Holding

The Court held that, given the gross violations of prisoners' fundamental rights, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court under its Article 32 jurisdiction to direct the Union Government to constitute a Committee on Prison Reforms to examine and recommend remedial measures.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 concerning the inhuman conditions prevailing in Indian prisons. The petition highlighted overcrowding, unnatural deaths, inadequate and untrained staff, and the lack of implementation of various prison‑related guidelines. Recognising the violation of prisoners' fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, the Court directed the Union Government to constitute a Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms comprising a former Supreme Court judge, the IG of Police (BPR&D) and the Director General of Prisons, Tihar. The Committee was tasked with reviewing implementation of the Model Prison Manual, various women‑and‑child‑focused reports, training manuals, and to recommend remedial measures on overcrowding, health, staff, open prisons, and child welfare. The Court also prescribed the Committee’s terms of reference, procedural powers, and a timeline for reporting, and ordered that the petition be revived after the Committee’s final report. The order thus provides a judicially‑mandated framework for comprehensive prison reform in India.

Issues considered

Whether the failure of the State to protect prisoners' rights under Article 21 warrants intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Whether the Supreme Court may direct the Union Government to constitute a Committee to examine and recommend prison reforms.
Scope and content of the Committee's terms of reference concerning implementation of Model Prison Manual, women and child prisoners, staff training, and overcrowding.
Whether the directions issued constitute a valid exercise of judicial power without encroaching on the domain of the executive.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.21, s. Art.32
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Ruless. 2016
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Acts. 2015

Subjects

prison reformpublic interest litigationArticle 21Article 32overcrowdingprison conditionshuman rightsSupreme Court CommitteeModel Prison Manualjuvenile justicewomen prisoners

Judgment

78 [2018] 12
SUPREME COURT S.C.R. 78
REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.406 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
B DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation – Prison Reforms – Dire necessity
of reforms in prison administration and prison management – Held:
Union Government directed to issue a notification constituting a
Supreme Court Committee on prison reforms consisting of: (i) One
C former Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chair; (ii) Inspector
General of Police, Bureau of Police Research and Development as
its member; (iii) Director General (Prisons) Tihar Jail, New Delhi
as its member – The Committee directed to give its recommendations
on the following issues as its terms of reference: 1) Review the
implementation of the Guidelines contained in the Model Prison
D Manual, 2016 by States and Union Territories (UT’s); 2) Review
the implementation by the States and UTs of the recommendations
made by the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women
in its report tabled in the Parliament titled ‘Women in Detention and
Access to Justice,’ and the advisory issued by the Ministry of Home
E Affairs (MHA) in this regard; 3) To review the two training manuals
for prison personnel prepared by Bureau of Police Research &
Development (BPR&D), ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for
Prison Officers 2017’ and ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for
Prison Warders 2017’ and forwarded to States and UTs; 4) Review
the recommendations made in the report of the Ministry of Women
F and Child Development in collaboration with the National
Commission for Women and the National Law University Delhi on
‘Women in Prisons’; 5) Review the recommendations made in the
report of the National Commission for Women on ‘Inspection of
Prisons/Jails/ Custodial Homes housing Women’; 6) Review the
G implementation by States and UTs of the Guidelines contained in
‘Living conditions in Institutions for Children in Conflict with Law’
prepared by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD)
and the Model Rules and Procedures prepared by the MWCD
under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015
and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules,
H
78
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 79

