Jurisprudential shift from retributive to reformative justice. The modern human rights discourse views a prisoner not as a “subject of the state” but as a “subject of rights.”
1. Jurisprudential Foundation: “Convicts are not Non-Persons”1
The fundamental premise of prisoners’ rights is that a person does not shed their humanity at the prison gate.2 While the right to movement is curtailed by the very nature of incarceration, the right to life and dignity (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) remains intact.3
The “Residuary Rights” Theory:
A prisoner retains all rights enjoyed by a free citizen except those that are necessarily lost as an incident of confinement (e.g., freedom of movement).4 This was eloquently captured by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the pioneer of prison jurisprudence in India.5
A prisoner’s rights are not a gift from the state, but a constitutional imperative. The Indian Supreme Court has consistently rejected the “Civil Death” theory (that a prisoner loses all civil rights) and instead adopted the “Residuary Rights” theory (a prisoner retains all rights except those necessarily lost due to incarceration).
Here is a comprehensive analysis of prisoners’ rights categorized by Constitution, Statute, and Judicial Precedent.
I. Constitutional Rights
The “Golden Triangle” of the Indian Constitution (Articles 14, 19, and 21) does not stop at the prison gates.
| Article | Right | Context in Prison |
| Article 14 | Right to Equality | Prisoners cannot be discriminated against based on caste, religion, or race. Equal treatment must be ensured for prisoners in similar categories (e.g., undertrials vs. convicts). |
| Article 19 | Basic Freedoms | While freedom of movement (19(1)(d)) is curtailed, other freedoms like freedom of speech and expression (19(1)(a)) remain. Prisoners have the right to write books, publish articles, and be interviewed (subject to security). |
| Article 20 | Protections in Conviction | 20(1): Protection against Ex-post facto laws. 20(2): Double Jeopardy (Prisoner cannot be punished by Jail Superintendent and Court for the same prison offence). 20(3): Right against Self-Incrimination (No third-degree torture). |
| Article 21 | Right to Life & Liberty | The most expansive right. Includes right to human dignity, speedy trial, medical care, free legal aid, and protection from torture. |
| Article 22 | Rights on Arrest | Right to be informed of grounds of arrest, right to consult a lawyer, and production before a Magistrate within 24 hours. |
II. Statutory Rights
These are rights codified in specific legislations, primarily the Prisons Act, 1894 and the procedural codes (CrPC/BNSS).
- The Prisons Act, 1894:
- Section 27: Separation of prisoners (Male/Female, Convict/Undertrial, Young/Adult).
- Section 29: Solitary confinement is a punishment, not a norm, and must follow strict guidelines.
- Section 31: Right of civil prisoners/undertrials to maintain themselves (food/clothing) from private sources.
- Section 37: Right to visitations (contact with family and legal advisors).
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 / CrPC:
- Right to Legal Aid: The state must provide counsel if the prisoner is indigent.
- Medical Examination: Mandatory medical examination of the accused immediately after arrest to record existing injuries (prevents custodial torture).
- The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
- Guarantees free legal services to “persons in custody” as a statutory right, ensuring economic status doesn’t bar access to justice.
III. Landmark Judgments (Case Summaries)
1. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (II) (1980)
- Facts: A prisoner sent a letter to the Supreme Court alleging that a warden had inserted a baton into another prisoner’s anus as punishment for not paying a bribe.
- Issue: Can the Supreme Court interfere in internal prison administration? Does a prisoner have protection against torture?
- Decision (Justice Krishna Iyer):
- The “Hands-off” doctrine is rejected. Courts have writ jurisdiction inside prisons.
- Fundamental Rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison.
- Solitary confinement cannot be imposed by jail authorities arbitrarily; it requires judicial oversight.
- Ratio: “Prisons are not iron curtains.”
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
- Facts: A writ petition highlighted the plight of thousands of undertrials in Bihar who had been in jail for periods longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crimes.
- Issue: Rights of undertrial prisoners and the validity of prolonged detention.
