Calcutta High Court flags concerns over failure to implement prison reforms despite Supreme Court directive of 1978

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday lamented that the conditions in prisons have not improved even decades after the 1978 judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration which dealt with prison reforms [Bishal Das vs State of West Bengal]..Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by undertrial prisoners who accused the Hooghly District Jail authorities of keeping them in 'solitary confinement.'The Court held that the 'separation' or 'segregation' of these prisoners in view of threats from rival gangs, would not amount to solitary confinement. The Court disposed of their plea after also noting that these prisoners were allowed to mingle with other inmates of the prison under the supervision of guards during the 'Day-Unlock Period' from sunrise to sunset..However, on the broader issue of conditions in jails, the judge noted that despite the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case, authored by then Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud in August 1978, nothing much has changed."It is true that although we have crossed decades after Sunil Batra's case, till date that conditions in which prisoners are confined are not fully congenial to a very healthy atmosphere. Time and again, several international guidelines and resolutions have stressed upon humane conditions being provided to prisoners. However, words of idealism in the international context would not benefit the petitioners unless the ground realities which are available to the State-Authorities are also congenial to providing an ideal situation," Justice Bhattacharyya remarked..The stark reality is that all the jails are overcrowded due to the large population and administrative apathy, the bench emphasised."It is only a difference of percentages of overcrowding that distinguishes different correctional homes. Thus, the distinction is not one of quality but merely of degree," the Court observed..In their petition, the prisoners had alleged that they were regularly restricted from meeting their relatives and advocates and were also not given proper medical attention. They also claimed that despite requests, nothing was done to improve the living conditions of the prisoners in any manner.The prisoners, therefore, prayed for being transferred to any other 'safer' correctional home. The State and the jail authorities, however, refuted the allegations.Among other submissions, the State said that there were regular medical check-ups of the prisoners and that the prisoners were not denied any access to their relatives or advocates within the jail premises..The Court opined that some discretion must be left to the jail authorities while rejecting the prayer for a transfer to another jail. If the prisoners' perception is taken to be the sole criterion, there would be a negative bias attached to it, the Court added.The Court further noted that the Hooghly District Correctional Home, where the petitioner-prisoners were housed, is considerably overcrowded, as are other correctional homes in the District.The Court concluded that the decision to keep the petitioner-prisoners separated in a particular prison cell cannot be termed as inhuman, considering that the State made this decision in the interest of protecting the petitioners from rival groups in the same jail. "Thus, the court cannot reach a conclusion that the petitioners are segregated to such an extent that the same is inhuman," the bench held..The Court disposed of the petition with directives to carry out regular medical check-ups every two months to ensure the physical and mental health of all prisoners at the Hooghly District Correctional Home."The jail authorities shall also ensure that basic amenities are available to the prisoners," the bench ordered..Advocates Achin Jana, Suman Chakraborty, Subhanitwa Ghosh, Prosenjit Ghosh, Gargi Dhang, and Pooja Singh appeared for the undertrial prisoners.Advocates Sk Md Galib and Abu Siddique Mali represented the State..[Read Judgment]