W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 1 of 43    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406 OF 2013  

RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS     

WITH   

I.A. No. 68248 of 2017  

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1. Custodial violence has always been a matter of great concern for all  

civilized societies. Custodial violence could take the form of third degree  

methods to extract information – the method used need not result in any  

physical violence but could be in the form of psychological violence.  

Custodial violence could also include a violation of bodily integrity through  

sexual violence – it could be to satisfy the lust of a person in authority or for  

some other reason. The ‘Mathura Rape Case’ is one such incident that most  

are familiar with. Custodial violence could, sometimes, lead to the death of  

its victim who is in a terribly disadvantaged and vulnerable condition.  All

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 2 of 43    

these forms of custodial violence make it abhorrent and invite disparagement  

from all sections of civilized society.   

2. Like most societies, we are not strangers to custodial violence and  

unnatural deaths but our vibrant democracy permits us to debate and discuss  

these issues with rational arguments. However, right sounding noises critical  

of custodial violence (in any form) cannot achieve any useful purpose unless  

persons in authority hear the voices of the victims or the silence of the dead  

and act on them by taking remedial steps. There must be a greater degree of  

sensitivity among those in authority with regard to persons in custody and it  

has been the endeavour of the constitutional courts in our country, over  

several decades, to consistently flag this issue. The results have been  

somewhat mixed but the effort will continue as long as Article 21 remains in  

our Constitution. This message goes out loud and clear, as also the message  

that the dignity of the individual is not a plaything for those in authority.   

3. Chief Justice R. C. Lahoti highlighted one aspect of custodial deaths,  

namely, unnatural deaths in prisons. This was through a letter addressed to  

this Court which has been treated as a public interest litigation. We have  

been very ably assisted in understanding the concern raised and in  

appreciating different perspectives on the issue by the learned Amicus  

Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal who has spent considerable time and effort in

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 3 of 43    

placing all relevant material before us and for this he deserves our gratitude.  

4. In our judgment and order of 5 th

February, 2016 1  we had drawn  

attention to four issues regarding prisons raised in the letter addressed by  

former Chief Justice Lahoti. The four issues are: (i) Overcrowding in  

prisons; (ii) Unnatural death of prisoners; (iii) Gross inadequacy of staff, and  

(iv) Available staff being untrained or inadequately trained  

5. In the order of 5 th

February, 2016 we had dealt with the issue of  

overcrowding in prisons and had issued certain directions.  In the present  

decision, we consider unnatural deaths in prisons. On this issue of unnatural  

deaths in prisons, the only reliable information available is from the National  

Crime Records Bureau or the NCRB. The website of the NCRB 2  indicates  

that deaths in judicial custody, both natural and unnatural, are as under:  

Year Natural deaths Unnatural deaths  

2012 1345 126  

2013 1482 115  

2014 1507 195  

2015 1469 115    

6. The distinction made by the NCRB between natural and unnatural  

deaths is unclear. For example, if a prisoner dies due to a lack of proper  

medical attention or timely medical attention, would that be classified as a  

                                                           1  Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700  

2  ncrb.gov.in

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 4 of 43    

natural death or an unnatural death? This needs to be explained as submitted  

by the learned Amicus.    

7. Be that as it may, the break-up of unnatural deaths given by the  

NCRB on its website is as under:  

Year Suicide Murder  

by  

inmates  

Death  

due to  

firing  

Assault by  

outside  

elements  

Negligence  

by jail  

staff  

Others  

2012 87 4 10 4 0 22  

2013 70 8 1 12 0 23  

2014 94 12 2 4 1 82  

2015 77 11 0 7 0 19  

8. Again, there is a lack of clarity in the classification of unnatural  

deaths in the category of ‘others’. What does this category encompass? We  

have not been provided any information in this regard by the Union of India  

and it is submitted by the learned Amicus, that the NCRB should be directed  

to explain the difference not only between a natural death and an unnatural  

death but also to clarify the sub-categorization of  ‘others’ unnatural deaths.  

9. On the issue of defining natural and unnatural deaths, the learned  

Amicus drew our attention to the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in  

Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).     

According to the ICRC, ‘death’ is the irreversible cessation of all vital  

functions, including brain activity.   Death is ‘natural’ when it is caused

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 5 of 43    

solely by disease and/or the aging process.  It is ‘unnatural’ when its causes  

are external, such as intentional injury (homicide, suicide), negligence or  

unintentional injury (death by accident).   We have perused the guidelines  

provided by the ICRC and are of the view that these guidelines deserve  

consideration and circulation by the Central Government and all the State  

Governments.  

NHRC and suicide prevention  

10. It has been pointed out by the learned Amicus that a disproportionately  

large number of unnatural deaths are attributable to suicides. In this regard,  

it has been brought to our notice by the learned Amicus that in relation to  

suicides in prisons, the National Human Rights Commission or the NHRC  

has published a monograph sometime in December 2014 entitled “Suicide in  

Prison - prevention strategy and implication from human rights and legal  

points of view”. This monograph records that during the period 2007–2011,  

deaths in prisons on account of suicide formed 71% of the total number of  

unnatural deaths. It was also pointed out that the average suicide rate among  

the general public for this period is 11 (per 100,000) whereas the average  

suicide rate in prison is 16.9 (per 100,000). In other words, the average  

suicide rate in prisons is over 50% more than in normal conditions. The  

monograph refers to certain communications issued by the NHRC from time

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 6 of 43    

to time on the aspect of custodial deaths, but we will refer to them in  

somewhat greater detail a little later.  

11. The study conducted by the NHRC as reflected in the monograph  

suggests that there are two primary causes for all jail suicides - the first is the  

environment in the jail, which is apparently ‘conducive’ to suicidal  

behaviour, and the second is the crisis situation faced by an inmate.   

