LLM Notes: Guardians of Liberty: The Supreme Court's Crusade for Undertrial Prisoners in India

 In a country where over 75% of the prison population comprises undertrial prisoners and prisons operate at 118% capacity, the Supreme Court of India has emerged as a critical guardian of liberty, consistently working to address the systemic crisis of undertrial detention. Through landmark judgments and robust directives, the Court has transformed bail jurisprudence and established mechanisms to prevent unnecessary pre-trial detention.

The Undertrial Crisis: A Judicial Awakening

The serious judicial intervention on behalf of undertrial prisoners began as early as 1979, when reports in The Indian Express highlighted the plight of thousands languishing in prisons without trial. This led to the landmark Hussainara Khatoon judgment, where the Supreme Court established speedy trial as a fundamental constitutional right.

Print Page

Supreme Court directs the courts to give Benefit Of Section 479 BNSS To Undertrials In Cases Registered Before July 1, 2024

On the last date of hearing, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae had submitted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,in short ‘the BNSS’, which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 w.e.f. 01st July, 2024, contains a provision under Section 479 relating to the ‘Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained’. The attention of this Court was drawn to the first proviso to Section 479 to urge that a first-time offender (who has never been convicted for any offence in the past) is required to be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such an offence under a particular law.

2. Having regard to the fact that the substituted provision under the BNSS is more beneficial vis-a-vis Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the period undergone by the first time offender was prescribed as up to half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such an offence, this Court had called upon the learned Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions from the Department and submit a clarification regarding application of the said provision to all undertrials across the country.

3. Today, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, instructions have been obtained from the Department to the effect that the aforesaid provision under the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them before 01st July, 2024, the date when the newly minted legislation has come into effect.

4. In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails

which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 406/2013

IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Date : 23-08-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines for taking action for non compliance of judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI

E. The learned Amicus also submitted that apart from the directions sought for against the High Courts and States/UTs, general directions may be issued with respect to Undertrial Prisoners (hereinafter referred to as UTPs) so as to ensure that all the High Courts and States/UTs are in full compliance of the

SOP for UTPs as laid down by this court vide order dt.13.02.2024. He further submitted that it is extremely unfortunate that UTPs despite getting bail, are not being released from the prison since no family member or friend is coming forward to stand as surety or furnish bonds on the UTP’s behalf.

F. We are in full agreement with the aforesaid submission, as it is indeed a palpable situation which continues to be faced by the UTPs. Further, directions are also required to be issued to set in place an Institutional Monitoring Mechanism to ensure full and complete compliance of not only the directions which have already been passed, but also those directions which may be passed by this Court in the future as well. Accordingly, it is directed as follows: -

i. That all the High Courts and States/UTs must ensure compliance of the SOP for UTPs as laid down by this court vide order dt.13.02.2024, in those cases where no family member or friend is coming forward to stand as surety or furnish bonds on the behalf of the UTPs. ii. NALSA shall suggest a policy for implementing the direction sought for by the Amicus in Para.14(b) of the Report dt. 03.08.2024;

iii. To ensure implementation of the mandate of Para.100.2 & 100.3 of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51, the following directions must be carried out:

a. Every Magistrate and/or Sessions Judge shall inform its

jurisdictional Principal District Judge about any form of noncompliance of Para.100.2 or Para.100.3 of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, within 1 week of recording such non-compliance;

b. Every Principal District Judge shall maintain a record of details of such non-compliances received from the concerned Magistrates;

c. Every Principal District Judge upon receipt of details of noncompliance by the concerned Magistrate shall, on a monthly basis, forward the same to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court and to the Head of Police in the concerned District;

d. The Head of Police of the concerned District shall, upon receipt of details of non-compliance of Para.100.2, take action against the erring officer as soon as possible and inform the concerned Principal District Judge;

e. The Registrar General of each High Court shall, upon receipt of details of such non-compliance of Para.100.2 and/or Para.100.3, place the same before the Committee for “Ensuring the Implementation of the Decisions of the Apex Court” for further action and forward it to the higher Police Authority. In those High Courts where such a committee is not currently in place, the same shall be constituted by the respective High Court.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl)

No. 5191/2021

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 

Date : 06-08-2024 These applications were called on for hearing

today.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Right to medical treatment is available to Undertrial under Fundamental right to life

 We deem it appropriate to issue the above

direction even though Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned

Solicitor General has emphasised that adequate medical

treatment is being provided as in the case of all

other jail inmates and if need be further facility

shall be extended to the arrestee. We state that the

most precious fundamental ‘right to life’

unconditionally embraces even an undertrial. The

consideration made herein is keeping in view the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Merely

because the other jail inmates are receiving treatment

similar to the arrestee need not deter us.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No(s). 307 OF 2020

KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS Vs

UNION OF INDIA 

Dated: APRIL 28, 2021

Print Page