W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 1 of 14    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013  

RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS    

         O R D E R    

Madan B. Lokur, J.     

1. Over the years, public interest litigation has brought immense social  

change through interventions made and directions issued by this Court.  

Public interest litigation has been initiated, very rarely, by suo motu1  

exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. On most occasions, it has been  

initiated through a writ petition filed by activist individuals or  

organisations2. Again, quite infrequently, it has been initiated on the basis  

of a communication received by this Court3.  

                                                           1 Suo Motu Writ Petitions:  

In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue Death, (2016) 10 SCC 709, In Re: Death of  

25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2002) 3 SCC 31, In Re: Indian  

Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business and Financial News, (2014) 2  

SCC 786   2 Writ Petitions filed:  MC Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak], (1986) 2 SCC 176, Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of  

India, (1989) 4 SCC 286, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1  3 Letters Petitions:  Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526, Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra,  

(1983) 2 SCC 96, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 2 of 14    

2. During the last several decades, public interest litigation has  

compelled this Court to consider issues relating to the environment, social  

justice, violation of human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the  

Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the failure  

of the State to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by  

Parliament4 or due to mis-governance by the State, that is, the Central  

Government, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations  

leading to rampant illegalities5. The failure of the State to take remedial  

steps to fill in the gap when there is no operative law6, except that enshrined  

in the Constitution, more particularly Article 21 has resulted in public  

interest litigation and at least two cases where a treaty obligation ought to  

be fulfilled7.  

3. In recent times, usually and regrettably, the State has chosen to  

challenge the idea of public interest litigation or denigrate it by chanting  

the mantra of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘separation of powers’. In most cases,  

these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the State to  

                                                           4 Absence of Governance:  Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549, Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018)  4 SCC 433, Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498  5 Mis-Governance:  Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 501, Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC  

590, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516  6 When there is no operative law:  Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, In Re: Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC 733, Environment  

& Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. [Vrindavan Widows] (2017) 16 SCC 780,  

MC Mehta [Taj Trapezium]  v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353  7 Treaty Obligation:  Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [CEDAW], (1997) 6 SCC 241, Consumer Education & Research Centre  

v. Union of India [ILO Asbestos Convention], (1995) 3 SCC 42  

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 3 of 14    

recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing social  

justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to our  

Constitution.   There must be a realization that public interest litigation has  

given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women and  

children.  Public interest litigation is one of the more important  

contributions of India to jurisprudence.  In fact, the Indian experience has  

encouraged some other countries to introduce public interest litigation in  

their jurisprudence.  

4.    This is not to suggest that public interest litigation has not been  

misused or that occasionally this Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction,  

but it must be emphasised that wherever this Court might have exceeded  

its jurisdiction, it has always been in the interest of the people of the  

country prompted by administrative mis-governance or absence of  

governance.   There are, therefore, occasional transgressions on both sides,  

but that cannot take away from the significance of public interest litigation  

as a non-adversarial source of righting some wrongs and encouraging  

social change through accountability and, in cases, transparency.  

5. Even the present petition concerning the rights of prisoners, which  

was initiated on the basis of a letter received by this Court from a former  

Chief Justice of India, was initially resisted by the State, but with the  

intervention of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the need for

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 4 of 14    

introspection and reform has been recognised and there has been a positive  

and constructive expression of interest shown by the Union of India in this  

regard. The present petition arose out of a concern shown by former Chief  

Justice R.C. Lahoti on four issues, namely, overcrowding in prisons;  

unnatural deaths of prisoners; gross inadequacy of staff; and the available  

staff being untrained or inadequately trained. Ever since this petition has  

been pending disposal, despite several directions issued by this Court from  

time to time, no finality has yet been attached to the rights of prisoners. On  

the contrary, issues that require consideration have multiplied and new  

vistas have opened for consideration.  

6. With this preamble, before we actually pass agreed directions that  

have been accepted by the learned Attorney General, it is necessary to give  

a few background facts relating to the efforts made in the past on the issue  

of the rights of prisoners.  

Earlier efforts on the rights of prisoners  

7. The first effort relating to the rights of prisoners was made through  

the Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-1983,  

commonly known as the Mulla Committee. Some of the recommendations  

made by the Mulla Committee were accepted by the Government of India,  

while some were not. But what is more important is the discussion relating  

to the purpose of punishment and the changes that should be brought about

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 5 of 14    

to achieve this purpose. These questions are valid even today and continue  

to demand an answer.  

8.  In 1987, the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer Committee on Women  

Prisoners, submitted its report, which dealt with issues concerning women  

prisoners as a marginalised group and gave several significant  

recommendations. The Law Commission of India also dealt with the rights  

of prisoners in its 78th Report particularly dealing with congestion of  

undertrial prisoners in jails. The Bureau of Police Research and  

Development (BPR&D) also gave a report in 2007 under the Chairmanship  

of its Director General. Amongst other things, a National Policy on Prison  

Reforms and Correctional Administration was also framed.  

