The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment, emphasised that the prison administration must be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure that the prisoners enjoy their Right to Dignified Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the final Order of the Jharkhand High Court by which it quashed the Order/Memo issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, making intra-State transfer of gangster Vikash Tiwary from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka, within the State.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “The prison administration needs to be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21. It is essential to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. The State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person. His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him.”

The Bench added that, discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners.

“… the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently”, it also emphasised.

AOR Pallavi Langar represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

In 2020, the Respondent- Vikash Tiwary, a gangster (convict prisoner) was convicted in a case relating to the alleged offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 353, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 25(1-A), 26, 35, and 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He was also implicated as accused in other cases in the Districts of Hazaribagh, Chatra, Ramgarh and Ranchi.

Alleging that without affording any opportunity and in violation of the principles of natural justice, he was transferred from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to the Central Jail, Dumka, by a Memo of the Inspector General of Prisons. Hence, he approached the High Court via Writ Petition to quash the same. The High Court set aside the Order of transfer and disposed of the Petition. Challenging this, the State authorities were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Prisons are considered as the ‘tailend’ of the criminal justice system. They have existed since ancient times, where anti-social elements were kept in, for deterrence and retribution. But, in modern days, a prison connotes a correctional mechanism, thereby emphasizing the reform of inmates. Prison life necessitates certain constraints on the freedom of inmates. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the prison authorities to rehabilitate the prisoners into law abiding citizen, besides maintaining security and rule of law in the prison.”

The Court said that there is a duty on the Inspector General of Prisons to ensure the safety of all the inmates in the prison and this measure was essential to ensure not only the safety of the prisoner but also to disrupt and neutralize the potential for gang-related violence within the prison.

“This Court has repeatedly recommended an overhaul of prison administration by suggesting reforms in treatment of prisoners and management of prisons. The dehumanized existence of prisoners was reprimanded by Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, and he called for an overhaul of Prison Manuals in compliance with constitutional ideals and human rights. He further emphasised on the need for an independent oversight mechanism for operationalizing prisoners’ rights and safeguards”, it further remarked.

The Court was of the view that the Model Prison Manual and the system that it envisages, has to be understood as an outcome of the repeated clarion calls and demands to safeguard prisoners’ rights and prison reforms.

“Such decision of shifting the respondent was only in the larger interest of maintaining security of the prison. There is a profound rational behind the decision and therefore, such decision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Thus, we are of the opinion that transfer of the respondent to some other jail is not only lawful, but also necessary for his safety and security. However, the High Court erred in setting aside the same, by the order impugned herein, which is liable to be set aside”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Indian Prison System has been under the close scrutiny of judiciary/District Magistrates, who have been given a responsibility to closely monitor the administration and management of prisons under their jurisdiction and to inspect them periodically and since ‘Prisons’ is a State subject under Entry 4 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the management and administration of the same comes within the purview of the State Governments.

“The State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person. His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him. Discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners. Thus, the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently”, it also emphasised.

The Court, therefore, issued appropriate directions to the Government of Jharkhand for implementing effective prison administration and to protect the interests of prisoners.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s Order.

Cause Title- The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 79)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Pallavi Langar, Advocates Pragya Baghel, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, and Honey Khanna.

Respondent: Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha, AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare, Advocates Inder Dev Singh, and Vipul Tiwari.

Click here to read/download the Judgment