Prisoners retain fundamental rights, but lawful security measures and escape-prevention devices are permissible absent real infringement.

Prisoners retain fundamental rights, including protection of personal liberty and Article 21, but lawful prison security measures are permissible where no infringement is shown. The presence of police guards outside the jail and on appurtenant vacant land was held not to interfere with lawful liberty or amount to unconstitutional restraint. Allegations of subhuman conditions and segregation in jail were not proved on the material before the Court, so no Article 21 violation was established. A high-voltage live-wire device fixed on the jail wall was also upheld because it operated as an escape-prevention measure and was not shown to cause unlawful intrusion or death.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the posting of police guards outside the jail and the presence of police personnel on vacant land appurtenant to the prison infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights. (ii) Whether the alleged subhuman conditions and segregation in jail established a violation of the petitioners' right to life and personal liberty. (iii) Whether the high-voltage live-wire mechanism fixed on the jail wall was unconstitutional and liable to be dismantled.

Issue (i): Whether the posting of police guards outside the jail and the presence of police personnel on vacant land appurtenant to the prison infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Analysis: Convicts do not lose all fundamental rights by reason of incarceration, and even under-trial prisoners retain protection of personal liberty. At the same time, prisoners have no right to prevent lawful security arrangements made to stop escapes. Though land appurtenant to the prison forms part of the prison within the statutory definition, the police personnel were shown to be stationed outside the jail proper and no actual interference with the petitioners' lawful liberty or pursuits was established.

Conclusion: The posting of police guards outside the jail did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged subhuman conditions and segregation in jail established a violation of the petitioners' right to life and personal liberty.

Analysis: The constitutional protection of life and personal liberty extends even to prisoners, and oppressive treatment in jail would be impermissible. However, the allegations of unlawful treatment were not proved to the Court's satisfaction on the material before it. The Court noted that prison conditions should conform to humane standards, but the record did not establish a constitutional infringement on the facts shown.

Conclusion: The alleged prison conditions were not proved to amount to a violation of Article 21.

Issue (iii): Whether the high-voltage live-wire mechanism fixed on the jail wall was unconstitutional and liable to be dismantled.

Analysis: Any jail measure that infringes fundamental rights must be justified by law, and departmental instructions alone are not sufficient. On the facts, the mechanism was positioned so that no prisoner would normally come into contact with it except in the event of an escape attempt, and prisoners have no fundamental right to escape from lawful custody. The Court also found that the device did not itself cause death and did not violate the criminal-law safeguards relied upon by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The live-wire mechanism was not unconstitutional and did not entitle the petitioners to relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed in substance because none of the complained-of measures was shown to infringe the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Prisoners retain fundamental rights, but prison security measures do not become unconstitutional unless a real infringement of those rights is shown; preventive devices used to prevent escape are permissible where they operate only against unlawful escape attempts and are not unsupported intrusions into lawful liberty.

---