12. Detailing the characteristics of a prison environment that make  

suicides in prisons more likely, the NHRC monograph mentions the  

following:  

1. Authoritarian environment.  

2. No apparent control over the future.  

3. Isolation from family, friends and community.  

4. The shame of incarceration.  

5. Dehumanizing aspects of incarceration.  

6. Fears.   

7. Staff insensitivity to the arrest and incarceration    

   phenomenon  

8. Hostility and bullying by other inmates.  

9. Lack of adequate medical and psychological counseling and      

   treatment facility  

                         10.Delay in deciding the parole.    

Similarly, the characteristics of a crisis situation are mentioned and they are  

as follows:

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 7 of 43    

1. Recent excessive drinking and/or use of drugs.  

2. Recent loss of stabilizing resources.  

3. Severe guilt or shame over the offence.  

4. Same-sex rape.  

5. Current mental illness.  

6. Poor health or terminal illness.  

7. Approaching an emotional breaking point.    

13. The NHRC has suggested various protective factors or measures that  

could be employed to reduce the number of suicides in prisons. Among them  

are visits and contact that the prisoner could have with the family,  

constructive occupation in prison, instilling hopes and plans for the future   

and support from staff.   

14. The NHRC also conducted a National Seminar on Prison Reforms on  

15 th  April, 2011. The recommendations made in the National Seminar have  

also been indicated in the monograph as also some actionable points for  

suicide prevention programmes.  In its conclusion, the NHRC has recorded  

that the success of efforts to prevent suicides in prisons depends on the  

ability and willingness to identify the vulnerability of each prisoner, provide  

necessary supervision and support and offer alternative ways of coping and  

reducing emotional distress. It is noted that any proposed piecemeal solution  

to the problem of suicides in prisons will not result in any long-term

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 8 of 43    

improvement.   

15. What we have mentioned above is only a brief indication of the extent  

to which the NHRC has put in an effort to bring about a composite  

monograph and a detailed study on suicides in prisons. In our view, this  

would certainly be useful to prison officials and staff in reducing, if not  

eliminating suicides in prisons.  The monograph prepared by the NHRC, in  

our opinion, deserves to be freely distributed amongst the staff and prisons  

all over the country since it is a document of immense utility insofar as  

suicide prevention in prisons is concerned.  

Relevant communications issued by the NHRC  

16. Apart from the above efforts of the NHRC, our attention has been  

drawn by the learned Amicus to various communications sent by the NHRC  

to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Union Territories.  The first  

such communication is dated 14 th  December, 1993 on the subject of  

reporting of custodial deaths/rapes within 24 hours. A request was made in  

the communication that District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police  

may be given suitable instructions to report to the Secretary General of the  

NHRC any custodial death or custodial rape within 24 hours of occurrence  

or of these officers coming to know of such an incident.  

17. Another communication dated 21 st  June, 1995 was sent by the NHRC

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 9 of 43    

to all the Chief Secretaries of States and the Union Territories clarifying that  

not only deaths in police custody but also deaths in judicial custody ought to  

be reported. This clarified the communication of 14 th  December, 1993 which  

was perhaps misunderstood by the Chief Secretaries and their subordinates  

to mean that the intention of the NHRC was to obtain information only with  

regard to deaths in police custody and not deaths in judicial custody.  

18. On 10 th  August, 1995 the NHRC addressed a communication to the  

Chief Ministers of all the States on the necessity of video-recording of post-

mortem examinations in cases of custodial deaths. The reason behind this  

communication was that a post-mortem report is a very valuable record and  

has considerable importance in assisting in drawing conclusions on the cause  

of death of a person, particularly in a police lock-up or in a jail. The NHRC  

noted that though the process of video-recording of the post-mortem  

examination would involve extra cost, human life is more valuable than the  

cost of video-recording and in any case, occasions necessitating video-

recording should ideally be very limited.  

19. The NHRC addressed a communication on 27 th  March, 1997 to the  

Chief Ministers/Administrators of all the States/Union Territories requesting  

adoption of the Model Autopsy Form and the additional procedure for  

inquest. The Model Autopsy Form was prepared after ascertaining the views

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 10 of 43    

of the States and discussing with experts in the field the necessity of having  

such a document. The Form was modeled on the United Nations Model  

Autopsy Protocol but was not adopted as it is. Some incidental  

improvements were made, particularly with regard to the conduct of  

inquests. The communication enclosed therewith the Model Autopsy Form  

and the additional procedure for inquest as annexures to the said letter.  

20. The NHRC sent a communication dated 3 rd

January, 2001 to all the  

Home Secretaries regarding the revised instructions to be followed while  

sending post-mortem reports in cases of custodial death. In order to  

streamline the procedure, the NHRC issued certain instructions and among  

them were the following:  

1. The post-mortem report along with the videograph and  

the magisterial enquiry report must be sent to the NHRC  

within two months of the incident.  

2. The post-mortem report should be sent in the proforma  

attached to the letter dated 27 th

March, 1997.  

3. The magisterial enquiry into a custodial death should be  

completed as soon as possible but within a period of two  

months.

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 11 of 43    

4. In some cases of custodial death, the viscera are sent for  

examination after the post-mortem examination and a report is  

called for. Since this may take some time, it was instructed that  

the post-mortem report and other documents should be sent to  

the NHRC without waiting for the viscera report, which could  

be sent later on.  

21. On 21 st  December, 2001 the NHRC addressed a communication to all  

Chief Ministers and Administrators of all the States and Union Territories  

giving modified instructions regarding videography of post-mortem  

examinations in respect of deaths in judicial custody. It was clarified that the  

requirement of videographing of post-mortem examinations in respect of  

deaths in jail would be applicable only where the preliminary inquest by the  

Magistrate had raised suspicion of foul play or where any complaint alleging  

foul play was made to the concerned authorities or there was any other  

reason to suspect foul play.  

