“Name Of Our Country Is In Question”: Madras HC Asks Prison Superintendent To Probe Allegation Of Foreign Prisoners Not Getting Meals

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman remarked that all prisoners had to be treated properly and be given facilities as provided for in the prison manual. The bench also remarked that a lot of prisoners were lodged in Indian prisons and in many cases, they were not given proper treatment. The court added that the name of the country was involved in these cases and the prison authorities had to ensure that the prisoners are treated better.

“There are a lot of foreign prisoners languishing in Indian jails. They are agitated and aggrieved. The name of our country is in question. How we treat our foreign prisoners are how the foreign countries would treat us. There are even International Treaties on how to treat foreign prisoners. Prison authorities must ensure that food facility as per the manual is provided to foreign prisoners without depriving them,” the court orally remarked.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Nigerian national lodged in Puzhal Central Prison seeking better prison facilities. He alleged that he was mistreated by the prison authorities and also sought directions to the authorities to remove other co-prisoners from solitary confinement, give proper medical treatment and food to the prisoners, and provide telephone facilities to the prisoners.

The court had previously suo motu impleaded the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and enquired if there were any guidelines ensuring the right to foreign nationals lodged in Indian prisons. The court wanted to know if any system was in place to inform the kin of the prisoners about their arrest and other case details.

When the case was taken up today, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan sought time to get instructions from the Ministries concerned to know about the facilities already available for foreign prisoners and for forming schemes or rules to treat foreign prisoners in Indian jails.

Sundaresan submitted that though measures could be taken to provide rights to the prisoners, it should be ensured that enabling the rights not lead to some other problems. He added that the video conferencing facilities could not be provided openly as the same could cause security issues.

To this, the court remarked that a modus can be brought in by the concerned ministries. The court agreed with Sundaresan in not providing Video conferencing facilities in the open and suggested that the same could be provided inside the prison under the supervision of the prison authorities.

The court adjourned the case by 2 weeks to allow the Ministry to give its suggestions.

Case Title: Egwin Kingstley v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Case No: WP 1034 of 2025