Holding

Unnatural deaths in custody, defined per ICRC guidelines, constitute a violation of Article 21, obligating the Union and State governments to implement comprehensive reforms and ensure compensation for victims' families.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013) on the inhuman conditions in 1,382 Indian prisons, examined the high incidence of unnatural deaths, especially suicides, in custodial settings. Relying on the International Committee of the Red Cross guidelines, the Court defined "unnatural" death as one caused by external factors such as homicide, suicide, negligence or accident, and noted that suicides accounted for over 70% of such deaths. The Court observed that existing central and state measures were inadequate, that data classification by the NCRB was unclear, and that prisoners’ rights under Article 21 required humane treatment, medical care, and effective grievance mechanisms. It directed the Union and State governments to circulate the Model Prison Manual, NHRC monograph on suicide prevention, Nelson Mandela Rules, and ICRC guidelines; to clarify NCRB death statistics; to train prison staff; to provide counseling, medical facilities, and open‑prison experiments; and to ensure compensation for the next‑of‑kin of victims of custodial deaths, including children in child‑care institutions.

Issues considered

Whether deaths in prison constitute "natural" or "unnatural" under constitutional and international standards.
Whether the State has a duty to prevent and investigate unnatural custodial deaths, especially suicides.
Whether compensation is payable to the next‑of‑kin of persons who die unnaturally in custody.
Whether existing statutes and guidelines (Model Prison Manual, CPC 1973 s.176(1A), Juvenile Justice Acts) are sufficient to address prison conditions.
Whether the Union and State governments must take specific remedial steps, including dissemination of ICRC and NHRC guidelines, training, medical care, and establishment of Boards of Visitors.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. s.176(1A)
Constitution of Indias. Art.21, s. Schedule VII, Entry 4
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Acts. 2000, s. 2015

Subjects

prison reformcustodial deathunnatural deathArticle 21human rightscompensationsuicide preventionNelson Mandela RulesModel Prison ManualNHRCICRC guidelinesjuvenile justicepublic interest litigation

Judgment

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 519.

RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS A
WITH
I.A. No. 68248 of2017
· (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of2013)
SEPTEMBER 15,2017 B

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ,)
Human Rights - Custodial death - Unnatural deaths in
prisons - Remedial steps - Letter by (Retd.)Chitf Justice R. C. Lahoti
highlighting unnatural deaths in prisons - Letter treated as a public C
interest litigation - Held:. Death is 'unnatural· when its causes are
external. such as intentional injury (homicide, suicide) - Steps are
being taken in some form or the other by Central Government and
State Governments to ameliorate the conditions of prisoners across
the country and thereby reduce the number of unnatural deaths -
However, it is time for the State to go beyond projections through D
circulars and qdvisories and actually come to grips with reality as
it exists in a very large number of prisons - Guidelines on
Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by International Committee
of the Red Crdss (ICRC), to be circulated and considered by Central
Government and all the State Government~ - Further. in relation to
E
suicides in prisons, the monograph published by National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) containing actionable points for suicide
prevention programmes, also referring to certain communications
issued by NHRC from time to time on the aspect of custodial deaths,
to be freely distributed amongst the staff and prisons all over the
country being a document of immense utility insofar as suicide . F
prevention in prisons is concerned - Directions issued - Public
Interest Litigation - Constitution of India - Art.21 and VII',, Schedule,
Entry 4. List II - Nelson Mandela Rules - n: 58-63 and 71 - Model .
Prison Manual 2016 - Chapter VII. XIII, XXJ, XXll and XVI - Code
of Criminal Procedure. 1973 - s.176(1A) - Juvenile Justice (Care G
and Protection of Children) Act.· 2000 - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act. 2015. · .. ·
Human Rights -·Prison Reforms - Management of Prisons -
'Performance Audit' by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) -
Discussed. · ··
H
519
520 SUPREME COUIU REPOJUS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A Puh!ic /all' remedy-· Human Rights - Unnatural deaths in
l~ustodv - Compensation for - Discussed.
Human Rights ·- Need for Prison ref(mns ·-Criminal Justice
System - Theo1)' of retribution and deterrence vis-a-vis RefOrmation
and Rehabilitation - Discussed.
I3 Human Nights ··· Nature of -- Held: Human rights are not
depende11t on the status of a person !mt are universal in nmure.
Human Rights - Custodial deaths o(chi!dre11 in Child Care
Institutions ··· Discussed - Child and Family Welfi1re.
Issuing directions, the Court
c HELD: lJ On the issue of defining natural and unnatural
deaths, attention was drawn to the Guidelines on Investigating
Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the
Red Cross (lCRC). According to the ICRC, 'death' is the
irreversible cessation of all vital functions, including brain activity.
Death is 'natural' when it is caused solely by disease and/or the
D
aging process. It is 'unnatural' when its causes are external, such
as intentional injury (homicide, suicide), negligence or
unintentionalin,iury (dc:ith hy accident). The guidelines provided
by the ICRC deserve considcrnliou and circulation by the Central
Government and all the State Governments. [Para 9] (530-A-CJ
E National Human Rights Commission {NHRC) ancl suicide
prevention
1.2 A disproportionately large number of unnatural deaths
are attributable to suicides. Jn relation to suicides in prisons, the
NHRC has published a monograph sometime in December 2014
F entitled "Suicide in Prison - prevention strategy and implication
from human rights and .legal points of view". This monograph
records that during the period 2007-2011, deaths in prisons on
account of suicide formrd 71 % of the total number of unnatural
deaths. The average suicide rate amo111~ the genernl public for
this period is 11 (per 100,000) whe.~·eas the average suicide rate
G in prison is 16.9 (per 100,000). In other words, the average
suicide rate in prisons is over 50''/o more than in normal
conditions. The monograph refers to certain communications
issued by the NHRC from time to time on the aspect of custodial
deaths. The study conducted by the NHRC as reflected in the
H
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 521

monograph suggests that there are two primary causes for all jail A
suicides - the first is the environment in the jail, which is
apparently 'conducive' to suicidal behaviour, and the second is
the crisis situation faced by an inmate. [Paras 10, 11] [530-C-G)
l.3 The NHRC has suggested various protective factors
or measures that could be employed to reduce the number of B
suicides in prisons. In its conclusion, the NHRC has recorded
that the success of efforts to prevent suicides in prisons depends
on the ability and willingness to identify the vulnerability of each ·
prisoner, provide necessary supervision and support and offer
alternative ways of coping and reducing emotional distress. The
monograph prepared by the NHRC deserves to be freely c
distributed amongst the staff and prisons all over the country
since it is a document of immense utility insofar as suicide
prevention in prisons is concerned. lParas 13-15) {531-E-F, G-
H; 532-B]
The need to reform D
l.4 Steps are being taken in some form or the other by the
Central Government and hopefully by the State Governments to
ameliorate the conditions of prisoners across the country and
thereby reduce the number of unnatural deaths. These steps give
an impression that there is nothing to be seriously worried about.
E
However, the statistics provided by the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB) reflect the ground reality and dispel that
impression. It is time for the State to go beyond projections
through circulars and advisories and actually come to grips with
reality as it exists in a very large number of prisons. What is
practised in our prisons is the theory of retribution and deterrence F
and the ground situation emphasizes this, while our criminal
justice system believes in reformation and rehabilitation and that
·is why handcuffing and solitary confinement are prohibited. It is
this 'rejection' of the philosophy of our criminal justice system
that leads to violence in prisons and eventually unnatural deaths. G
This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of
Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to a life of dignity.
There must be a genuine desire to ensure that the guarantee to
a life of dignity is provided to the extent possible even In prisons,
otherwise Article 21 of the Constitution will remain a dead letter.
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A It must be appreciated by the State that the common person does
not violate the law for no reason at all. It is circumstances that
lead to a situation where there is a violation of law. On many
occasions, such a violation may be of a trivial nature or may be a
one-time aberration and, in such circumstances, the offender has
to be treated with some degree of humanity. At least in such cases,
B
i:etribution and deterrence cannot be an answer to the offence
and the offender. Unless the State changes this mindset and takes
steps to give meaning to life and liberty of every prisoner, prison
reforms can never be effective or long lasting. fParas 49, 501
[547-E-H; 548-A-D] .
c The need to compensate
l.5 Over the last several decades this Court and almost
every High Court has relied on Article 21 of the Constitution
and thought it appropriate to compensate the next of kin for an
unnatural custodial death. The constitutional courts can go on
D delivering judgment after judgment on this issue and award
compensation, but unless the State realizes that custodial death
is itself a crime and monetary compensation is not necessarily
the only appropriate relief that can be granted to the next of kin
of the deceased, such unnatural deaths will continue unal~atcd.
Therefore, what is needed is a review of all prisons with a
E l~umanitarian nuance. Over the last several years, there have
been discussions on the rights of victims and one of the rights of
a victim of crime is to obtain compensation. Schemes for victim
· compensation have been framed by almost every State and that
is a wholesome development.. But it is important for the Central
F Government and the State Governments to realize that persons
who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also victims -
sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy
or both. There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin
from receiving compensation only because the victim of an
unnatural death is a criminal. Human rights are not dependent
G on the status of a person but are universal in nature. Once the
issue is looked at from this perspective, it will be appreciated
that merely because a person is accused of a crime or is the
perpetrator of a crime and in prison custody, that person could
nevertheless be a victim of an unnatural death. Hence the need
H to compensate the next of kin.[ Paras 53, 54] [548-G-H; 549-A-D]
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 523