22. It is clear from the above that the role of the NHRC is extremely  

important whenever there is an unnatural death in a prison. Although the  

NHRC has issued detailed instructions from time to time, it does appear  

however that these instructions are not being taken seriously but are being  

followed more in the breach.

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 12 of 43    

Nelson Mandela Rules  

23. The learned Amicus submitted that the General Assembly of the  

United Nations adopted the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of  

Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) adopted on 17 th  December, 2015.   

These Rules provide useful internationally accepted guidelines for  

implementation by prison administrations across the country. He drew our  

particular attention to Rules 58 to 63 which deal with prisoner contact with  

the outside world. It was submitted that merely because a person is in prison,  

it does not mean that he or she should be cut off from the outside world. In  

fact, the prisoner should be allowed to communicate with his family and  

friends at regular intervals and should also be permitted to communicate and  

consult with a legal adviser of his or her choice. This by itself could have a  

soothing effect on the prisoner. He submitted that prisoners should be  

informed of important items of news through newspapers, periodicals or  

special institutional publications so that contact with the outside world is  

maintained. This, according to the learned Amicus, would substantially  

reduce the feeling of isolation that a prisoner has and would have an impact  

on his or her mental stability thereby reducing the possibility of any harmful  

activity by the prisoner.  

24. On the specific issue of custodial deaths, the learned Amicus drew our

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 13 of 43    

attention to Rule 71 of the Nelson Mandela Rules to submit that any  

custodial death, disappearance or serious injury shall be reported without  

delay to a judicial or other competent authority that is independent of the  

prison administration. The learned Amicus also pointed out that the Mandela  

Rules require the prison administration to treat the body of a deceased  

prisoner with respect and dignity.  

Model Prison Manual  

25. The learned Attorney General responded to the submissions of the  

Amicus  by making a preliminary submission before adverting to the issue of  

unnatural deaths in prisons. He submitted that the subject of prisons was a  

State subject in Entry 4 of  List II of the Seventh Schedule to the  

Constitution and as such the Central Government could not legislate on the  

subject or pass any binding directions but could only issue advisories to the  

State Governments. Really therefore, the burden of improving prison  

conditions was on the State Governments but the Central Government would  

be more than willing to render assistance to this Court and to the States in  

improving prison conditions, within constitutional limits.  With this caveat,  

the learned Attorney General adverted primarily to the Model Prison Manual  

2016 issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Home  

Affairs.  

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 14 of 43    

26. It was submitted that Chapter VII of the Manual and particularly  

paragraph 7.95.1 thereof, provides that in the event of a custodial death, the  

procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the  

guidelines issued by the NHRC should be followed. On this basis, it was  

submitted that the guidelines issued by the NHRC are treated more or less as  

binding and are scrupulously followed.  

27. Reference was also made to Chapter XIII of the Manual and the  

section therein on ‘Accidents and Suicides’. Particular reference was made  

to paragraph 13.38 which is to the effect that when a sudden or violent death  

or suicide takes place in a prison, immediate notice shall be sent to the  

concerned Superintendent and the Medical Officer. Paragraph 13.41 relates  

to custody of articles that could be used to commit suicide such as knives  

and tools used in worksheds and barber’s or tailor’s equipment as well as  

ropes for wells. It is provided that care should be taken that no such object is  

left about in the prison that may be used for committing suicide. In fact in  

paragraph 13.42 it is stated that prisoners with apparently suicidal tendencies  

should be carefully watched and not left alone in a cell. Such prisoners  

should also be referred to counselors and psychiatrists and should be  

supervised closely. Chapter XIII of the Manual also provides that reasonable  

caution should be taken to guard against accidents when convicts are

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 15 of 43    

employed on dangerous work such as blasting, excavation or other works of  

a dangerous character. It is also provided in paragraph 13.44 that poisonous  

drugs, surgical instruments and other similar items should not be left within  

the reach of prisoners.   

28. The said Chapter XIII  of the Manual contains a section devoted to the  

issue of prevention of fires and yet another section is devoted to epidemics  

and precautions to be taken when an epidemic occurs such as cholera,  

enteric fevers, gastroenteritis etc. It is provided that infected prisoners  

should be segregated and kept under medical observation and appropriately  

treated. Paragraph 13.62 provides that whenever an epidemic occurs, the  

Medical Officer shall at once arrange for vaccination or inoculation as the  

case may be of all prisoners, prison personnel and members of their families.  

Paragraph 13.63 provides that overcrowding must be strictly avoided both in  

the hospital as well as in every cell and ward. This Chapter also contains a  

section devoted to hunger strikes and the procedure to be followed in cases  

of hunger strikes and forcible feeding of prisoners on a hunger strike.  

29. The learned Attorney General brought to our notice that NGOs also  

have a role to play in rehabilitation programmes of prisoners as mentioned in  

Chapter XXII of the Manual. He also submitted that legal aid is provided to  

prisoners and in fact Chapter XVI  of the Manual is devoted entirely to legal

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 16 of 43    

aid and the right of a prisoner to free legal representation or legal aid. There  

is also a reference in the Manual to the Under Trial Review Committee  

adverted to in our order dated 5 th  February, 2016.  

30. The learned Attorney General submitted that there exists a grievance  

redressal system as mentioned in Chapter XXI of the Manual. Consequently,    

if any prisoner has any grievance, he or she can bring it to the notice of the  

authorities through a complaint box installed in the prison at an easily  

accessible place.  In this context, he drew our attention to the ‘Perspective’  

section of the Manual containing a section on the rights and duties of  

prisoners which includes the right to human dignity, the right to basic  

minimum needs, the right to communication, the right to access to law, the  

right against arbitrary prison punishment, the right to meaningful and gainful  

employment and finally the right to be released on the due date. It is not at  

all clear whether this information is effectively passed on to the prisoners.    

