2012 (11) TMI 1091 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets guidelines for undertrial transfers, emphasizing judicial authorization and fair evaluation

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, directing the Government to treat the Sessions Judge's report as preliminary and determine the need for ... Whether the Government shall treat the report submitted by the Sessions Judge as a preliminary inquiry and take a considered decision whether or not any further inquiry, investigation or proceedings against those allegedly responsible for using excessive force while restoring discipline in the Central Jail at Bombay on 26th June, 2008 needs to be conducted? Whether if the Government decides to hold any further inquiry or investigation into the matter on the basis of the preliminary findings in the report submitted by the Sessions Judge or institute any departmental proceedings against any one of those found guilty in any such further inquiry or investigation, the observations made by the High Court in regard to the use of force or the extent thereof shall not prejudice the parties concerned or the outcome of any such inquiry nor shall any such observation be treated to be a final expression of opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the concerned? Issues Involved:1. Legality of the transfer of undertrial prisoners.2. Use of excessive force by jail authorities.3. Conduct of jail doctors and alleged fudging of records.4. Authority to transfer undertrial prisoners.5. Nature of the court's power in permitting or refusing transfer.6. High Court's direction for disciplinary inquiry against jail officials.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Transfer of Undertrial Prisoners:The High Court found the transfer of undertrial prisoners from Arthur Road Jail to other jails illegal. It held that the transfer was dealt with administratively without giving the undertrials an opportunity to oppose it. The Court concluded that the power to transfer undertrials lies with the court under whose orders they are remanded, not with the prison authorities or the Inspector General of Prisons.2. Use of Excessive Force by Jail Authorities:The High Court directed an inquiry into the use of force by jail authorities on undertrial prisoners. The Sessions Judge's inquiry concluded that the force used was excessive. The report indicated that the resistance by prisoners Kamal Ahmad Vakil Ansari and Dr. Tanveer Mohd. Ibrahim Ansari led to the use of force, which was deemed excessive based on medical records and the lack of proper medical aid provided to the injured prisoners.3. Conduct of Jail Doctors and Alleged Fudging of Records:The Sessions Judge's report criticized the conduct of jail doctors, suggesting they falsified records and failed to provide proper medical aid to the injured prisoners. The High Court directed an inquiry into the conduct of the jail doctors for dereliction of duty.4. Authority to Transfer Undertrial Prisoners:The Supreme Court examined Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, and concluded that it does not empower the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer undertrials. The Court emphasized that the transfer of undertrials must be authorized by the court under whose orders they are remanded.5. Nature of the Court's Power in Permitting or Refusing Transfer:The Supreme Court held that the power of the court to permit or refuse the transfer of prisoners is judicial, not ministerial. The Court must consider the circumstances and objections of the prisoners fairly and objectively. The trial court's handling of the transfer request as an administrative matter without issuing notice to the undertrials was deemed a mistake.6. High Court's Direction for Disciplinary Inquiry Against Jail Officials:The Supreme Court found that the High Court's direction for a disciplinary inquiry was premature. The Sessions Judge's report was preliminary and did not provide a fair opportunity for the accused officials to defend themselves. The Supreme Court directed the Government to treat the report as a preliminary inquiry and decide whether further investigation or proceedings are needed. The observations made by the High Court regarding the use of force should not prejudice any further inquiry or investigation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, emphasizing that the Government should consider the Sessions Judge's report as a preliminary inquiry and decide on further action. The Court clarified that any further inquiry or investigation should not be influenced by the High Court's observations on the use of force. The transfer of undertrials must be judicially authorized, and the rights of prisoners must be protected according to the rule of law.