2016; 7) Review the status of the implementation of the guidelines A
and advisories issued by MHA to the States and UTs; 8) The
Committee may give its consolidated recommendations based on the
above and suggest measures to improve the implementation of the
aforementioned guidelines and advisories, subject to budgetary
resources available with the States and the UTs; 9) To examine the
B
extent of overcrowding in prisons and correctional homes and
recommend remedial measures, including an examination of the
functioning of Under Trial Review Committees, availability of legal
aid and advice, grant of remission, parole and furlough; 10) To
examine violence in prisons and correctional homes and
recommend measures to prevent unnatural deaths and assess the C
availability of medical facilities in prisons and correctional homes
and make recommendations in this regard; 11) To assess the
availability and inadequacy of staff in prisons and correctional
homes and recommend remedial measures; 12) To suggest training
and educational modules for the staff in prisons and correctional
D
homes with a view to implement the suggestions; 13) To assess the
feasibility of establishing Open Prisons, the possibility of and the
potential for establishing Open Prisons in different parts of the
country and give effect to the recommendations; 14) To recommend
steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor children of women
prisoners, including their education and health; 15) To examine E
and recommend measures for the health, education, development
of skills, rehabilitation and social reintegration of children in
Observation Homes, Places of Safety and Special Homes
established under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015; 16) Generally, any other
F
recommendation that the Committee may deem appropriate, fit and
proper in furtherance of reforms in prisons and correctional homes;
17) The Committee while giving its suggestions and
recommendations may also suggest changes or amendments to
various guidelines contained in the Modern Prison Manual, 2016
and also various directives issued by the Government of India – G
The Committee was further directed to devise its own procedure
and formulate modalities necessary for accomplishing the task and
to call for information from all the State Governments, UT
Administrations and the Ministries/Departments of the Central
Government as it considered necessary – All authorities of the State
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Governments and Union Territories directed to extend full
cooperation with Committee – Matter to be listed for further orders
after submission of the final report by the Committee – Constitution
of India – Arts.21 and 32 – Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016.
B
Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue
Death, (2016) 10 SCC 709 ; In Re: Death of 25 Chained
Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India,
(2002) 3 SCC 31 : [2002] 1 SCR 839 ; In Re: Indian
Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court
C published in Business and Financial News, (2014) 2
SCC 786 ; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas
Leak] (1986) 2 SCC 176 : [1986] 1 SCR 312 ;
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC
286 : [1989] 3 SCR 997 ; Bachpan Bachao Andolan v.
D Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1 ; Prem Shankar Shukla
v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526 : [1980] 3
SCR 855 ; Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
(1983) 2 SCC 96 : [1983] 2 SCR 337 ; D.K.Basu v.
State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl.
SCR 284 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
E (1997) 10 SCC 549 : [1997] 2 SCR 379 ; Sampurna
Behura v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433 : Swaraj
Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 498 ; Common
Cause v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 501 : [2017] 1
SCR 556 ; Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6
F SCC 590 : [2014] 5 SCR 302 ; Manohar Lal Sharma
v. Principal Secretary & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 516 :
[2014] 8 SCR 446 ; Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4
SCC 427 ; In Re: Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC
733: [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624 ; Environment &
Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India &
G Ors. [Vrindavan Widows] (2017) 16 SCC 780 : M.C.
Mehta [Taj Trapezium] v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC
353 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 973 ; Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan [CEDAW] (1997) 6 SCC 241 : [1997] 3
Suppl. SCR 404 ; Consumer Education & Research
H
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 81

Centre v. Union of India [ILO Asbestos Convention] A
(1995) 3 SCC 42 : [1995] 1 SCR 626 ; Sunil Batra v.
Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979] 1 SCR
392 ; Charles Sobraj v. Suptd. Central Jail, Tihar
(1978) 4 SCC 104 : [1979] 1 SCR 512 ; Sheela Barse
v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 SCC 96 : [1983] 2
B
SCR 337 ; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration
(1980) 3 SCC 526 : [1980] 3 SCR 855 ;
R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others (2007) 15 SCC 337 : [2006] 3 SCR 1132
– referred to.
Case Law Reference C