- Decision (Justice P.N. Bhagwati):
- Right to Speedy Trial is an integral part of Article 21.
- Detaining undertrials for long periods is unconstitutional.
- Directed the immediate release of all such prisoners on personal bond.
- Significance: This case pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) movement in India.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
- Facts: Growing instances of custodial deaths and police torture led to this PIL.
- Issue: Lack of transparency and guidelines during arrest and detention.
- Decision:
- Issued the “11 Commandments” (Guidelines) for arrest:
- Police must wear visible name tags.
- Memo of Arrest must be prepared and witnessed by a family member.
- Right to inform a friend/relative about the arrest immediately.
- Mandatory medical examination every 48 hours.
- Ratio: “Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity.”
- Issued the “11 Commandments” (Guidelines) for arrest:
4. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)
- Facts: A prisoner challenged the routine practice of handcuffing him while taking him from jail to court.
- Issue: Is routine handcuffing constitutional?
- Decision:
- Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and unreasonable.
- It serves as a “badge of humiliation.”
- Rule: Handcuffing is permitted only if there is a clear and present danger of escape, and the magistrate must record reasons for it.
5. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) [Recent & Critical]
- Facts: A PIL challenged prison manuals in 11 states that assigned work based on caste (e.g., Brahmins as cooks, “lower castes” as sweepers).
- Issue: Constitutionality of caste-based labor division in prisons.
- Decision (CJI D.Y. Chandrachud):
- Struck down all such provisions as violative of Article 15 (Discrimination) and Article 17 (Untouchability).
- Held that “caste cannot be a ground for classification of prisoners.”
- Significance: This judgment decolonized prison manuals that had existed since 1894.
As Justice Krishna Iyer famously remarked: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present… The spirit of man is at the root of Indian law, and the prison cannot kill it.” The journey from retribution to reformation is paved with these rights, ensuring that a prisoner enters as a criminal but leaves as a citizen.
2. International Standards (The Nelson Mandela Rules)
From a global human rights perspective, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules) are the “Magna Carta” for prisoners.
- Key Principle: Imprisonment is the punishment in itself (deprivation of liberty); the prison regime should not aggravate this suffering.6
- Rehabilitation: Rule 4 states that the purpose of prison is to protect society against crime, which can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure that upon release, the offender is willing and able to lead a law-abiding, self-supporting life.
Prison as a Rehabilitation Center: The Modern Outlook
The traditional “Warehouse Model” (storing criminals) is obsolete. The human rights perspective demands the “Correctional Model.”
- The Theory of Social Defence: We punish the criminal to protect society. However, if a prisoner leaves prison more hardened and brutalized than when they entered, society is less safe. Thus, rehabilitation is a functional necessity, not just charity.
- Policy Shift: The Model Prison Manual (2016) and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act (2023) in India explicitly focus on:
- Vocational Training: Teaching skills (carpentry, weaving, IT) so the prisoner is employable upon release.
- Open Prisons: (e.g., Sanganer in Rajasthan) where prisoners live with families and work outside during the day, fostering trust and reintegration.
- Mental Health: recognizing that many offenders suffer from psychological issues requiring treatment, not just isolation.22
the trajectory of human rights law regarding prisoners has moved from “civil death” to “retained rights.” As famously stated by Mahatma Gandhi, “Crime is the outcome of a diseased mind and jail must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care.”
The litmus test of a democracy is not how it treats its most privileged citizens, but how it treats its prisoners.23 When the state deprives a person of their liberty, it assumes a higher duty of care for their life and dignity. The prison walls must remain permeable to the rule of law, ensuring that while a man may be physically incarcerated, his spirit and his constitutional rights are never chained.24
contemporary challenges:
I. Recent Challenges (The Reality Check)
Despite the progressive “Rehabilitation” jurisprudence, the ground reality in 2024-2025 reveals systemic fractures that hinder the realization of human rights.
