Nudging and pushing by the judiciary doing wonders: Bombay High Court on Maharashtra's efforts after suo motu PIL on COVID-19 in prisons

During the hearing of the suo motu PIL on COVID-19 cases in Maharashtra prisons, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday observed that the situation seemed to be improving owing to its timely intervention.

The comment came in response to submissions made by Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, who informed the Court of the compliances which the State prison authorities were undertaking to ensure medical care for prisoners.

Kumbhakoni submitted that out of 33,850 prisoners in Maharashtra prisons, 5,502 prisoners had been vaccinated.

He submitted that the process had been slow so far due to unavailability of vaccines. Till the availability increases, the focus of the prison authorities was to give preference to prisons where 100% vaccination could be conducted at the earliest.

He also stated that as on date, the number of COVID-19 cases in the prisons was declining by the day.

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai also appreciated the efforts taken by the prison authorities in terms of vaccination and for managing the spread of the virus in prisons.

Acknowledging the efforts, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni added that "due to the nudging and pushing of the judiciary, the steps that were being taken by the authorities was doing wonder".

Kumbhakoni added that it was also because of the "carrot-and-stick approach of the Court, as only-stick approach would not have worked".

On the issue of death of medical officers while treating correctional home inmates, the Court was informed that the State government had proposed to make amendments to the Maharashtra Prisons (Prison Hospital Rules) 1970 to depute doctors from civil hospitals in close proximity to the correctional homes on all days, including Sunday, for two hours to attend to the ailing inmates.

Sensing that enough measures were being taken and the COVID-19 situation seemed to have come under control, the Court adjourned the hearing of the matter by two weeks.