(2016) 10 SCC 709 referred to Para 1
[2002] 1 SCR 839 referred to Para 1
(2014) 2 SCC 786 referred to Para 1
D
[1986] 1 SCR 312 referred to Para 1
[1989] 3 SCR 997 referred to Para 1
(2011) 5 SCC 1 referred to Para 1
[1980] 3 SCR 855 referred to Para 1
E
[1983] 2 SCR 337 referred to Para 1
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 referred to Para 1
[1997] 2 SCR 379 referred to Para 2
(2018) 4 SCC 433 referred to Para 2 F
(2016) 7 SCC 498 referred to Para 2
[2017] 1 SCR 556 referred to Para 2
[2014] 5 SCR 302 referred to Para 2
[2014] 8 SCR 446 referred to Para 2 G
(2014) 4 SCC 427 referred to Para 2
[2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624 referred to Para 2
(2017) 16 SCC 780 referred to Para 2
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 973 referred to Para 2
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 referred to Para 2
[1995] 1 SCR 626 referred to Para 2
[1979] 1 SCR 392 referred to Para 10
B [1979] 1 SCR 512 referred to Para 10
[1983] 2 SCR 337 referred to Para 10
[1980] 3 SCR 855 referred to Para 10
[2006] 3 SCR 1132 referred to Para 10
C
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 406 of 2013.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Gaurav Agrawal(AC)
D For the Petitioner: By Post
A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Vikas Mahajan, S. S. Shamshery and
Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, AAGs, Alok Agarwal, Member
Secretary(NALSA), Ms. Binu Tamta, R. M. Bajaj, R. Bala, Ms. Aarti
Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, M. K. Maroria,
E Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ritesh Kumar, B. V. Balaram Das, G. S. Makker,
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Anil Shrivastav,
Rituraj Biswas, Shuvodeep Roy, Sayooj Mohandas M., M. Shoeb Alam,
Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Atul Jha, Sandeep
Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Anshuman Srivastava,
F S. S. Rebello, Apoorva Bhumesh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal
Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Vinod Sharma, Anil Kumar,
Sanjay Kr. Visen, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh,
Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya
Pratap Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, C. K. Sasi,
Ms. Nayantara Roy, Rajesh Srivastava, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Nishant
G R. Katneshwarkar, Leishangthem Roshmani KH., Ms. Maibam Babina,
Ranjan Mukherjee, Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, K. V. Kharlyngdoh,
K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan, T. G. Narayanan
Nair, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Z. H. Isaac Haiding,
Ms. Nandini Singla, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Kavita Bhardwaj,
H
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 83

Ms. Aarti Kumar, Ashok Panigrahi, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Amit Sharma, A
Sandeep Singh, Ankit Raj, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha
Arputham, Ms. Geetanjali (for M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.) Shuvodeep
Roy, Rituraj Biswas, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, S. Partha
Sarathi, Garvesh Kabra, Amit Kumar Singh, Rohit Pandey, Ms. Rachana
B
Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Suhaan Mukerji, Harsh Hiroo Gursahani,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Abhishek Manchanda, Ms. Kajal Dalal (for PLR
Chambers and Co.), Bhupesh Narula, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira,
V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, Ms.Ritu Kumar,
Ms. Pragya Singh, Satya Mitra, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon,
Ms. Debashree Mukherjee, V. Shamohan, Advs. for the Respondents. C
The Order of the Court was passed by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Over the years, public interest
litigation has brought immense social change through interventions made
and directions issued by this Court. Public interest litigation has been
initiated, very rarely, by suo motu1 exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. D
On most occasions, it has been initiated through a writ petition filed by
activist individuals or organisations2. Again, quite infrequently, it has been
initiated on the basis of a communication received by this Court3.
2. During the last several decades, public interest litigation has
compelled this Court to consider issues relating to the environment, social E
justice, violation of human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the
Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the
failure of the State to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by

1
Suo Motu Writ Petitions: F
In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue Death, (2016) 10 SCC 709, In
Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India,
(2002) 3 SCC 31, In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court
published in Business and Financial News, (2014) 2 SCC 786
2
Writ Petitions filed:
MC Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak], (1986) 2 SCC 176, Pt. Parmanand
Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286, BachpanBachaoAndolan v. Union of India, G
(2011) 5 SCC 1
3
Letters Petitions:
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526, Sheela Barse v. State
of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96, D.K.Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416

