5/8/25, 9:57 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

Original Content
INTRODUCTION

The case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others(1) shows out in our lawful history as a milestone
judgment which is related to the rights of Prisoners. It was one of a kind in a large number of ways, in this case
the petitioner was a convict of death penalty being. It exposed a serious issues, including the conflicts between
different rights of Prisoners and the Prison Act,1874. Moreover, it uncovered the barbaric treatment of
detainees, with many being liable to torment and sexual maltreatment. It went far in revealing insight to the
disturbing way of treatment by jail officials towards the prisoners.

FACT OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a convict under death sentence, through a letter to one of the Judges of this Court alleged that
torture was practised upon another prisoner by a jail warder, to extract money from the victim through his
visiting relations. The letter was converted into a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court issued notice to the
State and the concerned officials. It also appointed amicus curiae and authorised them to visit the prison, meet
the prisoner, see relevant documents and interview necessary witnesses so as to enable them to inform them
selves about the surrounding circumstances and the scenario of events. The amicus curiae after visiting the jail
and examining witnesses reported that the prisoner sustained serious anal injury because a rod was driven into
that aperture to inflict inhuman torture and that as the bleeding had not stopped, he was removed to the jail
hospital and later to the Irvin Hospital. It was also reported that the prisoner's explanation for the anal rupture
was an unfulfilled demand of the warder for money, and that attempts were made by the departmental officers
to hush up the crime by overawing the prisoner and the jail doctor and offering a story that the injury was either
due to a fall of self-infliction or due to piles.

ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER'S SIDE

The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that a prisoner wears the armour of basic freedom even
behind bars and in this the rights were violated.
The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that the personal liberty of the person who is incarcerated is
to a great extent curtailed by plaintive detention.
The Counsellor argued that liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share company with co-prisoners, was violated
under Art. 21 of Constitution.
The Counsellor on behalf of Petitioner argued that prison treatment which abandons the reformatory purpose
and practises dehumanizing techniques it is wasteful, and irrational hovering on the hostile brink of
unreasonableness, here the rights of the Petitioners were violated.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT'S SIDE

The Counsellor on behalf of the Respondent denied the claim of the Petitioner and argued all the claims of
petitioner shouldn't be considered.

file:///C:/Users/advsi/Downloads/753247.html 1/5
5/8/25, 9:57 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

The Court cited the case of Dwarkanath v. income Tax officer(2) and referred to injustice, verging on
inhumanity, emerges from hacking human rights guaranteed in Part III and the victim reaches the Court to
intervene and relieve, the Court will be a functional futility as a constitutional instrumentality if it does not go into
action until the wrong is righted. The court can issue writs to meet the new challenges.

Further the Court cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(3) where the Court held the prisoner wears the armour
of basic freedom even behind bars and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will respond to his
distress signals through 'writ' aid. The Indian human has a constant companion-the court armed with the
Constitution.

In this case ,the Court held the prisoner, Prem Chand, has been tortured while in custody in the Tihar Jail. As a
criminal case is in the offing or may be pending, it is not necessary in this proceeding to decide who is the
person responsible for inflicting the torture. The Superintendent of the Jail is directed to ensure that no
punishment or personal violence is inflicted on Chand by reason of the complaint made in regard to the torture
visited on him, further stated need for prison reform and the expeditious provision for adequate facilities
enabling the prisoners, not only to be acquainted with their legal rights, but also to enable them to record their
complaints and grievances, and to have confidential interviews periodically with lawyers nominated for the
purpose by the District Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction subject, of course, to considerations of prison
discipline and security. It is imperative that District Magistrate,, and Sessions Judges should visit the prisons in
their jurisdiction and afford effective opportunity to the prisoners for ventilating their grievances and, where the
matter lies within their powers, to make expeditious enquiry therein and take suitable remedial action. It is also
necessary that the Sessions Judge should be informed by the jail authorities of any punitive action taken
against a prisoner within two days of such action, the Court rejected the 'hands-off' doctrine and ruled that
fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage
necessitated by incarceration. Our Constitutional culture has now crystallised in favour of prison justice and
judicial jurisdiction.

RATIO DECIDENDI

In this case, the rule of law upon which the judgement was announced is that the convict is entitled to the
precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law.The greater the restriction, stricter should be the
security of the Court, so that the prisoner is not subjected to unnecessary and arbitrary loss of his remaining
liberties.

CONCLUSION

The State should take steps to keep up to the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners
recommended by the United Nations, especially those relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity
community contact and correctional strategies. The Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison Manual
total overhaul, even the Model Manual being out of focus with healing goals. A correctional-cum orientation
course is necessitous for the prison staff inculcating the constitutional values, therapeutic approaches and
tension- free management. The prisoners' rights should be protected by the court. To make this jurisdiction
viable, free legal services to the prisoner programmes should be promoted by professional organisations
recognised by the Court such as for e.g. Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court) Society. The District Bar should keep
a cell for prisoner relief .One cannot rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect, if we treat a man like
an animal, then we must expect him to act like one.