Our attention was also drawn to a handbook for prisoners captioned  

“Prisoners Rights and Obligations” prepared by the Bureau of Police  

Research and Development. While we have no comment to make on the  

contents of the handbook, it is again not clear whether it is made available to  

all the prisoners and even if it is made available, whether it is in a local  

language that the prisoner understands or whether the contents of the

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 17 of 43    

handbook are explained to the prisoner in the event the prisoner is found to  

be illiterate.  In the absence of a prisoner having any knowledge about his or  

her rights, a grievance redressal mechanism is quite meaningless.  

Compendium of Advisories issued by the Government  

31. The learned Attorney General then placed before us a Compendium of  

Advisories on Prison Administration 2016 issued by the Government of  

India. This was in the context of his submission that since ‘prisons’ is a State  

subject as per Entry 4 of  List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution,  

all that the Central Government can do is to issue advisories to the State  

Governments on the subject of prisons. The learned Attorney General  

submitted that advisories had been issued from time to time to the State  

Governments on a variety of issues, including on the issue of prison  

administration as well as stress relieving programmes such as yoga and  

meditation courses, Art of Living courses, Pranic courses and Vipassana.  

32. All that we can say in this regard is that while the Central Government  

may have noble intentions and is perhaps taking steps to improve prison  

administration and to bring about reforms in prisons, the fact remains that  

conditions in prisons leave a lot to be desired and there are quite a few  

unnatural deaths in prisons. Suggestions and recommendations made by the  

Central Government do look good on paper but they do not seem to have

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 18 of 43    

any remedial effect. Perhaps it is time that the Ministry of Home Affairs  

takes a more proactive interest in prisons and prison reforms by having  

sensitization programmes for those at the helm of affairs in prisons so that  

there is a positive impact on the ground. After all, even if it is assumed that  

the Central Government has certain constitutional limitations with regard to  

prison management, surely, it cannot be said that the Central Government  

need not share its expertise or give any guidance to the State Governments.    

33. Adverting to the Nelson Mandela Rules, the learned Attorney General  

also expressed the view that State Governments have several development  

priorities and while they will certainly look after the interests of prisoners,  

there are other issues that might require greater attention and greater  

financial commitment. While this may be so, we are clearly of the view that  

Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be put on the back burner and as  

mentioned in the Mandela Rules even prisoners are entitled to live a life of  

dignity. Therefore, no State Government can shirk its duties and  

responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners. If a State  

Government is unable to do so, it should be far more circumspect in  

arresting and detaining persons, particularly under-trial prisoners who  

constitute the vast majority of those in judicial custody. The State  

Governments and the prosecution do not have to oppose every bail

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 19 of 43    

application nor do they have to ask for the remand of every suspect pending  

investigation. If the fundamental right to life and liberty postulated by  

Article 21 of the Constitution is to be given its true meaning, the Central  

Government and the State Governments  must accept reality and not proceed  

on the basis that prisoners can be treated as chattel.  

Challenges indicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General  

34. The National Forum for Prison Reforms, an intervener in the present  

petition, submitted that there should be a ‘performance audit’ by the  

Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of prisons so that it is known  

whether all prisons are in fact adhering to the provisions of the Model Prison  

Manual or at least the rules and regulations framed by the State Government  

for the management of prisons.   

35. Our attention was drawn to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor  

General of India (CAG) in respect of the Government of NCT of Delhi for  

the year ended 31 st  March, 2014 in relation to social, general and economic  

sectors. The submission made by learned counsel appearing for the National  

Forum was that as a result of what could be termed as a performance audit,  

the CAG provided some very useful suggestions.  In the particular audit  

referred to, it was pointed out that the hospital in Tihar Jail was not equipped

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 20 of 43    

to face any emergency situation as there was a shortage of doctors and other  

medical staff ranging from 18% to 62%.  A reference was also made in the  

report to the problem of substance abuse in prisons and the shortcomings  

noted in the Drug De-addiction Centre in Tihar Jail. One of the shortcomings  

was the non-availability of essential medicines for a period ranging from one  

to thirty-four months.  If these are the conditions in what is perhaps the ‘best  

prison’ in the country, we shudder to think what the position would be in  

other prisons across the country.    

36. The learned counsel also made a reference to Section 176(1A) of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates that where there is a  

death or disappearance from the custody of the police or any other custody  

authorized by a Magistrate or a Court, in addition to the inquiry or  

investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Judicial  

Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose  

local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. 3   It was submitted that in  

                                                           3 176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.— (1) When the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or  clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 174, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any  other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the  cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he  shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.  

(1A) Where,—  

(a) any person dies or disappears, or  

(b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman,  

while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the  Magistrate or the Court, under this Code in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 21 of 43    

view of the provisions of law, it was obligatory on the part of the State to  

ensure that an inquiry is conducted in respect of every death that takes place  

in custody.  

37. The need for an inquiry into every death in custody was also  

emphasized by the learned Amicus, who submitted that there was  

discrepancy of data between deaths reported in prisons as per the NCRB and  

deaths reported in prisons as derived from the data available with the NHRC.   

It was submitted by the learned Amicus that this discrepancy needs to be  

reconciled and adequate reasons must be provided for every death that takes  

place in a prison.  

Suggestions of the learned Amicus  

38. Taking all these submissions into consideration, the learned Amicus  

suggested that we issue, amongst others, the following directions:  

                                                                                                                                                                                           shall be held by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local  jurisdiction the offence has been committed.  

(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in  any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the case.  

(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person  who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to  be disinterred and examined.  

(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the  relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the  inquiry.  