H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Parliament4 or due to mis-governance by the State, that is, the Central
Government, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations
leading to rampant illegalities5. The failure of the State to take remedial
steps to fill in the gap when there is no operative law6, except that enshrined
in the Constitution, more particularly Article 21 has resulted in public
interest litigation and at least two cases where a treaty obligation ought
B
to be fulfilled7.
3. In recent times, usually and regrettably, the State has chosen to
challenge the idea of public interest litigation or denigrate it by chanting
the mantra of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘separation of powers’. In most cases,
these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the State
C to recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing
social justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to
our Constitution. There must be a realization that public interest litigation
has given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women
and children. Public interest litigation is one of the more important
D contributions of India to jurisprudence. In fact, the Indian experience
has encouraged some other countries to introduce public interest litigation
in their jurisprudence.
4. This is not to suggest that public interest litigation has not been
misused or that occasionally this Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction,
E but it must be emphasised that wherever this Court might have exceeded
its jurisdiction, it has always been in the interest of the people of the
country prompted by administrative mis-governance or absence of
governance. There are, therefore, occasional transgressions on both
4
Absence of Governance:
F Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549, SampurnaBehura v.
Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433, Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498
5
Mis-Governance:
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 501, Goa Foundation v. Union of
India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary&Ors., (2014) 9
SCC 516
6
When there is no operative law:
G Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, In Re: Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC
733, Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.
[Vrindavan Widows] (2017) 16 SCC 780,MC Mehta[Taj Trapezium] v. Union of India,
(1997) 2 SCC 353
7
Treaty Obligation:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [CEDAW],(1997) 6 SCC 241, Consumer Education &
Research Centre v. Union of India [ILO Asbestos Convention], (1995) 3 SCC 42
H
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 85
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

sides, but that cannot take away from the significance of public interest A
litigation as a non-adversarial source of righting some wrongs and
encouraging social change through accountability and, in cases,
transparency.
5. Even the present petition concerning the rights of prisoners,
which was initiated on the basis of a letter received by this Court from a B
former Chief Justice of India, was initially resisted by the State, but with
the intervention of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the need
for introspection and reform has been recognised and there has been a
positive and constructive expression of interest shown by the Union of
India in this regard. The present petition arose out of a concern shown
by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti on four issues, namely, overcrowding C
in prisons; unnatural deaths of prisoners; gross inadequacy of staff; and
the available staff being untrained or inadequately trained. Ever since
this petition has been pending disposal, despite several directions issued
by this Court from time to time, no finality has yet been attached to the
rights of prisoners. On the contrary, issues that require consideration D
have multiplied and new vistas have opened for consideration.
6. With this preamble, before we actually pass agreed directions
that have been accepted by the learned Attorney General, it is necessary
to give a few background facts relating to the efforts made in the past
on the issue of the rights of prisoners. E
Earlier efforts on the rights of prisoners
7. The first effort relating to the rights of prisoners was made
through the Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-
1983, commonly known as the Mulla Committee. Some of the
recommendations made by the Mulla Committee were accepted by the F
Government of India, while some were not. But what is more important
is the discussion relating to the purpose of punishment and the changes
that should be brought about to achieve this purpose. These questions
are valid even today and continue to demand an answer.
8. In 1987, the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer Committee on Women G
Prisoners, submitted its report, which dealt with issues concerning women
prisoners as a marginalised group and gave several significant
recommendations. The Law Commission of India also dealt with the
rights of prisoners in its 78th Report particularly dealing with congestion
of under trial prisoners in jails. The Bureau of Police Research and
H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Development (BPR&D) also gave a report in 2007 under the
Chairmanship of its Director General. Amongst other things, a National
Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration was also
framed.
9. Apart from the above, there have been some private and
B individual efforts, including a Report on Prison Visiting System in India
by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in 2005. The
responsibilities of Visitors appointed for prisons was the subject matter
of a decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Ranchod v. State of M.P. and Anr.8 The Centre on the Death Penalty
of the National Law University, Delhi, submitted a two-volume report in
C 2016 which dealt with, inter alia, the conditions and treatment of prisoners
on death row. There is also a significant study on Open Prisons conducted
by Smita Chakraburttyon her experiences in prisons in Rajasthan and
Bihar which is of seminal importance.
10. In other words, there is a wealth of material available on record,
D apart from several milestone decisions9 rendered by this Court from
time to time and also in the present petition as well as in R.D. Upadhyay
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others.10
11. Keeping this in mind and the dire necessity of reforms in prison
administration and prison management despite earlier efforts, it was put
E to the learned Attorney General to consider the feasibility of appointing
a Committee to look into the entire range of issues raised, not only in this
petition, but also other issues that have cropped up during the hearing on
several dates and from time to time. As mentioned above, the learned
Attorney General accepted the suggestion of a Committee being
F appointed. Therefore, the following directions are issued:
12. The Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India
shall forthwith issue a notification constituting a Supreme Court Committee
on Prison Reforms consisting of:
1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy, former Judge of the Supreme
G Court as its Chair.
8
MANU/MP/0313/1987
9
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494; Charles Sobraj v. Suptd.
Central Jail, Tihar (1978) 4 SCC 104; Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2
SCC 96; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526
10
(2007) 15 SCC 337
H
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 87
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

2. Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Police Research and A
Development as its Member
3. Director General (Prisons) Tihar Jail, New Delhi as its Member.
13. The Committee will give its recommendations on the following
issues as its Terms of Reference:
1. Review the implementation of the Guidelines contained in the B
Model Prison Manual 2016 by States and Union Territories (UT’s).
2. Review the implementation by the States and UTs of the
recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on
Empowerment of Women in its report tabled in the Parliament
titled ‘Women in Detention and Access to Justice,’ and the C
advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in this
regard.
3. To review the two training manuals for prison personnel prepared
by Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D),
‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Officers 2017’ and
D
‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Warders 2017’ and
forwarded to States and UTs.
4. Review the recommendations made in the report of the Ministry
of Women and Child Development in collaboration with the
National Commission for Women and the National Law
University Delhi on ‘Women in Prisons’. E
5. Review the recommendations made in the report of the National
Commission for Women on ‘Inspection of Prisons/Jails/
Custodial Homes housing Women’.
6. Review the implementation by States and UTs of the Guidelines
contained in ‘Living conditions in Institutions for Children in F
Conflict with Law’ prepared by the Ministry of Women and Child
Development (MWCD) and the Model Rules and Procedures
prepared by the MWCD under the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. G
7. Review the status of the implementation of the guidelines and
advisories issued by MHA to the States and UTs.
8. The Committee may give its consolidated recommendations based
on the above and suggest measures to improve the
implementation of the aforementioned guidelines and advisories, H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A subject to budgetary resources available with the States and the
UTs.
9. To examine the extent of overcrowding in prisons and
correctional homes and recommend remedial measures,
including an examination of the functioning of Under Trial
B Review Committees, availability of legal aid and advice, grant of Sl o
remission, parole and furlough. A)
i)
10.To examine violence in prisons and correctional homes and
recommend measures to prevent unnatural deaths and assess the ii)

availability of medical facilities in prisons and correctional homes
and make recommendations in this regard.
C
11. To assess the availability and inadequacy of staff in prisons and iii)
correctional homes and recommend remedial measures.
12.To suggest training and educational modules for the staff in
prisons and correctional homes with a view to implement the
suggestions.
D
13.To assess the feasibility of establishing Open Prisons, the
iv )
possibility of and the potential for establishing Open Prisons in
different parts of the country and give effect to the
recommendations.
14. To recommend steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor
E children of women prisoners, including their education and health.
15. To examine and recommend measures for the health, education,
development of skills, rehabilitation and social reintegration of
children in Observation Homes, Places of Safety and Special v)
Homes established under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
F (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. vi )
16. Generally, any other recommendation that the Committee may
deem appropriate, fit and proper in furtherance of reforms in
prisons and correctional homes.
17.The Committee while giving its suggestions and
G recommendations may also suggest changes or amendments to
various guidelines contained in the Modern Prison Manual, 2016
and also various directives issued by the Government of India.
vi i)
14. The Committee is requested to give its recommendations in
respect of the first three Terms of Reference, preferably within a period
of three months from the date on which the necessary facilities are
H
provided by the Government of India.
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 89
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