Endnotes

file:///C:/Users/advsi/Downloads/753247.html 2/5
5/8/25, 9:57 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

(1)AIR 1980 SC 1579

(2)[1965] 3 SCR 536

(3) [1979] 1 SCC 248

Rewritten Content
creation

The case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi management and Others(1) suggests out in our lawful history as a milestone
judgment which is associated with the rights of Prisoners. It became one of a kind in a massive number of
ways, in this situation the petitioner become a convict of death penalty being. It uncovered a serious problems,
such as the conflicts among unique rights of Prisoners and the prison Act,1874. moreover, it exposed the
barbaric treatment of detainees, with many being susceptible to torment and sexual maltreatment. It went a
ways in revealing insight to the traumatic manner of remedy by using prison officials in the direction of the
prisoners.

truth OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a convict underneath dying sentence, through a letter to at least one of the Judges of this court
alleged that torture changed into practised upon another prisoner by means of a prison warder, to extract cash
from the sufferer via his traveling members of the family. The letter become transformed right into a habeas
corpus proceeding. The court issued observe to the kingdom and the worried officials. It additionally appointed
amicus curiae and accepted them to go to the jail, meet the prisoner, see relevant documents and interview
important witnesses as a way to permit them to inform them selves about the encompassing instances and the
situation of occasions. The amicus curiae after travelling the jail and examining witnesses mentioned that the
prisoner sustained serious anal injury because a rod become pushed into that aperture to inflict inhuman
torture and that as the bleeding had not stopped, he was eliminated to the jail health facility and later to the
Irvin clinic. It changed into additionally reported that the prisoner's reason for the anal rupture changed into an
unfulfilled call for of the warder for money, and that tries were made with the aid of the departmental officials to
hush up the crime with the aid of overawing the prisoner and the jail health practitioner and supplying a tale
that the damage changed into either due to a fall of self-infliction or because of piles.

ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER'S aspect

The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that a prisoner wears the armour of simple freedom even in
the back of bars and in this the rights were violated.
The Counsellor on behalf of the Petitioner argued that the non-public liberty of the person who is incarcerated
is to a tremendous extent curtailed with the aid of plaintive detention.
The Counsellor argued that liberty to move, mix, mingle, communicate, percentage enterprise with co-
prisoners, was violated under art. 21 of charter.
The Counsellor on behalf of Petitioner argued that prison remedy which abandons the prison motive and
practises dehumanizing techniques it is wasteful, and irrational hovering on the antagonistic breaking point of
unreasonableness, here the rights of the Petitioners were violated.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT'S aspect

The Counsellor on behalf of the Respondent denied the claim of the Petitioner and argued all the claims of
petitioner shouldn't be taken into consideration.

remark OF THE court

file:///C:/Users/advsi/Downloads/753247.html 3/5
5/8/25, 9:57 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

The court docket stated the case of Dwarkanath v. income Tax officer(2) and referred to injustice, verging on
inhumanity, emerges from hacking human rights guaranteed in element III and the sufferer reaches the
courtroom to intrude and relieve, the courtroom can be a useful futility as a constitutional instrumentality if it
does now not cross into motion till the wrong is righted. The court can difficulty writs to meet the new
demanding situations.

similarly the court docket mentioned Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(3) wherein the court docket held the
prisoner wears the armour of fundamental freedom even behind bars and that on breach thereof by using
lawless officials the law will reply to his misery alerts thru 'writ' aid. The Indian human has a constant associate-
the court armed with the constitution.

In this example ,the court held the prisoner, Prem Chand, has been tortured while in custody in the Tihar jail. As
a crook case is within the offing or can be pending, it is not important on this intending to determine who is the
character responsible for causing the torture. The Superintendent of the jail is directed to make sure that no
punishment or personal violence is inflicted on Chand by reason of the complaint made in regard to the torture
visited on him, further stated want for jail reform and the expeditious provision for adequate centers enabling
the prisoners, no longer handiest to be familiar with their prison rights, however also to permit them to
document their complaints and grievances, and to have confidential interviews periodically with lawyers
nominated for the reason by means of the District Justice of the Peace or the courtroom having jurisdiction
concern, of route, to concerns of prison subject and security. it's far vital that District magistrate,, and periods
Judges ought to visit the prisons of their jurisdiction and manage to pay for powerful opportunity to the
prisoners for ventilating their grievances and, where the matter lies inside their powers, to make expeditious
enquiry therein and take appropriate remedial action. it is also essential that the sessions decide must be
informed by the prison authorities of any punitive motion taken in opposition to a prisoner within days of such
action, the courtroom rejected the 'arms-off' doctrine and dominated that essential rights do no longer flee the
person as he enters the prison although they can also suffer shrinkage necessitated by means of incarceration.
Our Constitutional culture has now crystallised in favour of jail justice and judicial jurisdiction.

RATIO DECIDENDI

In this situation, the rule of thumb of regulation upon which the judgement became announced is that the
convict is entitled to the valuable right assured by means of artwork. 21 of the charter that he shall now not be
disadvantaged of his existence or personal liberty besides in line with the technique installed by way of
regulation.The extra the restrict, stricter ought to be the security of the courtroom, in order that the prisoner is
not subjected to useless and arbitrary loss of his closing liberties.

conclusion

The country must take steps to preserve as much as the standard minimal rules for treatment of Prisoners
recommended by means of the United nations, especially those referring to paintings and wages, treatment
with dignity network contact and correctional strategies. The Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the prison
manual general overhaul, even the version guide being out of cognizance with healing goals. A correctional-
cum orientation course is necessitous for the jail personnel inculcating the constitutional values, healing
techniques and anxiety- unfastened control. The prisoners' rights need to be blanketed by the courtroom. To
make this jurisdiction possible, free felony offerings to the prisoner programmes should be promoted by using
expert organisations acknowledged with the aid of the courtroom along with for e.g. free criminal aid (ideally
suited court) Society. The District Bar have to hold a mobile for prisoner relief .One can not rehabilitate a man
via brutality and disregard, if we treat a person like an animal, then we have to assume him to act like one.

Endnotes

(1)AIR 1980 SC 1579

(2)[1965] three SCR 536

(3) [1979] 1 SCC 248

Copyright © 2024 by SEOMagnifier.com All Rights Reserved.

file:///C:/Users/advsi/Downloads/753247.html 5/5