Author: S.MD. Shareef, Department of Law, S.V University
To the Point
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) functions as a vital Judicial tool for enforcing the constitutional rights of prisoners who cannot personally access the courts. Article 32 and 226 empowers citizens or public-spirited individuals or the prisoners himself can sent a formal letter stating about the grievances and fundamental rights violations, directly to the Supreme court or Hight court chief justice for enforcement of rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. Even within confinement, prisoner’s including the right to life with dignity, fair and speedy trail, legal aid, healthcare, and humane treatment.
However, there is a sad reality that he point is many prisoners are deprived of these basic rights and dragged to death, even before he/she proven guilty such as under trail-prisoners. According to the Annual report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) 2023-24, there were 2,556 judicial custody deaths and 436 in police custody deaths across India, exposing the grave condition of prison administration and the lack of accountability.
Abstract
In the Indian criminal justice system, imprisonment does not extinguish all rights; rather, the paradigm of rights transforms. This paper examines how Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a critical avenue for protecting prisoners’ rights. Particularly those recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution and enforced via writs under Articles 32 and 226. The study outlines the historical and legal evolution of prisoners’ rights, analyses landmark judicial interventions, and evaluates contemporary challenges such as under-trial overcrowding, inadequate legal representation and healthcare deficiencies. The research emphasises that successful protection of prisoners’ rights via PIL demands not only robust jurisprudence but also institutional commitment and effective implementation. It posits that bridging the divide between legal standards and actual conditions in prisons requires multi-layered reform: legislative, administrative and judicial.
Use of legal Jargon
In this paper:
“PIL” refers to Public Interest Litigation, i.e., writ petitions under Article 32/226 of the Constitution of India filed in the public interest on behalf of persons unable to approach courts themselves.
“Under-trial prisoner” means a person accused of an offence who is in custody but has not yet been convicted.
“Convict” means a prisoner who has been found guilty and sentenced.
“Fundamental rights” refers to the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India (such as Articles 14, 19, 21, 22).
“Directive Principles” refers to Part IV of the Constitution (e.g., Article 39A).
“Reasonable, fair and just procedure” is a phrase often used by courts to interpret Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
“Prison administration” refers to the administrative machinery exercising custody, discipline and rehabilitation of prisoners under the Prisons Act, jail manuals and state rules.
“Remedial jurisprudence” refers to the use of courts to correct systemic deficiencies (in this context, via PILs) rather than mere adjudication of individual disputes.
The “human dignity” principle emphasises that even persons in custody retain the basic human dignity and constitutional protections which cannot be wholly obliterated by imprisonment.
The proof
Statutory and regulatory provisions
The Prisons Act, 1894: Although archaic, this Act remains the principal general law regulating prisons in many States. For example, Section 4 addresses accommodation and sanitary conditions; Section 7 deals with shelter and safe custody of excess prisoners.
The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950; The Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955; The Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003.
Model Prisons & Correctional Services Act (2023): The Union Government issued a model legislation (10.05.2023) to encourage States/UTs to adopt a modern corrective and custodial regime
Constitutional provisions:
Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 19: Certain freedoms (though in prison many are curtailed).
Article 39A: Directs the State to provide free legal aid for securing justice.
Courts have interpreted that these rights apply to prisoners, subject to reasonable restrictions Commission/Report material
Law Commission Reports:
78th Report: Congestion of Under-trial prisoners in jails (1979) — which highlighted that as of 1975, over 57% of prison population were under-trials.
40th Report: Law relating to attendance of prisoners in courts (1969).
Parliamentary Committee / Reform Reports: The 2023 “Prison-Conditions, Infrastructure and Reforms” report (Rajya Sabha) traced various committees: All-India Jails Manual Committee (1957-60); All-India Committee on Jail Reforms 1980 (Justice A. N. Mulla).
NHRC Interventions: Most recently, in April 2025, the NHRC issued notices to all States/UTs for overcrowding, poor amenities for women inmates and their children, lack of legal aid, vocational training etc.
