international law as India is a signatory to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which facts has been taken notice by the Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997)1 SCC 301.
National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr on 9 January, 1996
9. The question to which we are confronted is as to whether those recreational activities, which might endanger the very security of the jail premises and/or are capable of being misused by hard-core/ professional criminals, should be allowed to be provided or not without militating against the object of Article 21 of the Constitution of India? There can be no exception that the protection of Article 21 extends to all "persons" and not merely to the citizens of our country as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments starting from Anwar v. State of J & K, AIR 1971 SC 337 and later on followed and reiterated in several cases including (i) National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996(1) SCO 742; (ii) Louis De Raedt v. Union of India} 1991(3) SCC 554; (iii) State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram Chakma, 1994 Supp.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1