Open Access Research Article
A RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN VIS - A -VIS FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
ANALYZING THE VIOLATION OF PRISONERS' RIGHTS IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT PRACTICES IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- HOMA BANSAL
In India, the judiciary has issued
several stringent orders to penalize criminals, with the most severe being the
imposition of the death penalty. However, one of the most extreme forms of
punishment that can be imposed on a convict is solitary confinement. This is a
type of punishment that involves completely isolating the prisoner from all
human contact, except for prison staff, for 22-24 hours a day. Solitary
confinement is often used as a disciplinary measure for inmates who violate
prison rules, and it is also employed as a security measure for vulnerable
prisoners or those at risk of self-harm. Despite its use as a security measure,
solitary confinement is a harsh and highly intensive form of punishment that
can have a profound effect on the mental health and well-being of those
subjected to it. The psychological impact of prolonged isolation can be severe
and long-lasting. While some argue that the use of solitary confinement is
necessary to maintain order and discipline within the prison system, others
argue that it is a cruel and inhumane practice that violates the basic human
rights of prisoners. As a result, there has been ongoing debate and discussion
around the use of solitary confinement in India and around the world[1].
Solitary confinement is a severe form
of punishment that is typically reserved for convicts who have displayed
extreme behavior that endangers the safety of other inmates. It is also
frequently used as a disciplinary measure for prisoners who have violated
prison rules and regulations. Although there is usually a set time period for
which a convict can be placed in solitary confinement, prison officials often abuse
this punishment by extending its duration indefinitely. In a recent case, Trisha Chandran v. The Superintendent, Cherlapally Central Prison & Anr[2],
the Telangana High Court ordered the authorities at Cherlapally Central Prison
to remove two death row inmates from solitary confinement. The Court criticized
the arbitrary application of solitary confinement provisions on death row
inmates and noted that these inmates still had legal recourse to challenge
their sentences in court.
This research aims to critically
evaluate the key provisions and principles related to solitary confinement in
India. It seeks to assess the nature and scope of this provision in light of various
judgments passed by the courts. The objective of this study is to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the legal framework surrounding solitary
confinement in India and to identify areas for improvement in its
implementation, particularly with regards to preventing its abuse by prison
officials.
Origins of Solitary Confinement as a medium of "Punishment."
The use of solitary confinement as a
method of punishment has a contentious past. It was first introduced in the
Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia during the early 19th century, as a
Quaker-inspired notion that an individual isolated in stone cells with a Bible
would reflect on their wrongdoing and repent. However, the experiment was a
dismal failure, as prisoners suffered severe psychological distress, and some
even attempted suicide. As a result, the practice of solitary confinement was
gradually phased out in subsequent years. Similarly, in India, during the late
18th century, the prison system promoted the use of solitary confinement as an
alternative to physical punishment. They believed that isolation in separate
cells would enable the prisoners to contemplate their offenses and bring about
moral and spiritual transformation. However, this approach also had a detrimental
effect on the prisoners' health, resulting in the abandonment of the practice
in the 19th century due to overcrowding in prisons[3].
Today, the use of solitary
confinement is highly regulated, and prison officials must consider the
potential impact of its use on the mental and physical well-being of the
inmates. Lengthy periods of isolation can have severe and long-lasting effects
on a person's mental health, increasing their risk of self-harm and other
psychological issues. Therefore, solitary confinement should only be employed
in special circumstances and with great care to prevent any misuse or abuse as
a form of punishment.
Solitary Confinement of death row inmates – US and India
Death row inmates are often subjected
to the harrowing experience of double punishment - firstly, being confined to a
dark and isolated cell, waiting for their execution date, and secondly, the
imminent threat of death itself. It is difficult to comprehend why an
individual should be forced to spend their last days alone, behind bars, yet
this practice remains prevalent in many countries, including the United States
and India.
The American Civil Liberties Union
reports that most US prisons keep death row inmates in single, poorly
ventilated cells, with no access to communication with the outside world.
Shockingly, a recent survey by the ACLU found that nearly 81% of prisons in the
United States that practice capital punishment provide only one hour of daily
exercise for death row inmates, with some even denying them basic necessities.
In some instances, solitary Confinement can last for years or even decades, as
was the case for Albert Woodfox, a US prisoner who spent an astonishing 44
years in solitary Confinement, surviving the traumatic experience[4].
In India, despite efforts by the
judiciary to limit the use of Solitary Confinement, it remains a common
practice, especially for those on death row. The 42nd Law Commission report had
recommended its complete abolition and removal from the Indian Penal Code, but
unfortunately, Section 30(2) of the Prisoners Act still legally permits the
withholding of certain rights from death row inmates.
