Our Blogs

Case Analysis | Aug. 10, 2024

Case Analysis: RIGHTS OF PRISONERS

R. RAJAGOPAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

[AIR 1994 SCC (6) 632]

{KNOWN AS “AUTO SHANKAR CASE”}

BENCH : HON’BLE JUSTICE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY

 

Introduction 

Prison : A prison is a building where criminals are kept as punishment or where people accused of a crime are kept before their trial.

Prisoner  : Any person who committed any act which prohibited by the law and the person in that act has been convicted and sentenced to prison (jail) is called prisoner.

There are a many types of prisoners such as convicted prisoner, criminal prisoners, Civil prisoners and under-trial prisoners etc. The Indian constitution doesn’t expressly provided or mentioned the prisoner rights but constitution provide equality for each person and every person before the law and the equal protection of law within the territory of India. A prisoners also guarantee a certain rights and every prisoners should be treated as a human being. Prisoners rights are not specified in specific act but we have taken the prisoners rights from various sources and Supreme court guidelines. 

There are some acts that talk about the prisoners rights that is  IPC,1860, prisons Act,1894 , the prisoners Act 1900, transfer of prisoners Act 1950, Crpc 1973 and model prisons manual 2016 etc. These acts gives the rights to prisoners like-  right to accommodation of prisoners,  right to shelter and safe custody,  right to examination of prisoners through medical officers,  right to reasonable wages in prison, right to expressions, right to informed about legal rights, right to receive book and magazine inside the jail, right to meet friends, relatives  and consult lawyer as so on. 

The Apex court also recognize the prisoners humans right. Supreme court said that a prisoners to commit a crime but nevertheless a prisoner is required to be treated as a human being entitled to all basic human rights,  human dignity and human sympathy.
 

Case Analysis

Parties of the case

Petitioner : (1)Tamil magazine Nakkheeran (editor,  printer and publisher)

                     (2) Associate editor of the magazine 

Respondent : (1) State of Tamil Nadu 

                        (2) Inspector General of prisons, Madras

                        (3) Superintendent of prisons

Accused : Auto Shankar (convicted of six murdered and sentenced of death)

Fact of the case 

• Gowri Shankar also known as the auto Shankar was an infamous serial killer the region of Madras. 
• Shankar and his gang found guilty of six murdered that were committed in two years. 
• Shankar was sentenced to the death along with the two associates by the session court of Chengalpattu 
• During the punishment of prison, Shankar wrote his auto-biography under the 300 pages.
• He deliver the biography to his wife Jagdeswari through the help of prison officials .
• His wife gave the  book to the petitioner to get it published. Under the auto-biography Shankar wrote his relationship and friendships with the prison officials and Some higher authorities (IAS, IPS and Politicians etc.)
• When the prison officials heard about the upcoming publication on Shankar’s auto-biography, it caused a stir within the police department. 
• The prison officials used third degree torture to forced Shankar to write a letter to petitioner requesting that he was not published his biography. 
• To which the writ  petition field under Article 32 of Indian constitution against the state for infringing the right to freedom of speech in the Supreme court.

 

Issues Raised 

• Whether the press has the right to publish under Article 19(1)[a]?
• Whether such publication infringed the citizens right to privacy?
• Whether the state can impose prior restrictions on such publication?

Arguments

Petitioner Argument :

The counsel for petitioner argued that Shankar wrote his biography and request to be published. The petitioner field the petition to publish Shankar’s book. Before the book was published, the petitioner announced the publication if Shankar’s book. Which led to objection from prison officials. They alleged that Shankar was coerced into writing a letter denying the authorship of the book. The petitioner also argued that even if this were true, they had to right published the book under Article 19(1)[a]  as a part of their freedom of speech and expressions. 

Respondent Argument :

The counsel for respondent argue that the book was not written by the Shankar and that the prison official can’t forced Shankar to write a letter under third degree treatment. The respondent also argue that if the book was published, it would reveal the sensitive information about the prison officials and others. Thus, the respondent claimed that publishing the book would infringed upon the right to privacy 

Judgement

The SC held that the press has to right publishe autobiography on the public record and Apex court discussed right to privacy and it is important to balance between freedom of speech and expressions of accused and his right to privacy.

SC also implicit right to privacy guarantee under Article 21 of the Indian constitution in other words SC recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental rights. 

The Apex court also denied the state right to impose restrictions on the publication and the SC also suggest the state can any claims of defamation could be after publication of autobiography. 

Legal provision 

Article 19(1)[a] – “All citizens shall have Right freedom of speech and expressions.”

Article 19(2) – “Reasonable restrictions.”

Article 21- “No person shall be deprived of his life or particular liberty except according to procedure established by law.:

Following of the right to capture which are implicitly give under Article 21 of Indian constitution:-

• Right to privacy 
• Right to free legal aid 
• Right to speedy trial 
• Right to live with human dignity 
• Right to education etc.

Section 499 Defamation ? “whoever by words either spoken or intented to be read, or by sings or by visible representation and makes or publish any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

Section 500 Punishment for defamation ? 2years + fine + both.

[Under the Bhartiya nyaya sahinta, 2023 the defamation dealt with the Sec.359]

 

Case laws related to prisoners rights

T.V. Vatheeswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1983 (2) SCC 68]

Constitution doesn’t expressly provided the prisoner rights but in this case the SC held that Article 14,19 and 21 available to the prisoner as well as freeman. Prisoners walls don’t keep out fundamental right. 

D.K. Basu vs State of west Bengal [AIR (1997) SC 610]

This case dealt with the custodial violence and death in police lock-up. In this case the SC laid down the guidelines to prevent custodial torture and protects the prisoners rights . The SC also-ran said that the police followed the procedure during the arrest and detention 

Rahmath Nisha vs Additional Directors General of prisoner [AIR 2019 (3) MAD. LJ (CRI)]

This case dealt with the right to privacy of the prisoner. In this case the accused was given 10 days leave to visit his wife but due to serious illness and his wife was transferred to the hospital ICU by the time he reached home. The Madras HC held that the prisoner should be allowed to his wife in hospital and metting between him and his wife should not be monitored. 

 

Conclusion 

There is always a possibility of danger in the jail and it is a well-known fact in our country that prisoners are always mistreated and punished in jail. They do not have any means to show their competency, which is why they are considered incompetent. Even the police do not assist them, as it is not in their jurisdiction. Thus, prisoners’ rights in jail should be taken seriously. The Supreme Court (SC) has recognized the prisoners’ rights, but they are not given proper attention. Without realizing their mistake, they are often punished. Neither here nor there, they do not get any kind of help. This is legally wrong. Hence, prisoners’ rights should be given importance. They should be provided with sufficient resources, and prisoners should be made aware of their rights.

 

Referred Statute

Constitution of India, 1950

Indian Penal code, 1860 replaced Bhartiya nyaya sahinta, 2023

Auto Shankar case related movie

Pulan Visaran (Tamil movie)