Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Apex Court of India removed the clouded uncertainty of placing Prisoners on Death row on Par with the other prisoners undergoing rigorous imprisonment. The court emphasised that prisoners can be considered as prisoners on death row only when their sentences are beyond the hold of judicial scrutiny and would be effective without any intervention from any authority. The applications sought humbly that prisoners sentenced to death by any judicial institution must have right to be treated on par with the other convicted persons, and should be given all facilities that are given to the other prisoners. Further, the application required the solitary confinement of persons sentenced to death or their separate and cellular confinement to be struck down as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of India referred to two noteworthy cases namely: Sunil Batra case and Frances Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi. In the former case, the court observed that a prisoner on death row would mean a prisoner whose conviction has become final and conclusive; and therefore, he cannot resort to any judicial remedy or constitutional procedure to annul such conviction.
Unless such is the conclusion, the prisoner shall not be attracting the language used in section 30 of the prisons act 1894. Observing paragraph 101 of the report, the court said that a prisoner is entitled to all the comforts as other prisoners ranging from having bed and pillow to writing materials, reading newspapers and books, meeting with family members etc..
In the latter case, the apex court observed the judgement which comprised the words that a prisoner is entitled to have interviews/discussions with family members and friends, and no regulation or constitutional procedure, unless it is reasonable, fair and just, intending to scuttle such meetings cannot be upheld as constitutionally valid within the ambit of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This being the position, the court further added that the prisoners have the right to consult their legal representatives for effective access to judicial remedies and Justice. Similarly, such prisoners on death row can have consultations with their Mental Health Professionals during a reasonable period with reasonable frequency. The Hon’ble Bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta issued directions to the Governments and Union Territory Administrations to make necessary modifications in the rules, regulations and manuals relating to prisons.
Additionally, the court asked the Justice Amitava Roy committee to scrutinize the issues deeply in addition to their terms of reference in the application.
86540
103860
630
114
59824