Custodial death of Children A
2. One of the issues not touched upon relates to the
custodial death of children in child care institutions under the
.Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as
well as the Juvenile .Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act~ 2015. There is no documentation on the number of unnatural B
deaths (if any) of children in child care institutions and this should
now be on the agenda of the Central Government and the State
Governments (particularly the Department concerned with the
welfare of children) with far greater concern than has been shown
so far. lt is time that unnatural deaths of children in child care
. institutions .arc seriously looked into by all concerned if the C
children of our country arc to be provided with a better future.
[Para 57] (549-E-F, G-H; 550-A)
.Directions
3.l The Secretary General of the Supreme Court will
transmit a copy of this decision to the Registrar General of every D
High Court within one week with a request to the Registrar
General to place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to register a
suo motu public interest petition with a view to identifying the
next of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural
E
death as revealed by the NCRB during the period between 2012
and 2015 and even thereafter, and awllrd suitable compensation,
unless adequate compensation has already been awarded. [Para
57] [550-C-D]
3.2 The Union of India through. the Ministry of Home Affairs
will ensure circulation within one month and in any event by 31st F
October, 2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph
prepared by the NHRC entitled "Suicide. in Prison - prevention
strategy and implication from human rights and legal points of
view", (iii) the communications sent by the NHRC (iv) the
compendium of advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs G
to the State Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules and
(vi) the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by
the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director
General or Inspector General of Police (as the case may be) in
charge of prisons. in every State and Union Territory. All efforts
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A should be made, as suggested by the NHRC and others, to reduce
and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in prisons and to
document each and every death in prisons - both natural and
unnatural. [Para 571 [550-E-GJ
3.3 The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs
B will direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction between
unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on the website
of the NCRB and in its Annual Reports and also explain the sub-
categorization 'others' within the category of unnatural deaths.
The NCRB should also be required to sub- categorize natural
deaths.The sub-categorization and clarification should be
C complied with by 31st October, 2017. [Para 57] [550-G; 551-A]
3.4 The State Governments should, in conjunction with the
State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State
Police Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and
Development conduct training and sensitization programmes for
D senior police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties and
responsibilities as also the rights and duties of prisoners. A copy
of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Member-
Secretary of each SLSA to follow-up and ensure compliance. [Para
57] 551-B-C]
3.5 The State Governments arc directed to appoint
E
counselors and support persons for counselling prisoners,
particularly first-time offenders. In this regard, the services of
recognized NGOs can be taken and encouraged. [Para 57] [551-
D-E]
3.6 While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should
F be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending the
time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of
using phones and video conferencing for communications not only
between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner, but also
between a prisoner and the lawyer, whether appointed through
G the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise. [Para 57] [551-
E-F]
3.7 The Chief Justice of every High Court is requested, in
the capacity of Patron-in-Chief of the State Legal Services
Authority, to take up this initiative and, if necessary, set up a
Committee headed preferably by the Executive Chairperson of
H
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS TN 1382 PRISONS 525

the State Legal Se'rvices Authority to implement the directions A
given above. [Para 57] [551-H; 552-A]
3.8 The State Governments are directed to study the
availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial
steps wherever necessary. (Para 571 [552-C-D]
3.9 The State Governments arc directed to constitute an B
appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter XXIX of the
Model Prison Manual indicating their duties and responsibilities.
This exercise should be completed by 30th November, 2017. [Para
57] [552-E-F]
3.10 The suggestion of encouraging the establishment of C
'open Jails' or 'open prisons' is certainly worth considering. [Para
571 [552-F)
3.11 The Ministry of Women & Child J)evelopment of the
Government of India which is concerned with the implementation
of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
is directed to discuss with the concerned officers of the State D
.. -, Governments and formulate procedures for tabulating the number
of children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in child_ care
institutions where they arc kept in custody either because they
are in conflict with law or because they need care and protection.·
Necessary steps should be tak!!n in this regard by 31st J)ecember, E
2017. [Para 57) [552-A-B)
Rudu! Sah " State of Bihar (1983) 4 S.CC 141 : [1983]
3 SCR 508; SebastianM. Hongrayv. Unionoflndia{1984)
3 SCC 82 : [1984] 3 SCR 544; Nilabati Behera v.
State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : [1993) 2 SCR 581; F
Kewal Pati v. State of Bihar (1995) 3 SCC 600 : [1995]
3 SCR 207; D.K.Basu v'. State of West Benga (1997) 1
sec 416 : [1996) 10 Suppl. SCR 284 - relied on.
Nina Rajan Pillai & Ors. v. Union of India 180 (2011)
DLT 104; Kewalbai v: The State of Maharashtra. 2013-
G
(3) Botn CR (Cri) 601; Bheduki Buragohain v. State
of Assam. 2013 (2) GLT 370; Madhuben Adesara v.
State of Gujarat (Decision of Gujarat High Court in R/
SCR.A./536/2010 (unreported)); Banalata Dash v.
State of Orissa & Ors. AIR 2012 Ori 97; Amandeep v.
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A State ofPunjab &Am: (2013) 169PLR191; Tmt. Rohini
Lingam v. State (2008) 5 MLJ 822; Salm & Am: v. State
of Kera/a & Ors. (Decision of Kerala High Court in
CRP No. 1170/2015); Ravindra Nath Awasthi v. State
of' UP 2009 2 AWC 2090 (All); Mst. Madina v. State
of' Rajasthan & Ors. 2000 Cri LJ 4484; Dukhuram v.
B
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 2011 (3) MPHT 81;
Sa11tosh Kumari v. State of H.P & Ors. 2008 ACJ 1684;
State ofJammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Dar
(Decision of J&K High Court in LPAHC No. 36/
2015); Mrs. Meena Singh v. State of Bihar 2001 Cri
c LJ 3573; Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government
Organization) v. State of M.P AIR 2015 MP 212-
approved.
Ajab Singh v. State of UP (2000) 3 SCC 521; Murti
Devi v. State ofDelhi (1998) 9 SCC 604; Rohtash Kumar
D v. State of Ha1yana (2013) 14 SCC 290 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[19831 3 SCR 508 relied on Para 41
[19~4] 3 SCR 544 relied on Para 42
(1993] 2 SCR 581 relied on Para 43
E
[1995) 3 SCR 207 relied on Para 44
f1996) 10 Suppl. SCR 284 relied on Para· 45
(2000) 3 sec 521 referred to Para 46
(1998) 9 sec 604 referred to Para 46
F (2013) 14 sec 290 referred to Para 46
180 (2011) DLT l04 approved Para 47
2013 (3) Born CR (Cri) 601 approved Para 47
2013 (2) GLT 370 approved Para 47
AIR 2012 Ori 97 approved Para 47
G (2013) 169 PLR 191 approved Para 47
(2008) 5 MLJ 822 approved Para 47
2009 2 AWC 2090 (All) approved Para 47
2000 Cri LJ 4484 approved Para 47
H
2011 (3) MPHT 81 approved Para 47
RE- INHlJMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 527

