Supreme Court issues reform-oriented directions to address custodial deaths

Noting that prisoner rights are yet to become a practical reality, the Supreme Court has issued a series of reform-oriented directions meant to be complied by all the states..The judgement was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta. The Court was assisted by Amicus Curiae, Gaurav Agarwal..The matter was taken up in public interest based on a letter highlighting issues pertaining to prisoner’s rights. Four issues were discerned as meriting consideration from this letter, namely, (i) Overcrowding in prisons; (ii) Unnatural death of prisoners; (iii) Gross inadequacy of staff, and (iv) Available staff being untrained or inadequately trained..The Court has already passed an order on the issue of overcrowding in prisons in 2016. In this judgement, the Court has placed special focus on the issue of unnatural custodial death..The attention of the Court was now drawn to several well-intentioned initiatives undertaken by the NHRC to raise sensitisation regarding prisoner’s rights, and specifically, custodial deaths. The NHRC had published a monograph 2014 on “Suicide in Prison – prevention strategy and implication from human rights and legal points of view”. This also provided a list of environment based and crisis based reasons attributable to prison suicides as well as suggestive measures to counter them. Another initiative of NHRC brought to the notice of the Court was several communications issued from time to time to state authorities, aimed at ensuring greater accountability with respect to custodial deaths..In one such communication, the NHRC directed that Model Autopsy forms be adopted as part of the inquest process in custodial deaths. The Model Autopsy form was developed after consultation with various states and experts, based on the UN Model Autopsy Protocol. Besides this, the Court noted that there were International guidelines available on prison reform including the Mandela Rules and the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross..The Court was also informed that the Central Government had issued instructions in the same vain through a 2016 Model Prison Manual. The Manual called for compliance of the directions issued by the NHRC and included comprehensive provisions aimed, inter alia, at suicide prevention in prisons, rehabilitation of prisoners and grievance redressal mechanisms..Notably, the manual also contains a Perspective section, which sets forth rights and duties of prisoners. These include the right to human dignity, the right to basic minimum needs, the right to communication, the right to access to law, the right against arbitrary prison punishment, the right to meaningful and gainful employment and finally the right to be released on the due date..Along similar lines, a handbook for prisoners captioned “Prisoners Rights and Obligations” has been prepared by the Bureau of Police Research and Development. Apart from this, the Attorney General also placed before the Court a Compendium of Advisories on Prison Administration from 2016..Given the abundance of such initiatives, the Court discerned that the issue lay with deficiencies in decisive and practical implementation..“The time to remedy the situation is long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution in sight.”.The AG had submitted that the primary responsibility lay with the respective states, given that subject of prisons forms part of the state list. Addressing this submission, the Court held that it may be time to expect the central government to assume more proactive interest in the matter. It went on to hold that,.“…even if it is assumed that the Central Government has certain constitutional limitations with regard to prison management, surely, it cannot be said that the Central Government need not share its expertise or give any guidance to the State Governments.”.The Court also emphasised that,.“…no State Government can shirk its duties and responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners….… It is time for the State to go beyond projections through circulars and advisories and actually come to grips with reality as it exists in a very large number of prisons…”.A submission had been made that states may have different priorities which take precedence over addressing prisoners’ interests. Holding that there can be no such justifiable excuse to dispense with prison reform, the Court remarked,.“If a State Government is unable to do so, it should be far more circumspect in arresting and detaining persons, particularly under-trial prisoners who constitute the vast majority of those in judicial custody. The State Governments and the prosecution do not have to oppose every bail application nor do they have to ask for the remand of every suspect pending investigation.”.Emphasis was also placed on the need to shift to reformation oriented mindset, as opposed to grounding the prison system in retributive and deterrence based philosophies. In this context, it was noted,.“Unless the State changes this mindset and takes steps to give meaning to life and liberty of every prisoner, prison reforms can never be effective or long lasting.”.The Supreme Court has therefore proceeded to issue a series of directions, in the hope that prison reforms, and in particular custodial deaths, may be taken up more seriously..It has been requested that the Chief Justice of each High Court register a suo moto public interest petition to identify the next of kin of the prisoners who have died an unnatural death as revealed by the NCRB between 2012 and 2015, and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate compensation has already been awarded.The Union Government was directed to circulate available literature on prison reforms to the concerned authorities in all states and union territories, as part of its efforts to reduce custodial deaths, both natural and unnatural.The court had noted certain ambiguities in NCRB data concerning custodial deaths, particularly with regard to the definition and scope of unnatural deaths. Clarifications on this aspect were ordered to be made and indicated on the NCRB website by October 31, 2017.The State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) along with other concerned authorities were directed to conduct sensitisation programmes for prison reform. The SLSA was also directed to undertake prison studies in respect of overall conditions and facilities available. The study should also comprise a performance audit. The Chief Justice should set up a committee for the same, if necessary.Counsellors and support personnel for prisoners, especially first time offenders, were directed to be appointed by the States. It has been suggested that family visits should be encouraged. The possibility of using phones and video conferencing for such communication as well as communications with lawyers may be explored. The State Governments have also been directed to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary.The State Governments were directed to constitute an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter XXIX of the Model Prison Manual, indicating their duties and responsibilities. This exercise should be completed by November 30, 2017.The idea of open jails similar to successful ventures in Shimla and Delhi may be explored, documented and emulatedGiven that there is no reliable data concerning custodial death of children in juvenile justice homes, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development has been directed to discuss with State Governments and formulate procedures for tabulating the number of children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in such child care institutions. Necessary steps are to be taken in this regard by December 31, 2017..Read judgement below.