Article 142 can support inter-State transfer of an undertrial, with video conferencing and custody controls to prevent prison abuse.

Article 142 may be used to order inter-State transfer of an undertrial prisoner where the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 does not adequately address persistent abuse of custody and prison facilities. The Court also recognised that an undertrial's presence at trial and visitation rights are not absolute; they may be regulated by prison discipline, the jail manual, and lawful custody arrangements. In appropriate circumstances, trial by video conferencing may be directed as a practical substitute for physical production when security and administration of justice require it. Custody and visitation must remain confined to legal entitlements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an undertrial prisoner could be transferred from one State to another in exercise of the Supreme Court's constitutional powers despite the absence of an express provision in the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950. (ii) Whether the trial could proceed through video conferencing and the prisoner's visitation privileges and custody arrangements could be regulated to prevent abuse of prison facilities.

Issue (i): Whether an undertrial prisoner could be transferred from one State to another in exercise of the Supreme Court's constitutional powers despite the absence of an express provision in the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950.

Analysis: The statutory scheme for inter-State transfer of prisoners was examined and it was noted that the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 expressly dealt with certain categories of prisoners but did not provide for transfer of an undertrial prisoner. The Court held that the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 is wide enough to craft an effective remedy where the facts show persistent abuse of custody, misuse of jail facilities, and inability of the local prison administration to maintain discipline. The Court also held that this constitutional power must be exercised consistently with the overall legal framework, but it is not defeated where the statute does not provide an adequate answer to the problem before the Court.

Conclusion: An undertrial prisoner could be transferred outside the State in an appropriate case by exercise of Article 142, and such transfer was warranted on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial could proceed through video conferencing and the prisoner's visitation privileges and custody arrangements could be regulated to prevent abuse of prison facilities.

Analysis: The Court held that the right of an undertrial prisoner to be present at trial and to receive visitors is not absolute and is subject to prison discipline and the applicable jail manual. In the peculiar facts, requiring repeated physical movement of the prisoner would prejudice security and burden the State, whereas video conferencing could satisfy the requirement of presence in a lawful and practical manner. The Court also held that visitation rights had to be confined to those permitted by the jail manual and that no special privileges could be claimed outside law.

Conclusion: The trial could proceed through video conferencing, and visitation and custody arrangements could be restricted in accordance with jail rules and lawful entitlements.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted effective protection to the administration of justice by ordering the prisoner's transfer out of Bihar, directing that the trial continue with video conferencing wherever possible, and insisting that custody and visitation be governed strictly by law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prison authorities are unable to prevent abuse of custody and the statutory scheme does not adequately address the problem, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to order an inter-State transfer of an undertrial prisoner and regulate the conduct of the trial and custody arrangements to do complete justice.

---