(5) The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate or Executive Magistrate or police officer holding an  inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, under sub-section (1A) shall, within twenty-four hours of the death of  a person, forward the body with a view to its being examined to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified  medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, unless it is not possible to do so for reasons to be  recorded in writing.  

Explanation.—In this section, the expression “relative” means parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse.

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 22 of 43    

1. The treatment of prisoners should be more humane and the  dehumanizing effect of imprisonment should be reduced.  

2. The involvement of NGOs should be encouraged especially with  first-time offenders.  

3. Counseling should be encouraged and the State Governments should  engage the services of psychologists or social counselors who could  

visit the prisons on a daily basis to counsel prisoners, particularly  

first-time offenders. The learned Amicus acknowledged the  

contribution made by the Inspector General (Prisons) Karnataka for  

this suggestion.  

4. A prisoner should be enabled to communicate with family members  and to the extent possible, the meeting time available to a prisoner  

should be extended. If possible, a prisoner may also be allowed to  

speak to his family on telephone.  

5. A prisoner should have access to legal services including legal aid.  In this context the learned Amicus referred to a report prepared under  

the auspices of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority by Ms.  

Smita Chakraburtty on her experiences in prisons in Bihar which  

suggests that many inmates do not voluntarily approach the legal aid  

clinics and so they must be encouraged to do so.  

6. A status report prepared by the Commonwealth Human Rights  Initiative on the implementation of the legal aid schemes in  

Rajasthan particularly the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal  

Services) Regulations, 2010 and the NALSA (Legal Aid Clinics)  

Regulations, 2011 suggests that the basic mechanism to ensure legal  

representation and advice is absent in a majority of sub-jails.  

7. There should be an independent mechanism for entertaining the  grievances of inmates without putting the inmates into trouble with  

the prison staff or other inmates. A reference in this regard was made  

to Rule 56 and Rule 57 of the Mandela Rules.  

8. Over-crowding in jails should be reduced and that might help in  reducing the possibility of suicides by the prisoners. It is also  

suggested by the learned Amicus that the concept of open jails (of  

which there are 54 as mentioned in the statistics provided by the  

NCRB) should be encouraged.  

9. The learned Amicus laid stress on providing basic medical facilities  to the inmates which could even be in the form of a primary health  

centre. In this regard the learned Amicus referred to the discussions  

that he had with the Director-General of Police (Prisons) Karnataka,  

the Welfare Officer in Tihar, the former Inspector General of Police

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 23 of 43    

(Prisons) West Bengal and the report of Ms. Smita Chakraburtty  

which suggests that medical facilities in most prisons do not meet  

the minimum requirements of medical care.  

10. The learned Amicus laid great stress on the constitution of a Board of  Visitors comprising official and non-official visitors. The learned  

Amicus drew attention to an advisory issued on 18 th

February, 2011  

by the Central Government for the appointment and working of non-

official visitors for prisons.  

11.  The learned Amicus endorsed the suggestion of conducting  performance audits for prisons across the country.  

39. According to the learned Amicus, if these (and other) directions are  

given to the State Governments, prison reforms will become far more  

meaningful and the level of unnatural deaths will decrease.   

Compensation for unnatural deaths  

40. The issue of compensation for unnatural deaths in custody is no  

longer res integra.    

41. One of the earliest cases where this Court granted compensation in a  

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar. 4    

That case was not one of a custodial death but was a case of illegal detention  

even after acquittal in a full dress trial.  This Court held that the petitioner  

was entitled to compensation for the illegal detention and it rejected the stale  

and sterile objection of the State Government that the petitioner may if so  

advised file a suit to recover damages.  This Court took the view that the  

                                                           4  (1983) 4 SCC 141

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 24 of 43    

refusal to pass an order of compensation would be doing mere lip service to  

the fundamental right of liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the  

Constitution which the State Government had so grossly violated.  This  

Court observed that “if civilization is not to perish in this country as it has  

perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to  

educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is  

the true bastion of democracy.”  

42. A little later, this Court dealt with Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of  

India 5  which concerned itself with the disappearance of some persons while  

in custody.  This Court was convinced that enabling the respondents to trace  

or locate the two missing persons at such a late stage would be to shut its  

eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage.  It appeared to this Court that the two  

missing persons had actually met a tragic end in an encounter amounting to  

an unnatural death.  This Court ordered the registration of an offence and an  

investigation and also directed payment of compensation to the next of kin.  

43. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 6  was a case where a person who  

was taken into police custody for investigation of a theft, was found dead  

near a railway track the next day.  On the basis of injuries and handcuffs on  

his wrists, this Court concluded that it was a custodial death and  

                                                           5  (1984) 3 SCC 82  

6  (1993) 2 SCC 746

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 25 of 43    

compensation was awarded under Article 32 of the Constitution.  It was held  

that a public law remedy was certainly available to claim compensation for  

the contravention of human rights and fundamental rights which are  

protected as a guarantee by our Constitution.  A reference was also made to  

Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966  

which reads: “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or  

detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”   

44. An unnatural death in judicial custody where one person was killed by  

a co-prisoner was the subject matter of discussion in Kewal Pati v. State of  

Bihar. 7   It was held that as a consequence of imprisonment, a prisoner does  

not cease to have constitutional rights, except to the extent he or she has  

been deprived of them in accordance with law.  Therefore, even a prisoner is  

entitled to protection and if he is killed while in prison, it results in a  

deprivation of his life contrary to the law, for which the next of kin are  

entitled to compensation.    

