Case Brief: Sunil Batra v.

Delhi Administration (1979)

Facts:
 Twin writ petitions filed by Sunil Batra and Charles Sobraj
 The appellant. Batra was found guilty by the sessions court of the offence of murder
and was awarded capital sentence in January 1977. Till then he was a ‘B’ Class
prisoner eligible for certain amenities. After the death penalty was pronounced, the
prison superintendent striped him off of the ‘B’ Class facilities and locked him up in a
single cell with a small walled yard attached beyond the view of other human beings
except the jail guards and formal visitors who visited in discharge of their official
duties and few callers on rare occasions. He filed an appeal against his conviction
and sentence to the High Court which dismissed the appeal. He also challenged in
the High Court his quasi-solitary confinement but without success. Thereafter he
filed the present petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India under Article
14,19, and 21.
 The petitioner Sobraj has been in custody since 1977 having been arrested in a hotel
along with three of his foreign companions. His Interpol dossier is stated to be
terrible and his exploits include jail break and grave crimes. He had been
continuously subjected to torturesome bar fetters for 24hrs, every day of the month,
for nearly two years. In a petition under Article 32 he complained against the
persistence of bar fetters under Section 56 of the Prisons act, 1894.

Issue:
 Whether Section 30(2) and 56 of the ACT are violative of a prisoners rights under
Article 14,19, and 21?

Judgement:
Per Chandrachud, Fazl Ali, Singhal and Desai
 It is no more open for debate that convicts are not wholly denuded of their
fundamental rights. Prisoners are entitled to all constitutional rights. The Hands-off
doctrine was completely abolished.
 The court has to strike a just balance between dehumanising prison atmosphere and
the preservation of internal order and discipline, the maintenance of institutional
security against escape and the rehabilitation of prisoners.
 Id section 30(2) of the Prison act enables the prison authorities to impose solitary
confinement on a prisoner under death sentence, not as a consequence of violation
of prison discipline but on the sole and solitary ground that the prisoner in one
under death sentence of death, the provision would offend Article 14,19, and 20.
Further if by imposing solitary confinement, there is total deprivation of camaraderie
amongst co-prisoners, comingling and talking, which would offend article 21.
 It is clear that section 30(2) does not empower the prison authorities to impose
solitary confinement in the sense in which that word is understood in the Punjab Jail
Manual.
 Under Section 30(2) the expression ‘such prisoner shall be confined in a cell apart
from all other prisoners’ has a restricted meaning. Furthermore, the expression
“prisoner under sentence of death can only mean a prisoner whose sentence of
death has become final and conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled
 and or voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure. As the prisoner in not be
kept in solitary confinement and the custody under section 30(2) would preclude
detention in solitary confinement, there is no question of imposing a second
punishment and hence the provision is not violative of Article 20.
 The challenge under section 21 is not permissible as once the obnoxious element is
erased out , then it cannot be said that the provision is arbitrary and violative of
section 30(2).
 Classification according to the sentence for the security purposes, is valid and
therefore section 30(2) does not violate Article 14.
 Restriction imposed under 30(2) is not violative of article 19.
2nd petition:
 The section 30 is valid if read humanisticly by interpretation. It is well settled that
if certain provisions of law are construed in one way will be consistent with the
constitution, and if another interpretation would render it unconstitutional, the
court would lean in favour of the former construction. The provision is out of tune
with current penological values and should be revised by fresh legislation.
 Affirmed the interpretation given by his brother judges on the interpretation of
expression ‘under sentence of death’ under section 30(2).
Per Krishna J. (Concurring)
 The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the treatment of the human beings
which offends human dignity, imposes avoidable torture and reduces the man to
level of beast would certainly be arbitrary and can be questioned under Article 19.
Putting bar fetters for an unusually long period, without due regard of the safety of
the prisoner and the security of the prison would certainly be not justified under
Section 56. Particularly, it would be so when medical opinion is that bar fetters
should be removed. Since the bar fetters of the petitioner have been removed, as a
result of an interim order of the court the question of re-imposing the would not
arise until and unless the requirements delineating above and safeguards provided
are observed.

2nd petition:
 Section 56 to be held valid humanistically read by interpretation. The section is to
be tamed and tried by the rule of law and shall not turn dangerous by making the
prison an imperium in imperio. The superintendents power should be pruned and
subject to some restriction.