Overcrowded Prisons Not The Idea Of Punishment: Supreme Court Calls Out Laxity Of States/UTs On Implementation Of Suggestions

While hearing a matter pertaining to overcrowding in Indian prisons, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 23) pulled up States/UTs for not filing their affidavits giving data on jail infrastructure, despite court directions.The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah gave 2 weeks' time to the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States/UTs, emphasizing that the affidavits shall mention the manner in which recommendations given by the respective Committees are proposed to be implemented and the timelines for such implementation.At the outset of the hearing, Justice Amanullah asked Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, who is acting as Amicus in the matter, whether the Chief Secretaries of States/UTs have filed their affidavits in terms of earlier directions. In response, the Amicus informed that all except Delhi had filed. The explanation for non-filing on behalf of Delhi was that the file had to be sent to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for approval, who is currently in judicial custody over the Delhi Liquor Policy case.When Justice Kohli enquired as to who was appearing for Delhi, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared on VC to say that she had been instructed on behalf of the UT. The ASG submitted, "we are in a peculiar situation, your Lordships may give us some more time".Pertaining to the issue, the ASG stated that though Delhi has 11 administrative districts, it has only 3 prisons. As such, there is a proposal to have a common Committee look at the infrastructure. If the court permits the said Committee to examine, the UT would be able to file a report within 2 weeks.Keeping the matter of Delhi aside, the court proceeded to consider the case of other states, primarily Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh with respect to which the Amicus had collated data and filed a note, pursuant to the court asking him last week what could be done on immediate basis.The selection of the aforesaid 4 states was explained by the Amicus by saying that these states have more than 120-130 jails, where the problem appears to be the highest. He further remarked that the data collected was an eye-opener for the governments. To quote, "First time I think it would have happened...that actually jail wise somebody has gone with the judicial side, administrative side, police side and the DLSA side to examine and they have identified that yes there is overcrowding, whether we can use the premises for construction, whether we need a new construction or not. I think that assessment state government had never done to the best of my recollection".Underlining however that there was nothing adversarial about the case, Justice Kohli expressed to the Amicus, "nothing could be more important than the fact that, maybe a person's right to moving around freely is curtailed but doesn't mean he/she has to stay in a place which is so dingy, so difficult, so crowded, in such conditions that the person goes out more ill...That's not the idea of punishment".State-wise submissions of the Amicus(1) BiharThe Amicus informed the Bench that there are 59 jails in Bihar. The Committee constituted by the court had made recommendations regarding central and district jails. In 16 district/central jails, there is overcrowding. In some cases, land is available for new constructions; in others, it is not. The government has filed an affidavit, but not given solutions for the problems.Going through the note, Justice Kohli pointed to Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan (appearing for Bihar) that the recommendations were collated meticulously. "What is the action taken?", the judge asked.Flagging a "major" concern, Justice Amanullah noted that District Magistrates (DM) of 3 districts did not attend the relevant meetings and that is why recommendation with respect to land could not be given. "DM is the person who makes recommendation with regard to land...If he has shown disrespect to our order by not attending the meeting and not taking it seriously, then we are going to make party by name", the judge warned.Amanullah, J could be heard saying that the court would haul up officers if there is even one more report of non-attendance in future: "you tell the Chief Secretary, on the next date, if one report is there, we are going to make it out as an all-India case. We are going to haul up the DMs right here. If anybody does not attend and any disrespect is shown to the District judge with regard to the Committee, we are going to haul up that officer personally by name. You can't do this".Cumulatively, the Bench cautioned that Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs would be personally held responsible for any such conduct. "Don't force us to act suo-motu. The effects will be drastic for everybody", Justice Amanullah said.When the bench asked for the minutes of the meeting convened (which would have recorded the DM's non-attendance), a counsel for respondents replied that the matter would be taken up with the Chief Secretaries and DMs.Moving...

Overcrowded Prisons Not The Idea Of Punishment: Supreme Court Calls Out Laxity Of States/UTs On Implementation Of Suggestions

Debby Jain

Tags