In a 7-page order passed today, the Supreme Court has explained who is a death row prisoner and what his rights are in relation to meeting lawyers, family members etc..The order was passed by a Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta in an application praying inter alia, that prisoners sentenced to death by any court be treated at par with other convicted prisoners and be provided all similar facilities as are provided to other prisoners..The Court at the outset made it clear that it will not go into all the issues raised in the application but “finds it necessary to place in perspective certain aspects of the rights of prisoners.”.It then addressed the all-important question – “When could it be said that a convict is under the sentence of death?”.Is it when a trial court convicts a prisoner and sentences him to death or is it after a death sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny after the Supreme Court upholds the same and mercy petition is rejected?.The Court said that the issue must be considered in a humanitarian and compassionate manner. That apart, the Court also adverted to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others..As per the same, a prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a prisoner whose sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible and which cannot be annulled and voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure..In other words, a prisoner can be said to be a prisoner on death row when his sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny and would be operative without any intervention from any other authority, the Court held..Till then, such a prisoner cannot be said to be under a sentence of death in the context of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894..That being the position, a prisoner is entitled to every creature comfort and facilities such as bed and pillow, writing material, newspapers, books, meeting with family members etc., the Court ruled..Further, placing reliance on Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that a convict on death row is entitled to move within the confines of the prison as is available to any other convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment..Regarding the entitlement of a prisoner on death row to have meetings and interviews with his lawyers or members of his immediate family or even mental health professionals, the Court held that the same should be permitted. In this regard, it held that it will follow the view expressed in Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi..“In paragraph 8 of the Report, it was specifically noted by this Court, after referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that as a part of the right to live with human dignity, a prisoner is entitled to have interviews with members of his family and friends and no prison regulation and procedure to the contrary can be upheld as being constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution unless it is reasonable, fair and just. Similarly, there cannot be any doubt that a prisoner must be entitled to have discussions with his lawyers so that he has effective legal representation and access to justice as well as remedies for justice. In our opinion, the law laid down by this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin would be equally applicable to death row prisoners for meeting mental health professionals for a reasonable period of time with reasonable frequency so that their rights can be adequately protected at all stages.”.Before concluding, the Court also directed Justice Amitava Roy Committee to look into all the issues raised in the application in greater depth..Advocate Gaurav Agrawal served as Amicus Curiae in the case..Read the order below.
In a 7-page order passed today, the Supreme Court has explained who is a death row prisoner and what his rights are in relation to meeting lawyers, family members etc..The order was passed by a Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta in an application praying inter alia, that prisoners sentenced to death by any court be treated at par with other convicted prisoners and be provided all similar facilities as are provided to other prisoners..The Court at the outset made it clear that it will not go into all the issues raised in the application but “finds it necessary to place in perspective certain aspects of the rights of prisoners.”.It then addressed the all-important question – “When could it be said that a convict is under the sentence of death?”.Is it when a trial court convicts a prisoner and sentences him to death or is it after a death sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny after the Supreme Court upholds the same and mercy petition is rejected?.The Court said that the issue must be considered in a humanitarian and compassionate manner. That apart, the Court also adverted to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others..As per the same, a prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a prisoner whose sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible and which cannot be annulled and voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure..In other words, a prisoner can be said to be a prisoner on death row when his sentence is beyond judicial scrutiny and would be operative without any intervention from any other authority, the Court held..Till then, such a prisoner cannot be said to be under a sentence of death in the context of Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894..That being the position, a prisoner is entitled to every creature comfort and facilities such as bed and pillow, writing material, newspapers, books, meeting with family members etc., the Court ruled..Further, placing reliance on Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that a convict on death row is entitled to move within the confines of the prison as is available to any other convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment..Regarding the entitlement of a prisoner on death row to have meetings and interviews with his lawyers or members of his immediate family or even mental health professionals, the Court held that the same should be permitted. In this regard, it held that it will follow the view expressed in Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi..“In paragraph 8 of the Report, it was specifically noted by this Court, after referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that as a part of the right to live with human dignity, a prisoner is entitled to have interviews with members of his family and friends and no prison regulation and procedure to the contrary can be upheld as being constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution unless it is reasonable, fair and just. Similarly, there cannot be any doubt that a prisoner must be entitled to have discussions with his lawyers so that he has effective legal representation and access to justice as well as remedies for justice. In our opinion, the law laid down by this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin would be equally applicable to death row prisoners for meeting mental health professionals for a reasonable period of time with reasonable frequency so that their rights can be adequately protected at all stages.”.Before concluding, the Court also directed Justice Amitava Roy Committee to look into all the issues raised in the application in greater depth..Advocate Gaurav Agrawal served as Amicus Curiae in the case..Read the order below.