1. The “131% Occupancy” Crisis (Overcrowding)
- The Issue: Indian prisons are bursting at the seams. Recent data (India Justice Report 2025 / NCRB) indicates a national average occupancy rate exceeding 131%, with some central jails (like Delhi and Uttarakhand) operating at nearly 185% capacity.
- Human Rights Implication: This violates the right to decent living (Article 21). Overcrowding leads to hygiene failure, spread of communicable diseases (TB), and the collapse of classification (mixing petty offenders with hardened criminals).
2. The Mental Health “Near-Collapse”
- The Issue: A critical finding in recent 2024 reports is the severe neglect of mental health. There is an acute shortage of clinical psychologists—reports suggest a ratio as dismal as one psychologist for every 20,000+ prisoners in some states.
- Human Rights Implication: The Right to Health includes mental well-being. The high rate of suicide in prisons (often by hanging) is a direct consequence of this neglect (referenced in Justice Amitava Roy Committee findings).
3. Caste-Based Discrimination (Institutionalized Bias)
- The Issue: Until very recently, many State Prison Manuals legally sanctioned caste-based division of labor (e.g., assigning cleaning duties to “lower” castes and cooking to “higher” castes).
- Recent Case Law:Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024).
- Decision: The Supreme Court struck down these provisions as unconstitutional, declaring that “caste cannot be a ground for classification of prisoners.”
4. The Undertrial Burden
- The Issue: Approximately 77% of India’s prison population comprises undertrials (those awaiting trial). They are effectively serving sentences without conviction.
- Legal Lacuna: Section 436A of CrPC (now BNSS) allows release if half the maximum sentence is served, but implementation remains lethargic due to lack of legal awareness among inmates.
II. Strategic Suggestions (The Way Forward)
To transform prisons into genuine “Correctional Centers,” the following reforms are suggested, drawing from the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 and recent expert committees.
1. Legislative Reform: Implementing the 2023 Act
- Suggestion: States must urgently adopt the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023.
- Why: It replaces the colonial Prisons Act of 1894. It introduces:
- “Grievance Redressal Committees” in every prison.
- Specific provisions for transgender prisoners, recognizing their right to separate housing and protection from abuse.
2. Technological “De-carceration” (The Odisha Model)
- Suggestion: Use technology to reduce overcrowding.
- Example: The use of GPS-enabled ankle trackers for prisoners out on bail (successfully piloted in Odisha). This allows the state to monitor the accused without physical incarceration, balancing liberty with security.
3. The “Open Prison” Paradigm
- Suggestion: Aggressive expansion of the Open Prison system (Sanganer, Rajasthan model).
- Recent Support:Suhas Chakma v. Union of India (2024).
- Observation: The SC observed that open prisons are a vital solution to overcrowding and significantly aid in reintegration, as recidivism (re-offending) rates in open prisons are negligible.
4. Professionalization of Staff (All-India Service)
- Suggestion: Constitution of an “Indian Prisons & Correctional Service” (similar to IAS/IPS).
- Why: Prison management requires specialized skills in psychology, criminology, and human rights, not just policing. A dedicated cadre would ensure professional, reform-oriented administration.
5. Mental Health Infrastructure (Suicide Prevention)
- Suggestion: Implementation of Justice Amitava Roy Committee recommendations:
- “Suicide-proof barracks” (collapsible material hooks).
- Mandatory “Tele-MANAS” (mental health helpline) kiosks inside prisons for anonymous counseling.
Conclusion:
“In the ultimate analysis, the 21st-century Indian prison must transition from a ‘warehouse of pain’ to a ‘laboratory of human correction.’ While the Sukanya Shantha (2024) judgment cleansed the manuals of colonial caste prejudice, the physical infrastructure still groans under the weight of overcrowding. The path forward lies in the trinity of Decarceration (bail reforms), Digitization (smart monitoring), and Humanization (mental health focus)—ensuring that the deprivation of liberty does not become the deprivation of life itself.”
