Prisoners' Physical & Medical Condition Must Determine Access To 'A' Class Facilities: Madras High Court
The father argued that his son suffered from neurological issues and needed a cot to sleep on, as well as access to a western toilet.
The Madras High Court emphasized that prisoners have the right to minimal facilities that cater to their physical and medical needs, stressing that the government cannot neglect its responsibility to provide these necessary amenities.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by a father, who sought to have his son, serving a life sentence at the Central Prison in Palayamkottai, classified as an "A" class prisoner. The father argued that his son suffered from neurological issues and needed a cot to sleep on, as well as access to a western toilet. Such facilities could only be granted if he were assigned "A" class status.
The Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima said, “The concept of prison justice cannot be confined within a rigid frame work. Its boundaries have to expand. A prisoner cannot be denied access to the minimal facilities required to deal with his physical condition. The condition of his knees may be such that, he cannot use an Indian toilet. He may not be able to sleep on the floor. In such cases, it is the duty of the prison authority to make available such facilities. It is not open to the prison head to tell the prisoner that since he does not fulfil the rule requirement, he will not get “A” class facility. That is why, we hold that it is the prisoner's physical/medical condition which will be the governing criteria,”
Advocate S. M. A. Jinnah appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor T. Senthil Kumar appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the prison authorities contended that the petitioner’s request did not meet the criteria under Rule 225 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, meaning he could not be categorized as a class "A" prisoner. However, the Court emphasized that providing medical assistance and facilities is part of a prisoner’s right to health, which is a fundamental human right, irrespective of their incarceration. The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Inhuman Conditions in 382 Prisons as well as the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Directorate of Enforcement, stressing that prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental rights while incarcerated.
The Court noted that regardless of whether a prisoner is convicted or an undertrial, they continue to retain all their fundamental rights, including the right to life, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court further elaborated that the concept of prison justice should not be restricted by rigid frameworks. Instead, it should be flexible, taking into account the physical and medical needs of the prisoner.
The Court directed, “We permit the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation to the third respondent. We direct the third respondent to cause physical / medical examination of the prisoner and submit necessary proposal to the first respondent through the second respondent.”
The findings from this examination were to be submitted to the Principal Secretary of the Government, who was ordered to issue an appropriate decision based on the medical condition and relevant legal principles.
Cause Title: R. Ramalingam v. The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors.
