Quasi-solitary confinement by putting prisoner in cell for 22 hours a day violates right to life under Article 21: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday held that quasi-solitary confinement of a prisoner by confining him to a cell for 22 hours a day is illegal and violative of fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (Rajia vs. State of Punjab)..Thus, the action of confinement of individual prisoners in individual cells for most part of the day and for limitless periods is impermissible, Justice Sudhir Mittal said. He, therefore, ordered that in order to prevent trouble on the part of hardened and dangerous criminals, the prison administration should come up with suggestions for security enforcement that conform with the law.The case was, thus, listed for further consideration on July 19. .The Court was hearing a petition filed by a gangster, Rajia alleging that he is being confined to his cell for 22 hours a day and is released only for 2 hours. He further claimed that amenities available to ordinary prisoners such as facility of private maintenance i.e. provision of food, clothing, bedding and other necessaries through private sources, cooking facilities, adequate food and water, adequate clothing and newspapers, magazines and television.These restrictions, he contended, amounts to solitary confinement and the was violative of his right to life under Article 21. .The State submitted that the petitioner has a total of 34 cases stand registered against him out of which he has been convicted in three. Six cases were registered against him while he was in judicial custody. Presently, he is undergoing life sentence for commission of dacoity. Being a notorious criminal, he has the propensity to create riotous situations, it was submitted. Thus, security was beefed up and decision was taken to release petitioner and similar prisoners from their cell only for two hours. "When, prisoners belonging to the same gang are confined in the same jail, they conspire to commit crimes outside jail and thus, continue with their nefarious activities despite being incarcerated. When prisoners belonging to different gangs are housed in the same prison, it results in riots and disorderly conduct," it was submitted. However, the allegation of solitary confinement was completely denied..The High Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bathinda to submit a report regarding the allegations made by the Petitioner.As per the report, the inmates in the high security zone were being confined to separate cells and the ADGP (Prisons) directed that the prisoners be released for only two hours a day.The directions also included non-provision of cooking facilities, non-provision of TV sets and electrical points, supply of restricted items of food and clothing..The Court commended certain security measures adopted in the prison such as increased surveillance through patrolling, CCTV cameras, ensuring that mobile phones cannot be recharged after being smuggled in etc. However, with respect to the petitioner, the Court observed that he is being confined to a cell for most part except for two hours a day. "Except for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening, the inmate is all by himself with his solitude and there is no limit. For all this period, he has no company except for the odd prison staff which comes by on rounds. He is not able to see any other human being and thus, conversation with fellow beings is out of the question. There is no facility of common messing," the Court observed. Such confinement is not strictly solitary confinement but can be called quasi-solitary because the inmate is deprived of human company for extended lengths of time and such confinement has been held to be extremely harsh and violative of basic human rights, the Court opined. .In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration and observed that after nearly four decades of the Judgement "the true import of the Supreme Court of India does not seem to have percolated to the Administrators of Prisons, as is highlighted by the facts of this bunch of cases."The Court further said that the authorities have gone overboard and have violated valuable fundamental rights of the prisoners.“It is now well settled that prisoners are human beings despite their liberty having been curtailed. They may not enjoy all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India, yet, basic rights and liberties are available to them which are the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court stated. .The Court underscored that even a person under death sentence has human rights which are non-negotiable and even a dangerous prisoner, standing trial, has basic liberties which cannot be battered away. .A prisoner remains a person and cannot be reduced to animal existence,” the Court said borrowing from the judgement in Sunil Batra (II)..It, therefore, asked the State to suggest measures to be adopted so that the rights of prisoners and threat to security from them can be balanced. ."The prison administration can surely come up with suggestions which would make the custody conform to the law of the land while meeting the security concerns. For example, the identified prisoners could be housed in separate barracks instead of cells where provision is also made for messing. Members of rival gangs could be confined in different barracks and the system of staggered lockouts could be retained. Confinement to cells be restricted from sunset to sunrise and period of lockouts be increased, however, within the confines of high security zones," the Court suggested. The final decision of course, would rest with the prison administration, but is always open to judicial scrutiny, it added. .The matter will be heard again on July 19 for the State to apprise the Court on measures intended to be adopted by it. .[Read Order]