Quasi-solitary confinement violates liberty and dignity of prisoners- P&H HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that confining a prisoner in a cell for straight 22 hours a day amounts to quasi-solitary confinement which violates the right extended under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

In the instant case, the petitioner-inmate, alleged that he was being kept in an isolated cell for 22 hours a day which was in the nature of solitary confinement. The petitioner also averred that he was deprived of basic amenities which were available to other prisoners, like provision of food, bedding, clothing and necessities available through private sources.

The petitioner was not provided with cooking facilities, adequate food and water, newspaper and magazine. The petitioner thus contended that such solitary confinement violated his fundamental right to live his life with liberty and dignity.

The bench stated that except one-hour in the morning and evening, the inmate stays all by himself and does not get an opportunity to see any other human being apart from the old staff which comes on rounds.

The bench noted that due to such quasi-solitary confinement, the inmate had been deprived of human company for extended lengths of time, which in-turn violated basic entitlements of prisoners.

The bench opined that there should be a balance between security enforcement and safeguarding fundamental rights of prisoners.

The counsel on behalf of State submitted that the petitioner was a hardened criminal and a total of 34 cases had been registered against him. The counsel added that currently he is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence of dacoity. Keeping this in picture, the counsel stated that a notorious criminal like him had the propensity to create riotous situations.

The bench, however, opined that security measures are permissible only upto a certain limit, and the limit is decided by the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III. The bench applauded the improvised surveillance facilities but condemned the stringent measures.

The bench, therefore, disposed of the petitioner and reiterated that such confinement is illegal per se. The bench gave time to State to come up with alternative measures.