Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

SUNIL BATRA ETC. vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. ETC.

SCR Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 392
Year/Volume: 1979/ Volume 1
Date of Judgment: 30 August 1978
Petitioner: SUNIL BATRA ETC.
Disposal Nature: Petitions Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 1978 INSC 147
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Respondent: DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. ETC.
Case Type: WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) /2202 and 565/1977
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Prisons Act 1894 - Section 30 - Scope of - Solitary confinement - Imposition of bar-fetters under s. 56 on a prisoner - Whether violates Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution 1950.

Practice and Procedure - Necessity of social welfare organisation to intervene in the litigative process .

Prisons Act, 1894 and Punjab Jail Manual - Need for revision to reflect the deeper meaning in the behavioural norms, correctional attitudes and humane orientation for the prison staff and prisoners alike.

Words & Phrases - 'Under sentence of Death' and 'apart from all other prisoners' - Meaning of.

Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act provides that every prisoner under sentence of death shall be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners and shall be placed by day and by night under the charge of a guard.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 2202 of 1977 who was a convict under sentence of death challenged his solitary confinement. It was contended on his behalf that s. 30(2) does not authorise placing a prisoner under sentence of death in solitary confinement and that the jail authority could not arrogate to itself the power to impose such punishment under the garb of giving effect to s. 30(2). On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State that the section merely permits statutory segregation for safety of the prisoner in the prisoner's own interest and that instead of striking down the provision, the Court should adopt a course of so reading down the section as to denude it of its ugly inhuman features.

The petitioner in W.P. 565 of 1977 contended that s. 56 of the Prisons Act which confers unguided, uncanalised, and arbitrary powers on the Superintendent to confine a prisoner in irons is ultra vires Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894)
  • Constitution Of India
4. Keyword
  • Prisons Act 1894 and Punjab Jail Manual