9. Apart from the above, there have been some private and individual  

efforts, including a Report on Prison Visiting System in India by the  

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in 2005. The responsibilities of  

Visitors appointed for prisons was the subject matter of a decision of a  

Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ranchod v. State of  

M.P. and Anr.8 The Centre on the Death Penalty of the National Law  

University, Delhi, submitted a two-volume report in 2016 which dealt with,  

inter alia, the conditions and treatment of prisoners on death row. There is  

also a significant study on Open Prisons conducted by Smita Chakraburtty  

                                                           8 MANU/MP/0313/1987

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 6 of 14    

on her experiences in prisons in Rajasthan and Bihar which is of seminal  

importance.  

10. In other words, there is a wealth of material available on record,  

apart from several milestone decisions9 rendered by this Court from time  

to time and also in the present petition as well as in R.D. Upadhyay v. State  

of Andhra Pradesh and others.10  

11. Keeping this in mind and the dire necessity of reforms in prison  

administration and prison management despite earlier efforts, it was put to  

the learned Attorney General to consider the feasibility of appointing a  

Committee to look into the entire range of issues raised, not only in this  

petition, but also other issues that have cropped up during the hearing on  

several dates and from time to time. As mentioned above, the learned  

Attorney General accepted the suggestion of a Committee being appointed.  

Therefore, the following directions are issued:  

12. The Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India shall  

forthwith issue a notification constituting a Supreme Court Committee on  

Prison Reforms consisting of:  

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy, former Judge of the  

Supreme Court as its Chair.  

                                                           9 Sunil Batra  v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494; Charles Sobraj v. Suptd. Central Jail, Tihar (1978)  4 SCC 104; Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi  Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526      10(2007) 15 SCC 337

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 7 of 14    

2. Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Police Research and  

Development as its Member  

3. Director General (Prisons) Tihar Jail, New Delhi as its  

Member.  

13. The Committee will give its recommendations on the following  

issues as its Terms of Reference:  

1. Review the implementation of the Guidelines contained in the  

Model Prison Manual 2016 by States and Union Territories  

(UT's).  

2. Review the implementation by the States and UTs of the  

recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on  

Empowerment of Women in its report tabled in the Parliament  

titled ‘Women in Detention and Access to Justice,’ and the  

advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in this  

regard.  

3. To review the two training manuals for prison personnel prepared  

by Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D),  

‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Officers 2017’ and  

‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Warders 2017’ and  

forwarded to States and UTs.

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 8 of 14    

4. Review the recommendations made in the report of the Ministry  

of Women and Child Development in collaboration with the  

National Commission for Women and the National Law  

University Delhi on ‘Women in Prisons’.  

5. Review the recommendations made in the report of the National  

Commission for Women on ‘Inspection of Prisons/Jails/  

Custodial Homes housing Women’.  

6. Review the implementation by States and UTs of the Guidelines  

contained in ‘Living conditions in Institutions for Children in  

Conflict with Law’ prepared by the Ministry of Women and  

Child Development (MWCD) and the Model Rules and  

Procedures prepared by the MWCD under the Juvenile Justice  

(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice  

(Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.  

7. Review the status of the implementation of the guidelines and  

advisories issued by MHA to the States and UTs.  

8. The Committee may give its consolidated recommendations  

based on the above and suggest measures to improve the  

implementation of the aforementioned guidelines and advisories,  

subject to budgetary resources available with the States and the  

UTs.

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 9 of 14    

9. To examine the extent of overcrowding in prisons and  

correctional homes and recommend remedial measures,  

including an examination of the functioning of Under Trial  

Review Committees, availability of legal aid and advice, grant of  

remission, parole and furlough.  

10. To examine violence in prisons and correctional homes and  

recommend measures to prevent unnatural deaths and assess the  

availability of medical facilities in prisons and correctional  

homes and make recommendations in this regard.  

11. To assess the availability and inadequacy of staff in prisons and  

correctional homes and recommend remedial measures.  

12. To suggest training and educational modules for the staff in  

prisons and correctional homes with a view to implement the  

suggestions.  

13. To assess the feasibility of establishing Open Prisons, the  

possibility of and the potential for establishing Open Prisons in  

different parts of the country and give effect to the  

recommendations.  

14. To recommend steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor  

children of women prisoners, including their education and  

health.

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 10 of 14    

15. To examine and recommend measures for the health, education,  

development of skills, rehabilitation and social reintegration of  

children in Observation Homes, Places of Safety and Special  

Homes established under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice  

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.  

16. Generally, any other recommendation that the Committee may  

deem appropriate, fit and proper in furtherance of reforms in  

prisons and correctional homes.  

