I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 7  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

I.A. NO. 26542 OF 2018  

IN  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013  

RE : INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS  

O R D E R  

Madan B. Lokur, J  

1. This application for directions and declarations has been filed in  

which it is prayed, inter alia, that prisoners sentenced to death by any court  

have a right to be treated at par with other convicted prisoners and should  

be provided all similar facilities as are provided to other prisoners. It is also  

prayed that solitary confinement of prisoners on death row or their separate  

and cellular confinement be struck down as unconstitutional.  

2. We do not think it necessary to go into all the issues raised in the  

application but find it necessary to place in perspective certain aspects of  

the rights of prisoners.  

3. One of the important questions before us is: When could it be said  

that a convict is under the sentence of death? Could it be said that when the

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 2 of 7  

Trial Court convicts a prisoner and sentences him to death, then that  

prisoner is a death row prisoner? Or, could it be said that when the death  

sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny, that is after the sentence is upheld by  

this Court, the mercy petition is rejected and a challenge to the rejection is  

dismissed, then the prisoner is a death row prisoner?  

4. It was submitted by the learned Amicus that even after the convict is  

sentenced to death by the Trial Court, he is entitled to be treated and dealt  

with like any other convicted prisoner and is therefore entitled to the  

opportunity to work on voluntary basis. The convict is also entitled to other  

facilities such as participating in educational programmes, vocational  

training and skill development as well as other institutional facilities  

available to other convicted prisoners.  

5. The issue must be considered in a humanitarian and compassionate  

manner. That apart the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi  

Administration and others1 is quite clear. It has been held in paragraph  

223 of the Report that a prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a  

prisoner whose sentence of death has become final, conclusive and  

indefeasible and which cannot be annulled and voided by any judicial or  

constitutional procedure. In other words, a prisoner can be said to be a  

prisoner on death row when his sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny and  

                                                           1 (1978) 4 SCC 494

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 3 of 7  

would be operative without any intervention from any other authority. Till  

then, such a prisoner cannot be said to be under a sentence of death in the  

context of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894. That being the position, as  

also mentioned in paragraph 101 of the Report, a prisoner is entitled to  

every creature comfort and facilities such as bed and pillow, opportunity  

to commerce with human kind, writing material, newspapers, books,  

meeting with family members etc.  

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.  

7. Paragraph 10 reads as follows:  

“10. We cannot agree that either the Section or the Rules  

can be read in the absolutist expansionism the prison  

authorities would like us to read. That would virtually mean  

                                                           2 (1980) 3 SCC 488  3 (1981) 1 SCC 503

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 4 of 7  

that prisoners are not persons to be dealt with at the mercy  

of the prison echelons. This country has no totalitarian  

territory even within the walled world we call prison.  

Articles 14, 19 and 21 operate within the prisons in the  

manner explained in Sunil Batra (I) [ Under Article 32 of  

the Constitution] , by a Constitution Bench of this Court. It  

is significant that the two opinions given separately in that  

judgment agree in spirit and substance, in reasoning and  

conclusions. Batra in that case was stated to be in a separate  

confinement and not solitary cell. An identical plea has  

been put forward here too. For the reasons given in Sunil  

Batra (I) case [ Under Article 32 of the Constitution] we  

must overrule the extenuatory submission that a separate  

cell is different from solitary confinement. The petitioners  

will, therefore, be entitled to move within the confines of  

the prison like others undergoing rigorous  

imprisonment. If special restrictions of a punitive or harsh  

character have to be imposed for convincing security  

reasons, it is necessary to comply with natural justice as  

indicated in Sunil Batra (J) case [ Under Article 32 of the  

Constitution]. Moreover, there must be an appeal not from  

Caeser to Caeser, but from a prison authority to a judicial  

organ when such treatment is meted out.” (Emphasis  

supplied by us).  

8. In paragraph 13 of the Report in Kishore Singh, it was directed that  

the rulings of this Court in the cases of Sunil Batra and Rakesh Kaushik  

v. B.L. Vig4 on prison administration be converted into rules and  

instructions forthwith so that violation of prisoners’ freedom can be  

avoided and habeas corpus litigation may not proliferate. Paragraph 13 of  

the Report reads as follows:  

“13. We find that the old rules and circulars and instructions  

issued under the Prisons Act are read incongruously with  

the Constitution especially Article 21 and interpretation put  

upon it by this Court. We, therefore, direct the State  

Government of Rajasthan — and indeed, all the other  

                                                           4 1980 Supp SCC 183

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 5 of 7  

State Governments in the country — to convert the  

rulings of this Court bearing on Prison Administration  

into rules and instructions forthwith so that violation of  

the prisoners' freedoms can be avoided and habeas  

corpus litigation may not proliferate. After all, human  

rights are as much cherished by the State as by the citizen.”  

(Emphasis supplied by us).  

9. In our opinion, the decisions of this Court have quite clearly defined  

when a prisoner could be said to be on death row and have also taken care  

of the rights of prisoners on death row as well as those who are a security  

risk. No further elucidation is necessary.  

10. With regard to the entitlement of a prisoner on death row to have  

meetings and interviews with his lawyers or members of his immediate  

family or even mental health professionals, we are of opinion that such  

meetings and interviews should be permitted. We follow the view  

expressed by this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,  

Union Territory of Delhi5. In paragraph 8 of the Report, it was specifically  

noted by this Court, after referring to the Universal Declaration of Human  

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that as  

a part of the right to live with human dignity, a prisoner is entitled to have  

interviews with members of his family and friends and no prison regulation  

and procedure to the contrary can be upheld as being constitutionally valid  

under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution unless it is reasonable, fair and  

                                                           5 (1981) 1 SCC 608

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 6 of 7  

just. Similarly, there cannot be any doubt that a prisoner must be entitled  

to have discussions with his lawyers so that he has effective legal  

representation and access to justice as well as remedies for justice. In our  

opinion, the law laid down by this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin would  

be equally applicable to death row prisoners for meeting mental health  

professionals for a reasonable period of time with reasonable frequency so  

that their rights can be adequately protected at all stages.  

11. We make it clear that we have only reiterated the law laid down by  

this Court over several decades and which is based not only on the  

provisions of our Constitution but is also in conformity with international  

instruments. As held by this Court, the rights of prisoners as enunciated by  

this Court would be available not only in a particular State but would be  

available to them in all the States and Union Territory Administrations  

across the country. Accordingly, the State Governments and Union  

Territory Administrations must modify the prison manuals, regulations and  

rules accordingly.  

12. We request the Justice Amitava Roy Committee to look into all the  

issues raised in the application in greater depth in addition to its Terms of  

Reference.  

13. Since we are leaving all other issues open for consideration by the  

Justice Amitava Roy Committee, the applicant is at liberty to assist the

              I.A. No. 26542/2018 IN WP (C) No.406/2013                                                                 Page 7 of 7  

Justice Amitava Roy Committee in this regard.  

14. The application is disposed of.  

                                                           ………………………J.  

             (Madan B. Lokur)   

  ………………………J.  

             (S. Abdul Nazeer)     

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

          December 13, 2018                     (Deepak Gupta)