45. In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal 8  this Court recognized that at the  

time of ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political  

Rights, 1966 in 1979, the Government of India made a specific reservation  

to the effect that the Indian legal system does not recognize a right to  

                                                           7  (1995) 3 SCC 600   

8  (1997) 1 SCC 416

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 26 of 43    

compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention and only became a  

party to the covenant, subject to this reservation.  It was noted however, that  

the reservation has lost its relevance in view of the law laid down by this  

Court in several cases wherein compensation has been awarded for the  

infringement of a fundamental right of a citizen.  It was also noted that while  

there is no express provision in the Constitution for grant of compensation,  

this right has been judicially evolved in cases of established unconstitutional  

deprivation of personal liberty or life.  This Court summed up the law in the  

following words:-  

“Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the  

jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an  

appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only  

suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the  

fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the  

State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is  

based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of  

sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the  

amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to  

be indemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation,  

the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive  

element. The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to  

punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate  

punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be  

left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which  

the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in  

the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other  

action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the  

victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the same  

matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries of the State.  

The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the  

peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be  

evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 27 of 43    

established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under  

the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional  

remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation  

as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong  

done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which  

may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.”  

46. Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. 9 , Murti Devi v. State of Delhi

10  and more  

recently Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana 11

 illustrate that custodial  

death is a clear violation of the prisoner’s rights under Article 21 of the  

Constitution and relief could be moulded by granting compensation to the  

next of kin of the deceased.  

47. In addition to the above decisions and several others rendered by this  

Court, almost every High Court in the country has, at one time or another,  

also granted compensation for the unnatural death of a person in custody,  

whether an undertrial or a convict.  A few such illustrations may be noted:  

a. Nina Rajan Pillai & Ors. v. Union of India.12   

The husband of the petitioner died in judicial custody due to inadequate  

medical treatment given by the jail authorities.  The Lt. Governor of  

Delhi even appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Leila  

Seth, a former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to  

                                                           9   (2000) 3 SCC 521  

10  (1998) 9 SCC 604  

11   (2013) 14 SCC 290  

12  180 (2011) DLT 104

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 28 of 43    

inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of the petitioner’s  

husband.  The Delhi High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural  

death in custody.    

b. Kewalbai v. The State of Maharashtra.13    

The victim was shot dead by a constable while in custody.  The Bombay  

High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.  

c. Bheduki Buragohain v. State of Assam.14  

The undertrial victim died in judicial custody under suspicious  

circumstances.  The post mortem report indicated that the cause of death  

was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and ante mortem injuries by  

blunt weapons.  The Gauhati High Court awarded compensation for the  

unnatural death in custody.  

d. Madhuben Adesara v. State of Gujarat.15  

The deceased was brutally tortured by police officers while in custody  

and succumbed to his injuries during treatment.  The post-mortem report  

revealed that the victim had multiple injury marks which were ante  

mortem in nature.  The Gujarat High Court awarded compensation for the  

unnatural death in custody.  

                                                           13

2013 (3) BomCR (Cri) 601  14

2013 (2) GLT 370  15

R/SCR.A./536/2010 (unreported)

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 29 of 43    

e. Banalata Dash v. State of Orissa & Ors.16  

The deceased was found hanging from a tree with his hands behind his  

back, tied at the wrist with a towel.  Since the victim was in the custody  

of the prison authorities, compensation was awarded by the Orissa High  

Court for the unnatural death in custody.  

f. Amandeep v. State of Punjab & Anr.17  

The deceased was assaulted by a co-prisoner and succumbed to injuries  

in the hospital.  Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Punjab &  

Haryana High Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the  

deceased.   

g. Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State.18  

The victim was murdered by his enemies while in prison.  Due to the  

unnatural death in custody the Madras High Court awarded compensation  

to his next of kin.  

h. Sabu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.19  

The victim was tortured in a police station and succumbed to his injuries.   

In view of the unnatural death in custody the Kerala High Court awarded  

                                                           16

AIR 2012 Ori 97  17

(2013) 169 PLR 191  18

(2008) 5 MLJ 822  19

CRP No. 1170 /2015

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 30 of 43    

interim compensation to the next of kin of the deceased until the criminal  

trial against the concerned police officers was concluded.   

i. Ravindra Nath Awasthi v. State of U.P. 20

The victim was an advocate held guilty of contempt of court.  While he  

was undergoing his sentence, he was severely beaten up by the prison  

authorities and succumbed to his injuries in hospital.  Due to the  

unnatural death in custody, the Allahabad High Court directed payment  

of compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.  

j. Mst. Madina v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 21

The victim died in police custody on account of the use of third degree  

methods.  Due to the unnatural death in custody, compensation was  

awarded by the Rajasthan High Court to the next of kin of the deceased.  

k.  Dukhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 22

The deceased was taken from the police station in order to recover stolen  

articles alleged to have been hidden by him at a secret place.  He was  

brought to a pond and compelled to dive into the pond.  At that time he  

was handcuffed and in chains.  Subsequently, the dead body of the  

deceased was found floating in the pond.  In view of the unnatural death  

                                                           20

2009 2 AWC 2090 (All)  21

2000 Cri LJ 4484  22

2011 (3) MPHT 81

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 31 of 43    

while the deceased was in the custody of police officers, the Chhattisgarh  

High Court awarded compensation.  

l.     Santosh Kumari v. State of H.P. & Ors. 23

The victim died while he was in police custody and it was found that he  

had injuries on his head, shoulders, eyes, knees and private parts.  He  

died in hospital as he was not given medical assistance in time.  In view  

of the unnatural death while in custody, the Himachal Pradesh High  

Court awarded compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.  

m.    State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Dar. 24

The victim died due to cardio pulmonary arrest while detained in the  

District Jail under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.  It  

was held that death was due to carelessness, non-seriousness and  

negligence in not extending medical treatment.  In view of the unnatural  

death in custody the Jammu & Kashmir High Court awarded the  

compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.  

n.    Mrs. Meena Singh v. State of Bihar. 25

The victim was attacked and killed by co-prisoners by the use of chhura,  

iron rods and belts etc.  The next of kin of the deceased were awarded  

                                                           23

2008  ACJ 1684  24

LPAHC No. 36/2015  25

2001 Cri LJ 3573

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 32 of 43    

compensation by the Patna High Court for the unnatural death of the  

victim in custody.  

o.  Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization)  v. State of  

M.P. 26

The victim was facing trial for offences under Section 302 of the Indian  

Penal Code.  While he was undergoing treatment in a hospital he was  

shot dead by an unknown person.  In view of the unnatural death while in  

custody the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded compensation to the  

next of kin of the victim.   