Bureau of Police Research & Development handbook: “Handbook on Prisoners’ Rights & Obligations” summarises the rights of prisoners to rights of free citizens (life, health, etc) albeit subject to imprisonment restrictions.
Relevant case laws: –
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369:
Facts: A habeas corpus petition representing multiple under-trial prisoners in Bihar (through advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani) revealed that many persons were detained for long periods. Some even longer than the maximum sentence for the offence, while trials had not begun. Issues:
Whether the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution.?
Whether free legal aid is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, fair and just procedure”.?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21; free legal aid is implicit under Article 39A and hence part of Article 21. It observed that delay in trial resulting in under-trial languishing in jail is a violation of fundamental rights. The Court directed State governments and High Courts to compile lists of under-trial prisoners and expedite their cases.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978):
Facts: The petitioner (Sunil Batra) was a prisoner in Delhi’s Tihar Jail who alleged that another inmate (Prem Chand) had suffered brutal torture (anal injury) by jail warders. The petition was treated as a habeas corpus/writ petition challenging prison treatment.
Issues: Do prisoners (including convicts) retain fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 & 21?
Whether provisions of the Prisons Act (e.g., Section 30(2) confining prisoner under death sentence in cell apart, Section 56 which allows use of irons) violate these rights.?
Judgment: The Court confirmed that incarceration does not strip a prisoner of all rights under Articles 14 and 21, and that the court can intervene under Articles 32/226. However, the Court held that Section 30(2) is constitutional but cannot be used to impose punitive solitary confinement; it rejected solitary confinement of a prisoner whose death sentence was not yet final. The Court stressed that prison authority cannot convert “cell apart” into total isolation without judicial oversight.
In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2018):
Facts: In this writ petition the Supreme Court addressed the dismal conditions of prisons across India. Overcrowding, lack of sanitation, inadequate medical care, and violation of prisoners’ rights to dignity.
Issues: Whether the fundamental rights under Article 21 (and other rights) of prisoners were being violated by inhuman conditions and whether the State had an obligation for reforms.
Judgment: The Court noted many systemic issues and called for major reforms, including prison visiting systems, regular audit, transparency and rehabilitation orientation. The Court noted that custodial institutions must comply with constitutional standards of human dignity.
Conclusion
The rights of prisoners represent a critical but neglected frontier in India’s human rights architecture. Via PILs and constitutional writs, Indian jurisprudence has affirmed that persons in custody do not forfeit their fundamental rights and that the State has obligations to ensure humane conditions, speedy trial, legal aid, rehabilitation, and dignity. The statutory framework (Prisons Act, model legislation, transfer/repatriation Acts) and the extensive body of reports (Law Commission, NHRC, Parliamentary Committee) provide normative standards. Yet the gulf between law and practice remains wide.
FAQS
Q1. Does a prisoner retain fundamental rights under the Constitution?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that incarceration does not mean forfeiture of all rights. Rights under Articles 14 and 21 (equality and life/liberty) remain applicable, albeit subject to lawful restrictions. (Sunil Batra case).
Q2. What rights do under-trial prisoners have?
Under-trial prisoners have the right to a speedy trial, right to bail (where applicable), right to legal aid, right to humane conditions in custody, and the right not to be kept in custody longer than justified. (Hussainara Khatoon case).
Q3. Can PILs be used to enforce prisoners’ rights?
Yes. PILs/writs have often been used to challenge systemic failures in prisons (e.g., overcrowding, torture, delayed trials, lack of medical care). They serve to address class-wide grievances of prisoners who may lack individual access to justice.
Q4. What are the major statutory obligations on State/Prison Administration?
The Prisons Act, 1894 is the primary statute (provisions on accommodation, discipline, health, transfers). The State is also under constitutional obligations (Articles 14, 21, 39A). Model legislation (2023) pushes for a correctional model. Reports highlight many obligations (for de-congestion, rehabilitation, mental health).
Q5. What are the challenges in realising prisoners’ rights?
Major challenges include overcrowding, under-trial backlog, inadequate infrastructure, weak monitoring, poor implementation of reform recommendations, lack of transparency, and societal apathy towards prisoners.
