Undertrial's Rights To Education, Rehabilitation Can't Be Ignored During Prison Transfers Citing Security Concerns: Karnataka High Court

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh who had approached the court after he was transferred from Bengaluru Central Prison to Belagavi Central Prison.

The court also held that the role of the NIA as the investigating agency under the UAPA Act does not render it a necessary or proper party to the proceedings of transfer made under the Prison Act/Rules, which arise out of an administrative order. Thus it need not be a necessary party to the proceedings.

The petitioner had approached the court contending that during his incarceration, he has enrolled in the Bachelor of Commerce programme through Indira Gandhi National Open University under the distance education scheme. In the absence of cogent or justifiable reasons for transfer, he is seriously prejudiced, as the impugned transfer disrupts his education and rehabilitation efforts, which infringes his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution

The respondent-State contended that petitioner has no vested right to insist upon incarceration in a particular prison. It submitted that the transfer from Bengaluru to Belagavi Central Prison was necessitated purely on security considerations and was effected pursuant to the requisition made by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru.

The Court however noted that the petitioner was never served with a copy of the requisition made by the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru, nor was he given an opportunity to contest the grounds urged therein. "The petitioner was thus denied his right to be heard before an order adversely affecting him was passed. This omission goes to the root of the matter, as the order impugned is not preceded by compliance with the principles of natural justice.”

It then noted that the order passed by the Sessions Judge merely records the phrase “security reasons” as the ground for transfer. "It neither discloses the nature of such security threat nor demonstrates an application of judicial mind to the materials placed by the prison authorities. Such a cryptic recital falls short of the standards required when fundamental rights under Article 21 are at stake.”

The court also opined that an under-trial prisoner continues to enjoy all constitutional protections, save those which are necessarily curtailed by the fact of lawful custody. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 encompasses the right to fair procedure, humane treatment, and protection against arbitrary exercise of power.

Thus it held, “The impugned order has thus resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner, who as an under-trial prisoner retains his right to fair procedure. Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2025 directing the transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru Central Prison to Belagavi Central Prison is unsustainable in law. The petitioner is entitled to be re-transferred to Bengaluru Central Prison.”

Following the order, NIA moved the court submitting that petition itself is not maintainable on two counts: firstly, for non-joinder of a necessary party, namely the NIA; and secondly, that the proper remedy available to the petitioner is by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 before the Division Bench.

The bench noted that Chief Superintendent of Central Prisons, Bengaluru, submitted a requisition seeking transfer of certain undertrial prisoners to various central prisons across the State on security considerations. Pursuant to the said requisition, the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, passed the impugned order directing the transfer.

Stating that the impugned order is not one passed under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the High Court held, “The learned Sessions Judge, before whom the criminal proceedings are pending, has exercised jurisdiction in this regard solely on the administrative and security aspects as requisitioned by the prison authorities. Therefore, the role of the NIA as the investigating agency under the UAPA does not render it a necessary or proper party to the present proceedings.”

It also held “Since the impugned order is passed under the provisions of the Prisons Act and not under the NIA Act or the UAPA, the contention that the petitioner's only remedy lies by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act before the Division Bench cannot be accepted.”

As such, the Court directed the State to re-transfer the petitioner to Bengaluru Central Prison forthwith. 

Appearance: Advocate Sparsh Shetty for Petitioner.

HCGP M.R Patil for R1 to 4.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

Case Title: REESHAN THAJUDDIN SHEIKH AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24840 OF 2025