48. There are several such cases – documented and undocumented - all  

over the country but in spite of repeated decisions delivered by this Court  

and perhaps every High Court there seems to be no let up in custodial  

deaths. This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs indicating the apparent  

disdain of the State to the life and liberty of individuals, particularly those in  

custody. The time to remedy the situation is long past and yet, there seems to  

be no will and therefore no solution in sight.    

The need to reform   

49. The factual material referred to above is an indication that steps are  

being taken in some form or the other by the Central Government and  

                                                           26

AIR 2015 MP 212

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 33 of 43    

hopefully by the State Governments to ameliorate the conditions of prisoners  

across the country and thereby reduce the number of unnatural deaths.   

These steps give an impression that there is nothing to be seriously worried  

about.  However, the statistics provided by the NCRB reflect the ground  

reality and dispel that impression.  It is time for the State to go beyond  

projections through circulars and advisories and actually come to grips with  

reality as it exists in a very large number of prisons.  What is practised in our  

prisons is the theory of retribution and deterrence and the ground situation  

emphasizes this, while our criminal justice system believes in reformation  

and rehabilitation and that is why handcuffing and solitary confinement are  

prohibited.   It is this ‘rejection’ of the philosophy of our criminal justice  

system that leads to violence in prisons and eventually unnatural deaths.    

50. This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of Article  

21 of the Constitution and the right to a life of dignity.  There must be a  

genuine desire to ensure that the guarantee to a life of dignity is provided to  

the extent possible even in prisons, otherwise Article 21 of the Constitution  

will remain a dead letter.   It must be appreciated by the State that the  

common person does not violate the law for no reason at all.  It is  

circumstances that lead to a situation where there is a violation of law.  On  

many occasions, such a violation may be of a trivial nature or may be a one-

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 34 of 43    

time aberration and, in such circumstances, the offender has to be treated  

with some degree of humanity. At least in such cases, retribution and  

deterrence cannot be an answer to the offence and the offender.  Unless the  

State changes this mindset and takes steps to give meaning to life and liberty  

of every prisoner, prison reforms can never be effective or long lasting.  

51. The issue of unnatural deaths in prisons was debated and discussed  

before us in great detail by the learned Amicus, the learned Attorney General  

and learned counsel for the National Forum.  All of them have painstingly  

taken us through a plethora of documents but, as mentioned above, the  

existence of volumes of documents relating to unnatural deaths in prisons  

does not necessarily resolve the problem that we are confronted with and  

which was brought to our notice by Chief Justice Lahoti.  

52. However,  we do hope that the highlighting of this issue will bring  

about awareness in the mind and heart of the powers that be and  

consequential reforms in prisons which may ultimately reduce, if not  

eliminate, the number of unnatural deaths in prisons and also improve the  

conditions of prisoners all over the country.    

The need to compensate   

53. The case law indicates that over the last several decades this Court  

and almost every High Court has relied on Article 21 of the Constitution and

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 35 of 43    

thought it appropriate to compensate the next of kin for an unnatural  

custodial death.   The constitutional courts can go on delivering judgment  

after judgment on this issue and award compensation, but unless the State  

realizes that custodial death is itself a crime and monetary compensation is  

not necessarily the only appropriate relief that can be granted to the next of  

kin of the deceased, such unnatural deaths will continue unabated.   

Therefore, what is needed is a review of all prisons with a humanitarian  

nuance.  

54. Over the last several years, there have been discussions on the rights  

of victims and one of the rights of a victim of crime is to obtain  

compensation.   Schemes for victim compensation have been framed by  

almost every State and that is a wholesome development.  But it is important  

for the Central Government and the State Governments to realize that  

persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims -  

sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both.    

There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin from receiving  

compensation only because the victim of an unnatural death is a criminal.   

Human rights are not dependent on the status of a person but are universal in  

nature.   Once the issue is looked at from this perspective, it will be  

appreciated that merely because a person is accused of a crime or is the

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 36 of 43    

perpetrator of a crime and in prison custody, that person could nevertheless  

be a victim of an unnatural death.  Hence the need to compensate the next of  

kin.  

Custodial death of Children  

55. One of the issues not touched upon by the learned Amicus or by the  

National Forum relates to the custodial death of children in child care  

institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,  

2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,  

2015.  There does not appear to be any study carried out in this regard and it  

is rather unfortunate that the Central Government and the State Governments  

are oblivious to the possibility of death of children in custody in child care  

institutions.  This is distressing.   The pain and anguish of the next of kin of  

children who pass away in custody is not less, but more than the pain and  

anguish of the next of kin of any prisoner who suffers an unnatural death in  

custody. It seems that apart from being ‘voiceless’, such children are also  

dispensable.   

56. There is no documentation on the number of unnatural deaths (if any)  

of children in child care institutions and this should now be on the agenda of  

the Central Government and the State Governments (particularly the  

Department concerned with the welfare of children) with far greater concern

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 37 of 43    

than has been shown so far.   The unnatural death of any child in need of  

care and protection or in conflict with law and in a child care institution  

needs attention since it is these voiceless children who need to be heard. It is  

time that unnatural deaths of children in child care institutions are seriously  

looked into by all concerned if we are to provide the children of our country  

with a better future.   

