PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
ABSTRACT SUBMITTED TO
THE TAMILNADU Dr. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY
(TNDALU)
(SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW (SOEL), CHENNAI)
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPLETION OF INTERNAL ASSESSMENT
TOPIC
SUNIL BATRA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION
SUBMITTED TO
MR. VELRAJ
(FACULTY OF LAW, TNDALU, SOEL)
SUBMITTED BY,
NAME : NISHA J
REGISTER NUMBER : H323080
COURSE : L.L.B. (Hons.)
SECTION : “B”
YEAR : 1st (First)
SEMESTER : 2nd (Second)
DATE OF SUBMISSION : 02.04.2024
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. ISSUES RAISED
4. ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
5. JUDGEMENT
6. ANALYSIS
7. RELATED CASE LAW
Case Name: Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration
Citation: 1978 AIR 1975
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No: 2202 OF 1977
Petitioner: Sunil Batra
Respondents- Delhi Administration
Decided On: 30/08/1978
Statues Referred:
Constitution of India
Prison Act, 1894
Bench:
Krishnaiyer, V.R., Chandrachud, Y.V, Fazalali, Syed Murtaza., Shingal P.N, Desai, D.A
INTRODUCTION
The case Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others is a landmark judgment
case related to the fundamental rights and the prison Act of 1874. It was a unique
case as the petitioner here is a convict who is in death sentence wrote a letter to a
Judge in the court related to the issues that occurred in the prison. In addition to it
he also stated the poor treatment of prisoners, with many being subject to torture
and sexual abuse.
Constitution and statutory provisions discussed are: The Prison Act of 1894.
Article 14, 15, 19, 21, 32, and 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949 and Punjab
Prison Manual
FACTS OF THE CASE
Sunil Batra, the petitioner who was a convict given a death sentence at the Tihar
Central Jail. He wrote a letter to one of the Judge complaining about the living
conditions in the jail and treatment of detainees. In his letter, he also complained
about the Head Warden Maggar Singh’s harsh attack and torture of another
prisoner, Prem Chand to extract money from the victim’s visiting family. The
Court transformed this letter into a habeas corpus action and, as a result,
classified it as Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
court then issued a notice to the state and the concerned officials. It also
appointed amicus curiae, named Dr YS Chital and Shri Mukul Mudgal and gave
them permission to visit the prison, to meet the prisoner, check the documents
which is necessary, and to intract with the particular witnesses in order to ensure
that they were informed correctly about the case. The amicus curiae after wisting
the jail and examining witness reported or stated that on 26th August 1979, the
prisoner Prem Chand had suffered a serious anal injury. They also said that a rod
was pushed into the prisoner’s anus as he was being tortured. As a result, the
prisoner suffered from constant bleeding. He was taken to the prison hospital and
then moved to Irvin hospital because the bleeding was of non stop. The
departmental officers, on the other hand, stated that the rupture of the anus was a
result of piles and tried to close the actual events of the incident.
ISSUES RAISED
This case raised a number of critical issues such as:
1. Does the court have jurisdiction to consider or entertain the petition of a
convict?
2. What are the fundamental rights available to a prisoner and how Articles
14, 19 and 21 are applied to it?
3. Which are the judicial remedies that can be granted to ensure the rights of
the prisoners are not violated and can which can bring prison justice?
4. Whether prisoners were entitled to the same rights and standards as a
regular human being.
Questions were raised in relation to Section 30 (to confiscation of prisoner’s
property and also solitary confinement of those on death row) and also Section
56 (Jailer or his subordinate, if found to breach his duty or doing any anything
against the law or regulation shall be punished with imprisonment, not more
than 3 months or fine not exceeding 200 rs. Or both) of the Prison Act 1894,
as they were in violation of Articles 14 and 21.