2008 AC.l 1684 approved Para 47 A
2001 Cri LJ 3573 approved Para 47
AIR 2015 MP 212 approved Para 47
CIVIL ORIGINAL HJRISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
406of2013.
lJnder Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. B
WITH
I. A. No. 68248 of 2017.
Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. (AC).
K.K. Vcnugopal, AG, C. D. Singh, D.K. Thakur, D. K. Singh, c
AAGs, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., R.M.. Bajaj, Ms. Binu Tamta,
Ms. Sushma Suri, B.K. Prasad, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, M.K. Maroria,
Guntur Prabhakai~ Ms. Prerna Singh, Shuvodecp Roy, SayoojMohandas
M., M. Shocb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal ·Singh, Mojahid Karim
Khan. Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AC Box\ Patro, Anshuman
Srivastava, Apoorva Bhumesh, Ms .. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jcsal Wahi, D
Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Seema Shanna, Varindcr Kumar
Shanna, Shariq Ahmed, 13.K. Satija, Tapcsh Kumar Singh, Mohd.
Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, Lagnesh Mishra,
Parikshit P. Angadi, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, Ms. Yanshaja Shukla,
Maha ling Pandarge, N ishant R. Katneshwarkar, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, E
Ashok Kumar Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, T. G. Narayanan Nair,
Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang
Michael, Z. H. Isaac Haiding, Ms. Anindita Pujari. Ashok Panigrahi,
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, S. S. Shamshery, Amit
Sharma, Ankit .Raj, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avnccsh
Arputham, Ms. AnuradhaArputhmn, Amit Arora, Ms. Simran Jeet (for F
M/s Arputham Aruna & Co.), Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, M. Yogesh
Kanna, Ms. Mahalakshmi, Ms. SujathaBagadhi, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,
Mrityunjai Singh. Adarsh Kumar Upadhyay, Saurabh Agrawal.
Ms.Komal Mundhra, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Sukrit R.
Kapoor, Raja Chatterjee, Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Chanchal Kr. Ganguly, G .
K.Y. Jagdishvaran;· Mrs. G. Indira~ M.S.Doabia, S.S. Rawat,
Y.G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Manu Sundaram, T.N. Rartla
Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. T. Ycera Reddy, D. Mahesh Babu,
Ms. Ritu Kumar,· Satya Mitra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs. for the
Respondents.
H·
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Custodial violence has always been
a matter of great concern for all civilized societies. Custodial violence
could take the form of third degree methods to extract information-the
method used need not result in any physical violence but could be in the
B form of psychological violence. Custodial violence could also include a
violation of bodily integrity through sexual violence-it could be to satisfy
the lust ofa person in authority or for some other reason. The 'Mathura
Rape Case' is one such incident that most arc familiar with. Custodial
violence could, sometimes, lead to the death of its victim who is in a
terribly disadvantaged and vulnerable condition. All these fonns of
c custodial violence make it abhorrent and invite disparagement from all
sections of civilized society.
2. Like most societies, we are not strangers to custodial violence
and unnatural deaths but our vibrant democracy nermits us to debate
and discuss these issues with rational arguments. However, right sounding
D noises critical of custodial violence (in any form) cannot achieve any .
useful purpose unless persons in authority hear the voices of the victims
or the silence of the dead and act on them by taking remedial steps.
There must be a greater degree of sensitivity among those in authority
with regard to persons in custody and it has been the endeavour of the
E constitutional courts in our country, over ~everal decades, to consistently
flag this issue. The results have been somewhat mixed but the effort will
continue as :ong as Article 21 remains in our Constitution. This message
goes out loud and clear, as also the message that the dignity of the
individual is not a plaything for those in authority.

F 3. Chief Justice R. C. Lahoti highlighted one aspect of custodial
deaths, namely, unnatural deaths in prisons. This was through a letter
addressed to this Court which has been treated as a public interest
litigation. We have been very ably assisted in understanding the concern
raised and in appreciating different perspectives on the issue by the
learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal who has spent considerable
G time and effort in placing all relevant material before us and for this he
deserves our gratitude.
4. In our judgment andorderofS 1h February, 2016 1 we had drawn
attention to four issues regarding prisons raised in the letter addressed

H 1
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 529
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

by former Chief Justice Lahoti. The four issues are: (i) Overcrowding in A
.. , prisons; (ii) Unnatural death of prisoners; (iii) Gross inadequacy of staff,
and (iv) Available staff being untrained or inadequately trained
5. In the order of 5'11 February, 2016 we had dealt with the issue
of overcrowding in prisons and had issued certain directions. In the
present decision, we consider unnatural deaths in prisons. On this issue B
of unnatural deaihs in prisons, the only reliable information available is
from the National Crime Records Bureau or the NCRB. The website of
the NCRB 2 indicates that deaths in judicial custody, both natural and
unnatural. are as under: ·

I Year Natural deaths Unnatural deaths c
i 20l2 1345 126
I 2013 1482 ll5
I 2014 1507 195
I 2015 1469 115

6. The distinction made by the NCRB between natural and D
unnatural deaths is unclear. For example, if a prisoner dies due to a lack
of proper medical attention or timely medical attention, would that be
classified as a. natural death or an unnatural death? This needs to be
explained as submitted by the learned Amicus.
7. Be that as it may, the break-up of unnatural deaths given by E
the NCRB on its website is as under:
Year Suicide Murder Death Assault by Negligence Others
by due to outside by jail
inmates firing clements staff
2012 87 4 10 4 0 22 F
2013 70 8 J 12 0 23
2014 94 12 2 4 J 82
2015 77 11 0 7 0 19
8. Again, there is a lack of clarity in the classification ofunnatural
deaths in the category of' others'. What does this category encompass? G
We have not been provided any infonnation in this regard by the Union
of India and it is submitted by the learned Amicus, that the NCRB should
be directed to explain the difference not only between a natural death
and an unnatural death but also to clarify the sub-categorization of 'others'
unnatural deaths.
1 ncrb.gov. in
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A 9. On the issue ofdefining natural and unnatural deaths, the
learned Amicus drew our attention to the Guidelines on Investigating
Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC). According to the ICRC, 'death' is the irreversible cessation
of all vital functions, including brain activity. Death is 'natural' when it is
caused solely by disease and/or the aging process. It is 'unnatural' when
B
its causes are external, such as intentional injury (homicide, suicide),
negligence or unintentional inju1y (death by accident). We have perused
the guidelines provided by the ICRC and are of the view that these
guidelines deserve consideration and circulation by the Central
Government and all the State Governments.
c NHRC and suicide prevention
l 0. It has been pointed out by the learned A micus that a
disproportionately large number of unnatural deaths are attributable to
suicides. In this regard, it has been brought to our notice by the learned
Amie us that in relation to suicides in prisons, the National Human Rights
D Commission or the NHRC has published a monograph sometime in
December 2014 entitled "Suicide in Prison - prevention strategy and
implication from human rights and legal points of view". This monograph
records that during the period 2007-2011, deaths in prisons on account
of suicide formed 71 % of the total P.'.1mber of unnatural deaths. It was
E a]so pointed out that the average suicide rate amorig ~he general public
for this period is 11 (per 100,000) whereas the average suicide rate in
prison is 16.9 (per 100,000). In other words, the average suicide rate in
prisons is over 50% more than in normal conditions. The monograph
refers to certain c01mnunications issued by the NHRC from time to time
on the aspect of custodial deaths, but we will refer to them in somewhat
F greater detail a little later.