Directions  

57. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances before  

us, the suggestions put forward by the learned Amicus and the learned  

counsel appearing for the National Forum deserve acceptance and, therefore,  

we issue the following directions:  

1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit a copy  

of this decision to the Registrar General of every High Court  

within one week with a request to the Registrar General to place  

it before the Chief Justice of the High Court. We request the  

Chief Justice of the High Court to register a suo motu public  

interest petition with a view to identifying the next of kin of the  

prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural death as  

revealed by the NCRB during the period between 2012 and  

2015 and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation,

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 38 of 43    

unless adequate compensation has already been awarded.     

2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs   

will ensure circulation within one month and in any event by  

31 st  October, 2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the  

monograph prepared by the NHRC entitled “Suicide in Prison -  

prevention strategy and implication from human rights and  

legal points of view”, (iii) the communications sent by the  

NHRC referred to above, (iv) the  compendium of advisories  

issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the State  

Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules and (vi) the  

Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the  

International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director  

General or Inspector General of Police (as the case may be) in  

charge of prisons in every State and Union Territory.  All  

efforts should be made, as suggested by the NHRC and others,  

to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in prisons and  

to document each and every death in prisons – both natural and  

unnatural.  

3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs   

will direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 39 of 43    

between unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on  

the website of the NCRB and in its Annual Reports and also  

explain the sub-categorization ‘others’ within the category of  

unnatural deaths.  The NCRB should also be required to sub-

categorize natural deaths. The sub-categorization and  

clarification should be complied with by 31 st  October, 2017.  

4. The State Governments should, in conjunction with the  

State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State  

Police Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and  

Development conduct training and sensitization programmes  

for senior police officials of all prisons on their functions,  

duties and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of  

prisoners. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this  

Court to the Member-Secretary of each SLSA to follow-up and  

ensure compliance.  

5. The necessity of having counselors and support persons  

in prisons cannot be over-emphasized.  Their services can be  

utilized to counsel and advice prisoners who might be facing  

some crisis situation or might have some violent or suicidal  

tendencies.  The State Governments are directed to appoint

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 40 of 43    

counselors and support persons for counselling prisoners,  

particularly first-time offenders.   In this regard, the services of  

recognized NGOs can be taken and encouraged.     

6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should  

be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending  

the time or frequency of meetings and also explore the  

possibility of using phones and video conferencing for  

communications not only between a prisoner and family  

members of that prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the  

lawyer, whether appointed through the State Legal Services  

Authority or otherwise.  

7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) should  

urgently conduct a study on the lines conducted by the Bihar  

State Legal Services Authority in Bihar and the Commonwealth  

Human Rights Initiative in Rajasthan in respect of the overall  

conditions in prisons in the State and the facilities available.  

The study should also include a performance audit of the  

prisons, as has been done by the CAG.  The SLSAs should also  

assess the effect and impact of various schemes framed by  

NALSA relating to prisoners.  We request the Chief Justice of

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 41 of 43    

every High Court, in the capacity of Patron-in-Chief of the  

State Legal Services Authority, to take up this initiative and, if  

necessary, set up a Committee headed preferably by the  

Executive Chairperson of the State Legal Services Authority to  

implement the directions given above.  

8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to inmates in  

prisons needs no reaffirmation.  The right to health is  

undoubtedly a human right and all State Governments should  

concentrate on making this a reality for all, including prisoners.  

The experiences in Karnataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the  

effect that medical facilities in prisons do not meet minimum  

standards of care is an indication that the human right to health  

is not given adequate importance in prisons and that may also  

be one of the causes of unnatural deaths in prisons.   The State  

Governments are directed to study the availability of medical  

assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever  

necessary.  

9. The constitution of a Board of Visitors which includes  

non-official visitors is of considerable importance so that  

eminent members of society can participate in initiating reforms

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 42 of 43    

in prisons and in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Merely  

changing the nomenclature of prisons to ‘Correction Homes’  

will not resolve the problem.  Some proactive steps are required  

to be taken by eminent members of society who should be  

included in the Board of Visitors.  The State Governments are  

directed to constitute an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms  

of Chapter XXIX of the Model Prison Manual indicating their  

duties and responsibilities.  This exercise should be completed  

by 30 th

November, 2017.  

10. The suggestion given by the learned Amicus of  

encouraging the establishment of ‘open jails’ or ‘open prisons’  

is certainly worth considering. It was brought to our notice that  

the experiment in Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and the semi-

open prison in Delhi are extremely successful and need to be  

carefully studied. Perhaps there might be equally successful  

experiments carried out in other States as well and, if so, they  

require to be documented, studied and emulated.  

11. The Ministry of Women & Child Development of the  

Government of India which is concerned with the  

implementation of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

              W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 etc.                                                                                                Page 43 of 43    

Children) Act, 2015 is directed to discuss with the concerned  

officers of the State Governments and formulate procedures for  

tabulating the number of children (if any) who suffer an  

unnatural death in child care institutions where they are kept in  

custody either because they are in conflict with law or because  

they need care and protection.  Necessary steps should be taken  

in this regard by 31 st  December, 2017.  

58. We expect the above directions to be faithfully implemented by the   

Union of India and State Governments.  In the event of any difficulty in the  

implementation of the above directions, the Bench hearing the suo motu  

public interest litigation in the High Court in term of our first direction is at  

liberty to consider those difficulties and pass necessary orders and  

directions.   

59. List for follow-up in December, 2017.  

 ……………………………J  

         (Madan B. Lokur)   

……………………………..J  

         (Deepak Gupta)   

New Delhi;  

September 15,  2017