17. The Committee while giving its suggestions and  

recommendations may also suggest changes or amendments to  

various guidelines contained in the Modern Prison Manual, 2016  

and also various directives issued by the Government of India.  

14. The Committee is requested to give its recommendations in respect  

of the first three Terms of Reference, preferably within a period of three  

months from the date on which the necessary facilities are provided by the  

Government of India.  

A. It is hereby directed that the Chairman of the Committee would  

be entitled to financial benefits as available to a Judge of the  

Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The other terms and conditions of the  

Chairman of the Committee would be as accepted by the learned  

Attorney General as follows:

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 11 of 14    

Sl. No. Particulars of Terms &  

Conditions   

Accepted  

A) Chairperson   

i) Residential Accommodation Payment of HRA @30%  

of pay, as a special case.  

ii) LTC As admissible to highest  

grade of Government  

official under LTC Rules  

in terms of OM dated  

08.10.1987 (as revised).  

iii) Staff Car Staff car may be provided,  

if the same can be spared  

by MHA.  If staff car  

cannot be provided, the  

Chairman may be provided  

with Chauffeur driven  

hired conveyance with  

limit of 600 litres of petrol  

per quarter.  

iv) Travelling Allowance Traveling allowance on  

appointment by air for self  

and dependent family  

members from home town  

to New Delhi for joining  

the Committee.  

One additional fare for the  

the Chairman, both  

onwards and return if the  

family members are left  

behind.  

v) Medical facility Through CGHS, unless  

already entitled to medical  

facilities.  

vi) Telephone One Residential  

Telephone/Mobile/Internet  

facility may be allowed to  

the Chairman with ceiling  

for reimbursement as  

applicable to the Secretary  

to GOI in terms of MOF’s  

OM dated 14.11.2006 &  

subsequent OM dated  

11.05.2012 (as revised),

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 12 of 14    

unless already possessing  

such facilities.   

vii) Newspaper & Magazines  Supply of  

Newspaper/Magazines  

may be regulated as per  

DoE/s OM No. 1(24)-

E.II(A)/96 dated  

13.09.1996 (as revised).  

B.  Since the ‘in service’ officers will be appointed as part of the  

Committee, these officers will be treated as ‘on duty’.  The officers  

would be entitled to all allowances and benefits as per the applicable  

rules.  

C.  The composition of the above Committee will be notified by the  

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India forthwith.  

D.  The Committee will have its office in the National Capital Territory of  

Delhi.  

E.  The Committee will indicate to the Union of India as to its requirements  

of infrastructure support, including personnel necessary for answering  

the Terms of Reference.  The necessary infrastructure, including  

manpower  will be provided by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government  

of India.  

F.  All payments indicated above shall be made by the Union of India.  

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 13 of 14    

DIRECTIONS  

1. The Committee will make its recommendations as soon as feasible,  

other than with respect to the first three Terms of Reference, dealt with  

above.  It may consider, if necessary, sending reports on any of the  

matters as and when the recommendations are finalized. It shall also  

make its recommendations to the State Governments.  

2. The Committee will devise its own procedure and formulate modalities  

necessary for accomplishing the task. It may appoint such advisers,  

institutional consultants and experts as it may consider necessary for  

any particular purpose.  It may call for such information and take such  

evidence as it may consider necessary.  All State Governments, UT  

Administrations and the Ministries/Departments of the Central  

Government will furnish such information, documents and other  

assistance as required by the Committee.  

3. We request the Committee to complete the collection of data and  

information and make appropriate recommendations and submit the  

same to this Court preferably within a period of 12 months.  

4. The Committee may visit the States and interact with authorities  

concerned of the State Governments. All authorities of the State  

Governments and Union Territories may be directed to extend full  

cooperation with Committee. It would be the responsibility of the State

W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013                                                                                           Page 14 of 14    

Governments to cooperate with the Committee and facilitate its visit  

and outreach to relevant authorities.  

5. The Committee shall be at liberty to approach this Court to seek any  

further clarification or direction, if felt necessary.  

6. The Government of India will make the services of an Additional  

Solicitor General of India, as and when required by the Committee for  

any assistance.  

7. As and when a copy of the final report is submitted, the matter to be  

listed for further orders.  

15. The writ petition may be revived and listed as and when required by  

the learned Amicus Curiae. We record our appreciation of the efforts put  

in by the learned Amicus who has devoted considerable time in assisting us  

and has made valuable suggestions from time to time, in a positive manner,  

and with a view to take forward the recognition and implementation of the  

human rights of prisoners.  

     ...……………………J  

       (Madan B. Lokur)   

 ...……………………J  

       (S. Abdul Nazeer)     

New Delhi;                                                                 ...…………………....J  

September 25, 2018                                                   (Deepak Gupta)