11. The study conducted by the NHRC as reflected in the
monograph suggests that there are two primary causes for all jail suicides -
the first is the environment in the jail, which is apparently 'conducive' to
suicidal behaviour, and the second is the crisis situation faced by an
G inmate.

12. Detailing the characteristics of a prison environment that make
suicides in prisons more likely, the NHRC monograph mentions the
following: ·
1. Authoritarian environment.
H
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 531
[MADAN B. LOKUR, .l.]

2. No apparent control over the future. A
3. Isolation from family, friends and community.
4. The shame of incarceration.
5. Dehumanizing aspects of incarceration.
6. Fears.
B
7. Staff insensitivity to the arrest and incarceration
phenomenon
8. Hostility and bullying by other inmates.
9. Lack of adequate medical and psychological counseling and
treatment facility c
IO.Delay in deciding the parole.
Similarly, the characteristics of a crisis situation are mentioned and they
are as follows:
1. Recent excessive drinking and/or use of drugs.
2. Recent loss of stabilizing resources. D
3. Severe 'guilt or shame over the offence.
4. Same-sex rape.
5. Current mental illness.
6. Poor health or terminal illness.
E
7. Approaching an emotional breaking point.
13. The NHRC has suggested various protective factors or
measures that could be employed to reduce the number of suicides in
prisons. Among them arc visits and contact that the prisoner could have
with the family, constructive occupation in prison, instilling hopes and
F
plans for the future and support from staff.
14. The NHRC also conducted a National Seminar on Prison
·Reforms on l S'h April, 2011. The recommendations made in the National
Seminar have also been indicated in the monograph as also some
actionable points for suicide prevention programmes. In its conclusion,
G
the NHRC has recorded that the success of efforts to prevent suicides
in prisons depends on the ability and willingness to identify the vulnernbility
of each prisoner, provide necessary supervision and support and offer
·alternative ways of coping and reducing emotional distress. It is noted
that any proposed piecemeal solution to the problem of suicides in prisons
will not result in any long-term improvement. H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 15. \\'hat we have mentioned above is only a brief indication of
the extent to which the NHRC has put in an effort to bring about a
composite monograph and a detailed study on suicides in prisons. In our
view, this would certainly be useful to prison officials and staff in reducing,
if not eliminating suicides in prisons. The monograph prepared by the
NHRC, in our opinion, deserves to be freely distributed amongst the
B
staff and prisons all over the country since it is a document of immense
utility insofar as suicide prevention in prisons is concerned.
Relevant communications issued by the NHRC
16. Apart from the above efforts of the NHRC, our attention has
c been drawn by the learned Amicus to various communications sent by
the NHRC to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Union
Territories. The first such communication is dated 14'" December, 1993
on the subject of reporting of custodial deaths/rapes within 24 hours. A
request was made in the communication that District Magistrates and
Superintendents of Police may be given suitable instructions to report to
D the Secretary General of the NHRC any custodial death or custodial
rape within 24 hours of occurrence or of these officers coming to know
of such an incident.
J 7. Another communication dated 21 "'June, 1995 was sent by the
NHRC to all the Chief Secretaries of States and the Union Territories
E clarifying that not only deaths in police custody but also deaths in judicial
custody ought to be reported. This clarified the communication of l 4'h
December, 1993 which was perhaps misunderstood by the Chief
Secretaries and their subordinates to mean that the intention of the NHRC
was to obtain infonnation only with regard to deaths in police custody
F and not deaths in judicial custody.
18. On 1O'h August, 1995 the NHRC addressed a communication
to the Chief Ministers of all the States on the necessity of video-recording
of post-mo1tem examinations in cases of custodial deaths. The reason
behind this communication was that a post-mortem report is a very
G valuable record and has considerable importance in assisting in drawing
conclusions on the cause of death of a person, particularly in a police
lock-up or in a jail. The NHRC noted that though the process ofvideo-
rccording of the post-mortem examination would involve extra cost,
human life is more valuable than the cost of video-recording and in any
case, occasions necessitating video-recording should ideally be very
H limited.
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 533
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.J.

19. The NHRC addressed a communication on 27'h March, 1997 A
to the Chief Ministers/Administrators of all the States/Union Territories
requesting adoption of the Model Autopsy Fonn and the additional
procedure for inquest. The Model Autopsy Form was prepared after
ascertaining the views of the States and discussing with experts in the
field the necessity of having such a document. The Fonn was modeled
B
on the United Nations Model Autopsy Protocol but was not adopted as
it is. Some incidental improvements were made, particularly with regard
to the conduct of inquests. The communication enclosed therewith the
Model Autopsy Form and the additional procedure for inquest as
annexures to the said letter.
20. The NHRC sent a communication dated 3ra January, 2001 to c
all the Home Secretaries regarding the revised instructions to be followed
while sending post-mortem reports in cases of custodial death. In order
to streamline the procedure, the NHRC issued certain instructions and
among them were the following:
1. The post-mortem report along with the videograph and the D
magisterial enqui1y report must be sent to the NHRC within two
months of the incident.
2. The post-mortem rep011 should be sent in the profonna attached
to the letter dated 27'" March, 1997.
3. The magisterial enquiry into a custodial death should be completed E
as soon as possible but within a period of two months.
4. In some cases of custodial death, the viscera are sent for
examination after the post-mortem examination and a report is
called for. Since this may take some time, it was instructed that
the post-mortem report and other documents should be sent to F
the NHRC without waiting for the viscera repo11, which could
be sent later on.
21. On 21" December, 200 I the NHRC addressed a
communication to all Chi cf Ministers and Administrators of all the States
and Union Territories giving modified instructions regarding videography G
of post-mortem examinations in respect of deaths in judicial custody. It.
was clarified that the requirement of videographing of post-mortem
examinations in respect of deaths in jail would be applicable only where
the preliminaiy inquest by the Magistrate had raised suspicion of foul
play or where any complaint alleging foul play was made to the concerned
authorities or there was any other reas011 to suspect foul play. H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A 22. It is clear from the above that the role of the NHRC is
extremely important whenever there is an unnatural death in a prison.
Although the NHRC bas issued detailed instructions from time to time, it
docs appear however that these instructions are not being taken seriously
but arc being foll owed more in the breach.
B Nelson Ma~dela Rules
23. The learned Amicus submitted that the General Assembly of
the United Nations adopted the Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) adopted on l 71h
December, 2015. These Rules provide useful internationally accepted
guidelines for implementation by prison administrations across the country.
c He drew our particular attention to Rules 58 to 63 which deal with
prisoner contact with the outside world. It was submitted that merely
because a person is in prison, it docs not mean that he or she should be
cut off from the outside world. In fact, the prisoner should be allowed to
communicate with his family and friends at regular intervals and should
D also be permitted to communicate and consult with a legal adviser of his
or her choice. This by itself could have a soothing effect on the prisoner.
He submitted that prisoners should be informed of important items of
news through newspapers. periodicals or special institutional publications
so that contact with the outside world is maintained. This. according to
the learned Amieus, would substantially reduce the feeling of isolation
E that a prisoner has and would have an impact on his or her mental stability
thereby reducing the possibility of any hannfu 1activity by the prisoner.
24. On the specific issue of custodial deaths, the learned Amicus
drew our attention to Rule 71. of the Nelson Mandela Rules to submit
that any custodial death, disappearance or serious injury shall be reported
F without delay to a judicialm other competent auth01ity that is independent
of the prison administration. The learned Amicus also pointed out that
the Mandela Rules require the prison administration to treat the body of
a deceased prisoner with respect and dignity.
Model Prison Manual
G 25. The learned Attorney General responded to the submissions
of the Amicus by making a preliminary submission before adverting to
the issue ofunnatural deaths in prisons. He submitted that the subject of
prisons was a State subject in Entry 4 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution and as such the Central Government could not legislate
on the subject or pass any binding directions but could only issue
H
;

RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 535
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

advisories to the State Governments. Really therefore, the burden of A
improving prison conditions was on the State Governments but the Central
Government would be more than willing to render assistance to this
Court and to the States in improving prison .conditions, within constitutional
limits. With this caveat, the learned Attorney General adverted primarily
to the Model Prison Manual 2016 issued by the Government of India B
through the Ministry of Home Affairs.
26. It was submitted that Chapter VII of the Manual and
lartieularly paragraph 7.95. r thereof, provides that in the event of a
custodial death, the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and the guidelines issued by the NHRC should be
followed. On this basis, it was submitted that the guidelines issued by the
c
NHRC are treated more or less as binding and are scrupulously followed.
27. Reference was also made to Chapter XIII of the Manual and
the section therein on 'Accidents and. Suicides'. Particular reference
was made to paragraph 13.38 which is to the effect that when a sudden
or violent death or suicide takes place in a prison, immediate notice shall D
be sent to the concerned Superintendent and the Medical Officer.
Paragraph Jl3 .41 relates to custody of articles that could be used to
commit suicide such as knives and tools used in workshcds and barber's
or tailor's equipment as well as ropes for wells. It is provided that care
should be taken that no such object is left about in the prison that may be E
used for committing suicide. In fact in paragraph 13.42 it is stated that
prisoners with apparently suicidal tendencies should be carefully watched
and not left alone in a cell. Such prisoners should also be referred to
counselors and psychiatrists and should be supervised closely. Chapter
XIII of the Manual also provides that reasonable caution should be taken
to guard against accidents when convicts are employed on dangerous F
work such as blasting, excavation or other works of a dangerous
_character. It is also provided in paragraph 13.44 that poisonous drugs,
surgical instruments and other similar items should not be left within the
reach of prisoners.
28. The said Chapter XIII of the Manual contains a section devoted G
to the issue of prevention of fires and yet another section is devoted to
epidemics and precautions to be taken when an epidemic occurs such
as cholera, cnteric fevers, gastroenteritis etc. It is provided that infected
prisoners should be segregated and kept under medical observation and
appropriately treated. Paragraph 13.62 provides that whenever an H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A epidemic occurs, the Medical Officer shall at once arrange for vaccination
or inoculation as the case may be of all prisoners, prison personnel and
members of their families. Paragraph 13.63 provides that overcrowding
must be strictly avoided both in the hospital as well as in every cell and
ward. This Chapter also contains a section devoted to hunger strikes
and the procedure to be followed in cases of hunger strikes and forcible
B
feeding of prisoners on a hunger strike.
29. The learned Attorney General brought to our notice that NGOs
also have a role to play in rehabilitation programmes ofprisoners as mentioned
in Chapter XXll of the Manual. He also submitted that legal aid is provided
to prisoners and in fact Chapter XVI of the Manual is devoted entirely
c to legal aid and the right of a prisoner to free legal representation or legal
aid. There is also a reference in the Manual to the Under Trial Review
Committee adverted to in our order dated 5'h February, 2016.
30. The learned Attorney General submitted that there exists a
grievance rcdrcssal system as mentioned in Chapter XXI of the Manual.
D Consequently, if any prisoner has any grievance, he or she can bring it to
the notice of the authorities through a complaint box installed in the prison
at an easily accessible place. In this context, he drew our attention to
the' Perspective' section of the Manual containing a section on the rights
and duties ofprisoners which includes the right to human dignity, the
E right to basic minimum needs, the right to communication, the right to
access to law, the right against arbitrary prison punishment, the right to
meaningful and gainful employment and finally the right to be released
on the due date. It is not at all clear whether this information is effectively
passed on to the prisoners. Our attention was also drawn to a handbook
for prisoners captioned "Prisoners Rights and Obligations" prepared by
F the Bureau of Police Research and Development. While we have no
comment to make on the contents of the handbook, it is again not clear
whether it is made available to all the prisoners and even if it is made
available, whether it is in a local language that the prisoner understands
or whether the contents of the handbook arc explained to the prisoner in
G the event the prisoner is found to be illiterate. In the absence of a
prisoner having any knowledge about his or her rights, a grievance
rcdressal mechanism is quite meaningless.
Compendium of Advisories issued by the Government
31. The learned Attorney General then placed before us a
H Compendium of Advisories on Prison Administration 2016 issued by the
L

RE- !NHL AN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 537
[MADAN B. LOK~R, J.]

Government of India. This was in the context of his submission that A
since 'prisons' is a State subject as per Entry 4 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, all that the Central Government can do is
to issue advisories to the State Governments on the subject of prisons.
The learned Attorney General submitted that advisories had been issued
from time to time to the State Governments on a vaiicty of issues,
B
including on the issue of prison administration as well as stress relieving
programmes such as yoga and meditation courses, Art of Living courses,
Pranic course<; and Vipassana.
32. All that we can say in this regard is that while the Central
.Government may have noble intentions and is perhaps taking steps to
improve prison administration and to bring about reforms in prisons, the
c
fact remains that conditions in prisons leave a lot to be desired and there
arc quite a few unnatural deaths in prisons. Suggestions and
recommendations made by the Central Government dolook good on
paper but thc.y do not seem to have any remedial effect. Perhaps it is
time that the Ministry of Home Affairs takes a more proactive interest D
in prisons and prison refo1111s by having sensitization programmes for
those at the helm of affairs in prisons so that there is a positive impact on
the ground. After all, even if it is assumed that the Central Government
has certain constitutional limitations with regard to prison management,
surely, it cannot be said that the Central Government need not share its
expertise or give any guidance to the State Governments .. E

33. Adverting to the Nelson Mandela Rules, the learned Attorney
General also expressed the view that State Governments have several
development priorities and while they will certainly look after the interests
of prisoners, there are other issues that might require greater attention
and greater financial commitment. While this may be so, we arc clearly F
of the view that Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be put on the back
burner and as mentioned in the Mandela Rules even prisoners are entitled
to live a life of dignity. Therefore, no State Government can shirk its
duties and responsibilities for providing better facilities to prisoners. If a
State Government is unable to do so, it should be far more circumspect G
in arresting and detaining persons, particularly under-trial prisoners who
constitute the vast majority of those in judicial custody. The State
Governments and the prosecution do not have to oppose every bail
application nor do they have to ask for the remand of every suspect
pending investigation. If the fundamental right to life and liberty postulated
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A by Article 21 of the Constitution is to be given its true meaning, the
Central Government and the State Governments must accept reality
and not proceed on the basis that prisoners can be treated as chattel.
Challenges indicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General
34. The National Forum for Prison Reforms, an intervener in the
B present petition, submitted that there should be a 'perfonnanee audit' by
the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of prisons so that it is
known whether all prisons are in fact adhering to the provisions of the
Model Prison Manual or at least the rules and regulations framed by the
State Government for the management of prisons.
c 35. Our attention was drawn to the report of the Comptroller and
Auditor General ofindia (CAG) in respect of the Government ofNCT
of Delhi for the year ended 31 ''March, 2014 in relation to social, general
and economic sectors. The submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the National Foru1v. was that as a result of what could be
D termed as a performance audit, the CAG provided some very useful
suggestions. In the particular audit referred to, it was pointed out that
the hospital in Tihar Jail was not equipped to face any emergency situation
as there was a shortage of doctors and other medical staff ranging from
18% to 62%. A reference was also made in the report to the problem of
substance abuse in prisons and the shortcomings noted in the Drug De-
E addiction Centre in Tihar Jail. One of the shortcomings was the non-
availability of essential medicines for a period ranging from one to thirty-
four months. If these are the conditions in what is perhaps the 'best
prison' in the country, we shudder to think what the position would be in
other prisons across the country.
F 36. The learned counsel also made a reference to Section I 76(1A)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates that where
there is a death or disappearance from the custody of the police or any
other custody authorized by a Magistrate or a Court, in addition to the
inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the
G Judicial Magistrate.or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be,
within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. 3 It was
submitted that in view of the provisions oflaw, it was obligatory on the
·' t 76. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.- I 1) When the case is of the
nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 174. the nearest
Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-
section (I) of Section 174. any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the
H cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 539
[!Y1ADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
·~·

part of the State to ensi:1re that an inquiry is conducted in respect of A
every death that takes p}ace in custody.
37. The need for an inquiry into every death in custody was also
emphasized by the learned Amicus, who submitted that there was
discrepancy of data between deaths reported in prisons as per the NCRB
and deaths reported in p~isons as derived from the data available with B
the NHRC. It was submitted by the learnedAmicus that this discrepancy
needs to be reconciled and adequate reasons must be provided for every
death that takes place in a prison.
, Suggestions of the learned A111ic11s
38. Taking all these submissions into consideration, the learned C
Amieus suggested that we issue, amongst others, the following directions:
.....
_..., '
1. The treatment of prisoners should be more humane and the
dehumanizing effect of imprisonment should be reduced.

officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would
have in holding an inquiry into an offence. D
( 1A) Where,-
(a) any person dies or disappears, or
(b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman,
while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other
custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court, under this Code in addition to the
inqui1y or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Judicial E
Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local
jurisdiction the offence has been committed.
(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him
in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the
circumstances of the case.
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of F
the dead body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the
cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined ..
(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever
practicable, infonn the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known,
and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.
(5) The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate or Executive Magistrate
G
or police officer holding an inquiry or investigation, as the case may be. under sub-
section (IA) shall, within twenty-four hours of the death ofa person, forward the body
with a view to its being examined to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical
man.appointed in this behalf by the State Government, unless it is not possible to do
so for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Explanation.--ln this section, t~e expression "relative" means parents, childre_n,
brothers, sisters and spouse. H
. 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 2. The involvement ofNGOs should be encouraged especially with
first-time offenders.
3. Counseling should be encouraged and the State Governments
should engage the services of psychologists or social counselors
who could visit the prisons on a daily basis to counsel prisoners,
B particularly first-time offenders. The learned Amicus
acknowledged th.e contribution made by the Inspector General
(Prisons) Karnataka for this suggestion.
4. A prisoner should be enabled to communicate with family
members and to the extent possible, the meeting time available
c to a prisoner should be extended. Ifpossible, a prisoner may also
be allowed to speak to his family on telephone.
5. A prisoner should have access to legal services including legal
aid. Jn this context the learned Amicus referred to a report
prepared under the auspices of the Bihar State Legal Services
D Authority by Ms. Smita Chakraburtty on her experiences in
prisons in Bihar which suggests that many inmates do not
voluntarily approach the legal aid clinics and so they must be
encouraged to do- so.
6. A status report prepared by the Commonwealth Human Rights
E Initiative on the implementation of the legal aid schemes in
Rajasthan particularly the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal
Services) Regulations, 20 I 0 and the NALSA (Legal Aid Clinics)
Regulations, 2011 suggests that the basic mechanism to ensure
legal representation and advice is absent in a majority of sub-
jails.
F
7. There should be an independent mechanism for entcrtaii1ing the
grievances of inmates without putting the inmates into trouble
with the prison staff or other inmates. A reference in this regard
was made to Ruic 56 and Rule 57 of the Mandela Rules.
8. Over-crowding in jails should be reduced and that might help in
G
reducing the possibility of suicides by the prisoners. It is also
suggested by the learned Amieus that the concept of open jails
(of which there are 54 as mentioned in the statistics provided by
the NCRB) should be encouraged.

H
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 541
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

9. The learned Amicus laid stress on providing basic medical A
facilities to the inmates which could even be in the form of a
primary health centre. In this regard the learned Amicus referred
to the discussions that he had with the Director-General of Police
(Prisons) Kamataka, the Welfare Officer in Tihar, the.former
Inspector General of Police (Prisons) West Bengal and the report B
of Ms. Smita Chakraburtty which suggests that medical facilities
in most prisons do not meet the minimum requirements of medical
care.
10. The learned Amicus laid great stress on the constitutibn of a
Board of Visitors comprising official and non-official visitors.
The learned Amicus drew attention to an advisory issued on l 81h C
Febrnary, 2011 ~y the Central Government for the appointment
and working ofnon-official visitors for prisons.
II. The learned Amicus endorsed the suggestion of conducting
performance audits for prisons across the country.
D
39. According to the learned Amicus, if these (and other) directions
are ·given to· the State Governments, prison reforms will become far
more meaningful and the level of unnatural deaths will decrease.
Compensation for unnatural deaths
40. The issue of compensation for unnatural deaths in custody is E
no longer res integra. . -
41. One of the earliest cases where this Court granted
compensation in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is Rudul
Safi v. State of Bi_h~r. 4 That case was not one of a custodial death but
.. was a case of illegal detention even after acquittal in a full dress trial. F
This Court held that.the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the
illegal detention and it rejected the stale and sterile objection of the State
Government that the petitioner may if so advised file a suit to recover
damages. This Court took the view that the refusal to pass an order of
compensation would be doing mere lip service to the fundamental right
G
ofliberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution which the
State Government had so grossly violated. This Court observed that "if
civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some
others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate

'(1983)4SCC 141 H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14 S.C.R.

A ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the
true bastion of democracy."
42. A little later, this Court dealt with Sebastian M. Hongray v.
Union oflndia 5 which concerned itsc .. with the disappearance of some
persons while in custody. This Court was convinced that enabling the
B respondents to trace or locate the two missing persons at such a late
stage would be to shut its eyes to reality and to pursue a mirage. It
appeared to this Court that the two missing persons had actually met a
tragic end in an encounter amounting to an unnatural death. This Court
ordered the registration of an offence and an investigation and also
directed payment of compensation to the next of kin.
c
43. Nilabati Behera v. State of0rissa6 was a case where a person
who was taken into police custody for investigation of a theft, was found
dead near a railway track the next day. On the basis of injuries and
handcuffs on his wrists, this Court concluded that it was a custodial
death and compensation was awarded under Article 32 of the Constitution.
D It was held that a public law remedy was certainly available to claim
compensation for the co~travention of human rights and fundamental
rights which arc protected as a guarantee by our Constitution. A reference
was also made to Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, I 966 which reads: "Anyone who has been the victim of
E unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to
compensation."
44. An unnatural death in judicial custody where one person was
killed by a co-prisoner was the subject matter of discussion in Kewal
Pati v. State of Bihar. 7 It was held that as a consequence of
F imI?risonment, a prisoner does not cease to have constitutional rights,
except to the extent he or she has been deprived of them in accordance
with law. Therefore, even a prisoner is entitled to protection and if he is
killed while in prison, it results in a deprivation ofhis life contrary to the
law, for which the next of kin are entitled to compensation.