Furthermore, questions were raised as to what amendments and changes were
to be undertaken in the future with regard to the Prison Act.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER’S SIDE
* The petitioner in Sunil Batra’s Case made that Section 30(2) of the Prison Ac,t
1894 does not grant the jail authorities the authority to subject a prisoner under a
death sentence (whether a pending appeal or not yet or final) to solitary
confinement
* The Petitioner challenged Section 30(2) and Section 56 of Prison Act, 1894,
and Paragraph 399(3) of Punjab prison manual, as it was against fundamental
rights under article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India.
* Section 56 of the Prison Act should be done away with (allows the use of any
type of irons for fetters, this gives arbitrary power to jail authorities to
discriminate against the prisoners) as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT SIDE
* The State argued that Section 30(2) of the Prison Act did not mention anything
about the safety of prisoners and instead of the blame on the jail authorities, the
court should look to give a more elaborate definition to this section so as to
prevent the inhumane behaviour of prisoners.
* The respondent side also argued about the right to life and individual freedom
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the state as per the law, still has the
power to restrict the liberty of prisoners. It is due to some possibility that the
prisoner may attempt to harm himself or any of the other person if he is not kept
separate. The state argued that this is why Section 30(2) of the Prison Act should
be upheld by the court. The respondent side also argued that the mind of a
prisoner under a death sentence has a chance of attempting to commit suicide or
cause harm to others. Of this, Section 30 was absolutely necessary in the eyes of
the respondents.
* It was also argued that in accordance with Section 46 of the Prison Act the
Superintendent is empowered with the authority to examine the prisoner and
impose necessary punishments. Essentially they said that everything that was
done to Prem Chand was justified under the law.
JUDGEMENT
The bench in Sunil Batra vs. Delh i Administration comprised of Judges
Krishnaiyer, V.R., Chandrachud, Y.V., Fazalali, Syed Murtaza , Shingal, P.N.
and Desai, D.A , delivered the judgement
In this case, the Supreme court held that Article 32 and Article 226, of the
constitution the fundamental rights of prisoners were violated . It is completely
within the authority of the honourable court to intervene and protect prisoners
from harsh or inhuman treatment. Also, it was made clear that during the
prisoner’s time in jail, the jail authorities do not have any rights to punish, torture
or discriminate against them without the permission or orders of the court. Only
the court have the right to do so.
The court acknowledged that sec 30(2) of the prisonAct does grant the jail
authorities the ability to subject prisoners to solitary confinement. It also
emphasis that this does not grant permisionto subject to torture.
Section 30(2) was deemed not to violate Articles 14 and 21 because solitary
confinement may sometimes be necessary due to prisoners to harm themselves
or others, commit suicide, etc. . However, the petitioner in Sunil Batra Case did
not fall under Section 30(2), as his death sentence was not yet final . The Court
declared that Sunil Batra, the petitioner, should not be kept in the type of
confinement i.e alone under Section 30(2) until further court orders.
Regarding Section 56 of the Act, the Court in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration
acknowledged that authority to take necessary precautions for prison discipline.
It also emphasised that such measures should only be taken by the local
government or the Court, not the other authorities. The Court deemed this
provision in line with Articles 14 and 21. The Court criticised outdated
provisions in Jail Manuals and stressed that the inhumane treatment of prisoners
is counterproductive for their rehabilitation and integration into society.
ANALYSIS
* It is the duty of the supreme court and all other subordinate courts to protect
and safeguard the rights of our contrys’s citizens including the prisoners and
convicts. In this judgement Article 14, 19 and 21 is applicable to those in prisons.
* This case also highlight about the Prison Act of 1894 and the Punjab Jail
Manul.
* In addition to it the court also directed the district magistrate visit the jail every
week so that he/she survive the living condition and environment of the
prisoners.
* Also the state governments were required to take the necessary steps to end the
cruelty and torture in prison across the country.
* Jailors and Jail authorities were excepted to follow the rule of law and were
under the strict obligation to work with various legal provisions.
RELATED CASE LAWS
HUSSAINARA KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 1979.
ANIL YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 1999.
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, 1978.
HOSKOT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1978.
DWARHANATH VS INCOME TAX OFFICE , 1965.