A. It is hereby directed that the Chairman of the Committee would A
be entitled to financial benefits as available to a Judge of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The other terms and conditions of the
Chairman of the Committee would be as accepted by the learned
Attorney General as follows:
Sl o. Pa rticula rs of Term s & Co ndition s A ccep ted B
A) Ch airperso n
i) Resid en tial A cco mm od ation Pay ment o f H RA @ 3 0% of
p ay, as a sp eci al case.
ii) LT C A s ad mis sib le to h igh est
g rad e of G o vernmen t o fficial
u nd er L T C Ru les in t erms of
O M dated 0 8.10 .19 87 (as
revis ed ). C
iii) Staff Car Staff car may be p ro vid ed, if
th e same can b e sp ared by
M H A . If staff car can not b e
p ro vid ed, th e Chairman may
b e p ro vid ed wit h Chau ffeur
d riv en hired con vey an ce w ith
lim it of 6 00 lit res o f p etro l
p er q uart er. D
iv ) Travellin g A llo wan ce T rav eling allo w an ce on
ap po intm en t by air fo r self
an d depen den t family
m embers from ho me to w n to
N ew Delh i fo r join in g t he
Co mm ittee.

O n e ad ditio nal fare fo r th e t he
E
Ch airman, bo th o nw ards and
return if the fam ily memb ers
are left beh ind .
v) Med ical facility T hro ugh CG H S, u nles s
already en titled to m edical
facilities.
vi ) Telep ho ne One Resid en tial F
T eleph on e/ Mo bile/Internet
facility m ay b e allow ed to t he
Ch airman wi th ceilin g for
reimb ursem en t as app licab le
to th e Secretary to G O I in
terms o f M OF ’s O M d at ed
1 4.11 .20 06 & su bseq uent O M
d ated 11 .05 .2 01 2 (as rev ised ), G
u nless alread y po ss es sing
su ch faci li ties.
vi i) New s paper & M agazines Su pp ly of
N ew sp aper/Mag azin es may
b e regu lated as per Do E /s
O M N o. 1(24 )-E .II(A )/96
d ated 13 .0 9.1 99 6 (as revis ed ).
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A B. Since the ‘in service’ officers will be appointed as part of the
Committee, these officers will be treated as ‘on duty’. The officers
would be entitled to all allowances and benefits as per the applicable
rules.
C. The composition of the above Committee will be notified by the
B Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India forthwith.
D. The Committee will have its office in the National Capital Territory
of Delhi.
E. The Committee will indicate to the Union of India as to its
requirements of infrastructure support, including personnel
C necessary for answering the Terms of Reference. The necessary
infrastructure, including manpower will be provided by Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India.
F. All payments indicated above shall be made by the Union of India.

D DIRECTIONS
1. The Committee will make its recommendations as soon as
feasible, other than with respect to the first three Terms of
Reference, dealt with above. It may consider, if necessary,
sending reports on any of the matters as and when the
recommendations are finalized. It shall also make its
E
recommendations to the State Governments.
2. The Committee will devise its own procedure and formulate
modalities necessary for accomplishing the task. It may appoint
such advisers, institutional consultants and experts as it may
consider necessary for any particular purpose. It may call for
F
such information and take such evidence as it may consider
necessary. All State Governments, UT Administrations and the
Ministries/Departments of the Central Government will furnish
such information, documents and other assistance as required by
the Committee.
G 3. We request the Committee to complete the collection of data and
information and make appropriate recommendations and submit
the same to this Court preferably within a period of 12 months.
4. The Committee may visit the States and interact with authorities
concerned of the State Governments. All authorities of the State
H
RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 91
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Governments and Union Territories may be directed to extend full A
cooperation with Committee. It would be the responsibility of the
State Governments to cooperate with the Committee and
facilitate its visit and outreach to relevant authorities.
5. The Committee shall be at liberty to approach this Court to seek
any further clarification or direction, if felt necessary. B
6. The Government of India will make the services of an
Additional Solicitor General of India, as and when required by the
Committee for any assistance.
7. As and when a copy of the final report is submitted, the matter to
be listed for further orders. C

15. The writ petition may be revived and listed as and when
required by the learned Amicus Curiae. We record our appreciation of
the efforts put in by the learned Amicus who has devoted considerable
time in assisting us and has made valuable suggestions from time to
time, in a positive manner, and with a view to take forward the recognition D
and implementation of the human rights of prisoners.

Ankit Gyan Directions issued.

E

F

G

H