G 45. In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal' this Court recognized
that at the time ofratification of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 1966 in I 979, the Government ofindia made a specific
1
(1984) 3 sec s2
'(1993) 2 sec 746
1
(1995) J sec 600
H '(1997) 1sec416
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 543
[MADAN B. LO KUR, J .]

reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system docs not recognize A
a right to compensation for victims ofunlawful anest or detention and
only became a party to the covenant, subject to this reservation. It was
not~d however, that the reservation has lost its relevance in view of the
law laid down by this Court in several cases wherein compensation has
been awarded for the infringement of a fundamental right of a citizen. It
was also noted that while there is no express provision in the Constitution B·
forgrant of compensation, this right has been judicially evolved in cases
ofestablished unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life. This
Court summed up the law in the following words:-
"Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most C
of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is
an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps
the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established
infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the
public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability D
to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and
the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the
State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the
wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis
has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive clement. The
·objective is.to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the E
transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment
for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to
the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which
the State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation
in the public law jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other F
action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to
the victim or the heirs of the deceased victim with respect to the
same matter for the tortious act committed by the functionaries
of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend
upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formuia
can be evolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for G
the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the.citizen,
under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional
remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of
compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to
redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A -....any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of
damages in a civil suit."
46.Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. 9, Murti Devi v. State of Delhi10
and more recently Rohtash Kumar v. State of Harya11a 11 illustrate
that custodial death is a clear violation of the prisoner's rights under
B Article 21 of the Constitution and relief could be moulded by granting
compensation to the next of kin of the deceased. ·
47. Jn addition to the above decisions and several others rendered
by this Court, almost every High Court in the country has, at one time or
another, also granted compensation for the unnatural death of a person
C in custody, whether an undertrial or a convict. A few such illustrations
may be noted:
a. Nina Rajan Pillai & Ors. v. U11io11 of India. 12
The husband of the petitioner died in judicial custody due to .
inadequate medical treatment given by the jail authorities. The
D Lt. Governor of Delhi even appointed a Commission ofinquiry
headed by Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court to inquire into the circumstances
that led to the de11th of the petitioner's husband. The Delhi High
Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.
h. Kewalbai v. The State of Maharashtra. 13
E
The victim was shot dead by a constable while in custody. The
Bombay High Court awarded compensation for the unnatural
death in custody.
c. Bheduki B11ragohai11 v. State of Assam. 14
F The undcrtrial victim died in judicial custody under suspicious
circumstances. The post mortem report indicated that the cause
of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and ante
mo1tem injuries by blunt weapons. The Gauhati High Court
awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.
d. Madhuben Adesara v. State of Gujarat. 15
G
" 12000) J sec 521
'° (1998) 9 sec 604
11
c20!3) 14 sec 290
11
180 (2011) DLT 104
11 2013 (3) BomeR (eri) 601

" 20) 3 (2) GLT 370
H " R/SCR.A./536/20 I 0 (unreported)
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 545
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

The deceased was brutally tortured by policeofficers while in A
custody and succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The
post-mortem report revealed that the victim had multiple injury
marks which were ante mortem in nature. The Gujarat High··-.,
Court awarded compensation for the unnatural death in custody.
e. Ba11alata Dash v. State of Orissa & Ors. 16 B
The deceased was found hanging from a tree with his hands
behind his back, tied at the wrist with a towel. Since the victim
was in the custody of the prison authorities, compensation was
awarded by the Orissa High Court for the unnatural death in
custody. C
f A111a11deep v. State of Punjab & A11r. 11 ·•
The deceased was assaulted by a co-prisoner and succumbed
to injuries in the hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody,
the Punjab & Haryana High Court awarded compensation to
the next of kin of the deceased. D
g. Tmt. Rohini Lingam v. State. 18
The victim was murdered by his enemies while in prison. Due
to the unnatural death in' custody the Madras High Court awarded
compensation to his next of kin. ·
E
h. Sa/111 & Anr. v. State of Kera/a & Ors. 19
The victim was tortured in a police station and succumbed to his
injuries. In view of the unnatural death in custody the Kerala
High Court awarded interim compensation to the next of kin of
the deceased until the criminal trial against the concerned police F
officers was concluded.
i. Ravindra Nath Awasthi v. State of U.P.. 20
The victim was an advocate held guilty of contempt of court.
While he was undergoing his sentence, he was severely beaten
up by the prison authorities and succumbed to his injuries in G
---'---
"AIR 2012 Ori 97
11
(2013) 169 PLR 191
" (2008) 5 MU 822
,., CRP No. 1170 12015
20
2009 2 AWC 2090 (All)
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A hospital. Due to the unnatural death in custody, the Allahabad
High Court directed payment of compensation to the next of kin
of the deceased.
j. Mst. Madina v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'- 1

The victim died in police custody on account of the use of third
B degree methods. Due to the unnatural death in custody,
compensation was awarded by the Rajasthan High Court to the
next of kin of the deceased.
k. Duklmram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 22

c The deceased was taken from the police station in order to
recover stolen articles alleged to have been hidden by him at a
secret place. He was brought to a pond and compelled to dive
into the pond. At that time he was handcuffed and in chains.
Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found floating
in the pond. In view of the unnatural death while the deceased
D was in the custody of police officers, the Chhattisgarh High Court
awarded compensation.
I. Sa11tosh Kumari v. State of H.P. & Ors. 23
The victim died while he was in police custody and it was found
that he had i1tjuries on his head, shoulders, eyes, knees and private
E
parts. He died in hospital as he was not given medical assistance
in time. In view of the unnatural death while in cusfody, the
Himachal Pradesh High Court awar.ded compensation to the next
of kin of the deceased.
m. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmad Dar. 14
F
The victim died due to cardiopulmonary arrest while detained in
the District Jail under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act, 1978. It was held that death was due to carelessness, non-
seriousness and negligence in not extending medical treatment.
In view of the unnatural death in custody the Jammu & Kashmir
G High Court awarded the compensation to the next of kin of the
deceased.
21 2000 Cri LJ 4484
"2011 (3) MPHT 81
23 200R ACJ 1684

H ,., LPAHC No. 3612015
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 547
[MADAN B. LOKUR, .!.]

n. Mrs. Meena Singh v. State of Bihar. 25 A
The victim was attacked and killed by co-prisoners by the use of
chhura, iron rods and belts etc. The next of kin of the deceased
were awarded compensation by the Patna High Court for the
unnatural death of the victim in custody.
o. Lawyers for Justice (Non-Govemment Organization) v. B
Staie of M.P. 26
The victim was facing trial for offences under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. While he was undergoing treatment in a
hospital he was shot dead by an unknown person. In view of the
unnatural death while in custody the Madhya Pradesh High Court C
awarded compensation to the next of kin of the victim.
48. There arc several such cases - documented and
undocumented - all over the country but in spite of repeated decisions
delivered by this Court and perhaps every High Court there seems to be
no let up in custodial deaths. This is not a sad but a tragic state of affairs D
indicating the apparent disdain of the State to the life and liberty of
individuals, particularly those in custody. The time to remedy the situation
is long past and yet, there seems to be no will and therefore no solution·
in sight.
The need to reform E
49. The factual material referred to above is an indication that
steps are being taken in some form or the other by the Central
Government and hopefully by the State Governments to ameliorate the
· conditions of prisoners across the country and thereby reduce the number
of uµnatural deaths. These steps give an impression that there is nothing F
to be seriously worried about. However, the statistics provided by the
NCRB reflect the ground reality and dispel that impression. It is time for
the State to go beyond projections through circulars and advisories and
actually come to grips with reality as it exists in a very large number of
prisons. What is practised in our prisons is the theory of retribution and
G
deterrence and the ground situation emphasizes this, while our criminal
justice system believes in reformation and rehabilitation and that is why
handcuffing and solitary confinement are prohibited. It is this 'rejection'

25
200 l Cri LJ 3573
"AIR2015 MP 212 H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A of the philosophy of our criminal justice system that leads to violence in
prisons and eventually unnatural deaths.
50. This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of
Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to a life of dignity. There
must be a genuine desire to ensure that the guarantee to a life of dignity
B is provided to the extent possible even in prisons, otherwise Article 21 of
the Constitution will remain a dead letter. It must be appreciated by the
State that the common person docs not violate the law for no reason at
all. It is circumstances that lead to a situation where there is a violation
oflaw. On many occasions, such a violation may be of a trivial nature or
may be a one-time aberration and, in such circumstances, the offender
C has to be treated with some degree of humanity. At least in such cases,
retribution and deterrence cannot be an answer to the offence and the
offender. Unless the State changes this mindset and takes steps to give
meaning to life and liberty of every prisoner, prison reforms can never
be effective or long lasting.
D 51. The issue of unnatural deaths in prisons was debated and
discussed before us in great detail by the learned Amicus, the learned
Attorney General and learned counsel for the National Forum. All of
them have painstingly taken us through a plethora of documents but, as
mentioned above, the existence of volumes of documents relating to
E unnatural deaths in prisons docs not necessarily resolve the problem that
we are confronted with and which was brought to our notice by Chief
Justice Lahoti.
52. However, we do hope that the highlighting of this issue will
bring about awareness in the mind and heart of the powers that be and
F consequential reforms in prisons which may ultimately reduce, if not
eliminate, the number of unnatural deaths in prisons and also improve
the conditions of prisoners all over the country.
The need to compensate
53. The case law indicates that over the last several decades this
G Court and almost every High Court has relied on Article 21 of the
Constitution and thought it appropriate to compensate the next of kin for
an unnatural custodial death. The constitutional courts can go on delivering
judgment after judgment on this issue and award compensation, but unless
the State realizes that custodial death is itself a crime and monetary
compensation is not necessarily the only appropriate relief that can be
H
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS 549
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

