Prison custody powers must be read narrowly: safe separation and necessity-based fetters survive, but punitive isolation does not.

Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894 was read down to permit only regulated separation for safe custody of a prisoner under sentence of death, not solitary confinement; punitive isolation was treated as impermissible unless justified by exceptional reasons and fair procedure. Section 56 was upheld only as a narrow security power: prolonged bar fetters could be imposed solely where necessity, escape risk, contemporaneous reasons, and review supported the restraint, with use limited to the shortest possible duration. The prison regime was required to conform to Articles 14, 19, and 21 by excluding arbitrary, routine, or excessively prolonged custody measures. The petitions failed because the provisions were saved by interpretation rather than struck down.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894 authorises solitary confinement of a prisoner under sentence of death or permits only separation for safe custody; (ii) Whether section 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894 authorises prolonged bar fetters and, if so, under what safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894 authorises solitary confinement of a prisoner under sentence of death or permits only separation for safe custody.

Analysis: The statutory setting distinguishes punitive solitary confinement from custodial separation. Solitary confinement is a substantive punishment under the penal law and cannot be implied into jail custody powers. Section 30 was construed in light of the death-sentence procedure under the criminal procedure law, under which execution is postponed until confirmation and the exhaustion of appellate and clemency remedies. The phrase "under sentence of death" was read as referring to a finally executable death sentence, not a provisional sentence awaiting judicial and constitutional review. The provision was therefore read down so that the prisoner may be kept apart for safe custody and under guard, but not subjected to complete isolation from sight, communication, and ordinary prison amenities save in exceptional cases supported by reasons and fair procedure.

Conclusion: Section 30 does not sanction solitary confinement. It permits only regulated separation for safe custody, and the challenged treatment was impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether section 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894 authorises prolonged bar fetters and, if so, under what safeguards.

Analysis: The power to confine in irons was upheld only as a narrow security power directed to safe custody and not as a general disciplinary or punitive authority. The discretion of the prison superintendent was held to require necessity, relevance to escape risk or comparable custodial danger, contemporaneous recording of special reasons, prompt higher review, and observance of minimal fair procedure. Prolonged day-and-night shackling, especially of an undertrial, was treated as constitutionally suspect unless supported by exceptional grounds. The provision was saved by reading it down to exclude arbitrary, routine, or excessively prolonged use of fetters and to confine their use to the shortest possible duration under reviewable and reasoned decision-making.

Conclusion: Section 56 is valid only when confined to necessity-based, reasoned, reviewable use for safe custody. The indiscriminate and prolonged fettering complained of was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The statutory provisions were sustained only after being narrowly construed to exclude punitive solitude and arbitrary shackling. The prison authorities were required to conform custody measures to constitutional guarantees of fairness, reasonableness, and dignity, and the petitions failed only because the provisions were saved by interpretation rather than struck down.

Ratio Decidendi: A prison statute that appears to permit harsh custodial restraint must be read in conformity with Articles 14, 19, and 21 so that only necessity-based measures for safe custody survive, while punitive isolation or indiscriminate irons without reasons, review, and fair procedure are invalid.

---