granted to the next of kin of the deceased, such unnatural deaths will A
continue unabated. Therefore, what is needed is a review of all prisons .
with a humanitarian nuance.
54. Over the last several years, there have been discussions on
· the rights of victims and one of the rights of a victim of crime is to obtain
compensation. Schemes for victim compensation have been framed by B
almost every State and that is a wholesome development. But it is
important for the Central Government and the State Governments to
realize that persons who suffer an unnatural death in a prison are also
victims - sometimes of a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy
or both. There is no reason at all to exclude theirncxt ofkin from receiving
compensation only because the victim of an unnatural death is a criminal.
c
Human tights are not dependent on the status of a person but arc universal
in nature. Once the issue is looked at from this perspective, it will be
appreciated that merely because a person is accused of a crime or is the
perpetrator of a crime and in prison custody, that person could
nevertheless be a victim of an unnatural death. Hence the need to D
compensate the next of kin.
Custodial death of Children
55. One of the issues not touched upon by the learned Amicus or
by the National Forum relates to the custodial death of children in child
care institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of E
Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015. There docs not appear to be any study carried
out in this regard and it is rather unfortunate that the Central Government
and the State. Governments are oblivious to the possibility of death of
children in custody in child care institutions. This is distressing. The pain F
and anguish of the next of kin of children who pass away in custody is.
not less, but more than. the pain and anguish of the next of kin of any
prisoner who suffers an unnatural death in custody. It seems that apart
from being 'voiceless', such children arc also dispensable.
56. There is no documentation on the number of unnatural deaths G
(ifany) ofchildrcn in child care institutions and this should now be on the
agenda of the Central Government and the State Governments
(particularly the Department concerned with the welfare of children)
with far greater concern than has been shown so far. The unnatural
death of any child in need of care. and protection or in conflict with law
and in a child care institution needs attention since it is these voiceless H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A children who need to be heard. It is time that unnatural deaths ofchildnm
in child care institutions arc seriously looked into by all concerned if we
are to provide the children of our country with a better future .
.Directions
57. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances
B before us, the suggestions put forward by the learned Amicus and the
learned counsel appearing for the National Forum deserve acceptance
and, therefore, we issue the following directions:
1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit a copy of
this decision to the Registrar General of every High Court within
c one week with a request to the Registrar General to place it
before the Chief.Justice of the High Court. We request the Chief
Justice of the High Court to register a suo motu public interest
petition with a view to identifying the next ofkin of the prisoners
who have admittedly died an unnatural death as revealed by the
D NCRB during the period between 2012 and 2015 and even
thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate
compensation has already been awarded.
2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs
will ensure circtilation within one month and in any event by 31 ;t
E October, 2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph
prepared by the NHRC entitled "Suicide in Prison - prevention
strategy and implication from human rights and legal points of
view", (iii) the communications sent by the NHRC referred to
above, (iv) the compendium of advisories issued by the Ministry
of Home Affairs to the State Governments, (v) the Nelson
F Mandela Rules and (vi) the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths
in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red
Cross to the Director General or Inspector General of Police (as
the case may be) in charge of prisons in every State and Union
Territory. All efforts should be made, as suggested by the NHRC
G and others, to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in
prisons and to document each and every death in prisons - both
natural and unnatural.
3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs
'A-ill direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction between
unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on the website
H
RE- lNH.Ul\' \N CONDITIONS 1N 1382 PRISONS 551
!MADAN B. LOKUR, .!.)

of the NCRB and in its Annual Reports and also explain the sub- A
categorization 'others' within the category of unnatural deaths.
The NCRB should also be required to sub-categorize natural
deaths. The sub-categorization and clarification should be
complied with by 31 ' 1 October, 2017.
4. The State Governments should, in conjunction with the State B
Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State Police
Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and Development
conduct training and sensitization programmes for senior police
officials of all p1isons on their functions, duties and responsibilities
as also the rights and duties of prisoners. A copy of this order be
sent by the Registry of this Court to the Member-Secretary of C
each SLSA to follow-up and ensure compliance.
5. The necessity of having counselors and support persons in
prisons cannot be over-emphasized. Their services can be utilized
to counsel and advice prisoners who might be facing some crisis
situation or might have some violent or suicidal tendencies. The D
State Governments arc directed to appoint counselors and support
persons for counselling prisoners, particularly first-time offenders.
In this regard, the services of recognized NGOs can be taken
and encouraged.
6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should be E
encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending the
time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of
using phones and video conferencing for communications not
only between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner,
but also between a prisoner and the la'Wyer, whether appointed F
through the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise.
7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) should urgently
conduct a study on the Jines conducted by the Bihar State Legal
Services Authority in Bihar and the Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative in Rajasthan in respect of the overall conditions in prisons G
in the State and the facilities available. The study should also
include a perfonnance audit of the prisons, as has been done by
the CAG. The SLSAs should also assess the effect and impact
of various schemes framed by NALSA relating to prisoners.
We request the Chief Justice of every High Court, in the capacity
of Patron-in-Chiefofthe State Legal Services Authority, to take H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14 S.C.R.

A up this initiative and, if necessary, set up a Committee headed
preferably by the Executive Chairperson of the State Legal
Services Authority to implement the directions given above.
8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to inmates in
prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right to health is undoubtedly
B a human right and all State Governments should concentrate on
making this a reality for all, including prisoners. The experiences
in Kamataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the effect that medical
facilities in prisons do not meet minimum standards of care is an
indication that the human right to health is not given adequate
importance in prisons and that may also be one of the causes of
c unnatural deaths in prisons. The State Governments arc directed
to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and
take remedial steps wherever necessary.
9. The constitution of a Board of Visitors which includes non-
official visitors is of considerable importance so that eminent
D members of society can participate in initiating reforms in prisons
and in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Merely changing the
nomenclature of prisons to 'Correction Homes' will not resolve
the problem. Some proactive steps are required to be taken by
eminent members of society who should be included in the Board
E of Visitors. The State Governments are directed to constitute
an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter XXIX of
the Model Prison Manual indicating their duties and
responsibilities. This exercise should be completed by 301h
November, 2017.

F 10. The suggestion given by the learned Amicus of encouraging
the establishment of 'open jails' or 'open prisons' is certainly
worth considering. It was brought to our notice that the
experiment in Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and the semi-open
prison in Delhi are extremely s·uccessful and need to be carefully
studied. Perhaps there might be equally successful experiments
G carried out in other States as well and, if so, they require to be
documented, studied and emulated. .'
11. The Ministry of Women & Child Development of the
Government ofindia which is concerned with the implementation
of Juvenile J usticc (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
H is directed to discuss with the concerned officers of the State
RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 'PRISONS 553
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Governments and formulate procedures for tabulating the number A
of children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in child care
institutions where they are kept in custody either because they
are in conflict with law or because they need care and protection.
Necessary steps should be taken in this regard by 31" December,
2017.
B
58. We expect the above directions to be faithfully implemented
by the Union of India and State Governments. In the event of any
difficulty in the implementation of the above directions, the Bench hearing
.the suo motu public interest litigation in the High CourHn tenn of our·
first direction is at liberty to consider those difficulties and pass necessary
orders and directions. · C
59. List for follow-up in December, 2017.

Divya Pandey Dire~tions issued.
j