Laws Related to Solitary Confinement in India
The Supreme Court ruling in Kishore
Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan denounced solitary confinement as a
brutal and inhumane form of imprisonment. The court observed that when a
prisoner is placed in solitary confinement, they are completely isolated from
their fellow inmates and the outside world. This is a drastic measure that
should only be used in the most exceptional cases of unimaginable brutality and
atrocity. According to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners, solitary confinement is defined as confining a prisoner
for more than 22 hours per day without any human interaction.
The term "Solitary
Confinement" is not explicitly defined in any Indian code or legislation,
but its provisions can be found in the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Prisoners
Act 1894. As per Section 73 of the IPC, Solitary Confinement can be used as a
form of rigorous punishment by courts, but its total duration should not exceed
three months. The duration of Solitary Confinement is further categorized based
on the length of the imprisonment sentence. For sentences lasting less than six
months, Solitary Confinement cannot be imposed for more than one month. For
sentences between six months and a year, the duration of Solitary Confinement
should not exceed two months. For sentences of more than a year, the maximum
duration of Solitary Confinement cannot exceed three months. Section 74 of the
Indian Penal Code lays down additional restrictions on Solitary Confinement by
mandating specific time intervals between confinement periods. The section specifies
that the total duration of Solitary Confinement cannot exceed 14 days, with
breaks between two Confinement periods being no less than the prescribed
period. Similarly, for sentences lasting more than three months, the maximum
duration of Solitary Confinement cannot exceed seven days per month, and the
intervals between two Confinement periods must be at least the prescribed
period[5].
The Prisoners Act of 1894 contains
provisions for solitary confinement under Sections 29 and 30(2). Section 29
outlines specific rules that prison officials must follow when placing a person
in solitary confinement, including regular visits by medical officers. Section
30(2) deals with solitary confinement in the context of capital punishment,
stating that after the final death sentence with no further legal recourse, the
prisoner will be held in a separate cell under constant supervision.
International norms
The practice of subjecting inmates to
solitary confinement has been widely criticized by various groups and individuals.
The United Nations' "Nelson Mandela Rules" provide a comprehensive
set of guidelines for the treatment of prisoners globally, which include a ban
on indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement lasting over 15 days. The Rules
recommend using solitary confinement only as a last resort and only for the
shortest possible time[6].
Moreover, Article 5 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) strictly prohibits the use of solitary
confinement, stating that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." Therefore, if it is
determined that solitary confinement amounts to torture, cruel, inhumane, or
degrading treatment or punishment, then any nation that practices it would be
violating the UDHR.
The United Nations Convention defines
torture as an act of state punishment where a person is intentionally subjected
to severe physical or mental pain or suffering for information, punishment,
intimidation, or any reason based on discrimination. This definition raises
significant questions about whether solitary confinement is necessary or if it
violates the Indian Constitution and the prisoners' rights. Solitary
confinement not only goes against the spirit of the Indian Constitution and
prisoners' rights but also poses severe risks to their mental health. Instead
of reforming the prisoner, it can cause greater psychological distress and
hinder their ability to readjust to society. The United Nations introduced the
Convention Against Torture (CAT) to curb this cruel punishment and highlight
its demerits. The CAT recognizes solitary confinement as a form of torture,
stating that it inflicts wounds on the soul so painful that they are almost
tangible but so intangible that they cannot be healed[7].
Different kinds of confinement prescribed
under the Prisons Act
1. Solitary confinement.
Solitary confinement, a form of
imprisonment where a prisoner is isolated from others for an extended period,
is addressed in Section 29 of the Prisons Act, 1894. This section requires that
any cell used for solitary confinement must be equipped with means for the
prisoner to communicate with a prison officer at any time. Additionally, a
Medical Officer or Medical Subordinate must visit the prisoner at least once a
day if they are confined to the cell for more than 24 hours, regardless of
whether the confinement is a punishment or not. The Supreme Court reviewed the
constitutionality of solitary confinement and other forms of hard labor in the
case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn[8].
The court ruled that such measures cannot be imposed without the approval of a
Sessions Judge.
2. Separate confinement.
According to the Indian prison system,
separate confinement is a form of imprisonment that excludes a prisoner from
contact with other inmates, but allows for sight and exercise for at least one
hour per day, and sharing meals with at least one other prisoner. It is
prescribed by sub-section (8) of Section 46 for prisoners convicted of penal
offences, and states that such confinement can last for a period of up to three
months.
3. Cellular confinement
Cellular confinement pertains to a
type of imprisonment, with or without labor, that completely isolates a
prisoner from contact with fellow inmates, while still allowing them visual
access. According to Section 46, sub-section (10), cellular confinement is
designated as a disciplinary measure for prison offenses. It stipulates that a
prisoner can be subjected to cellular confinement for a maximum period of
fourteen days. However, it is mandated that an interval of time equal to or
greater than the duration of the previous confinement must pass before the
prisoner can be sentenced to cellular or solitary confinement again.
4. Confinement in irons
When the Superintendent deems it essential,
considering either the prison's conditions or the characteristics of the
prisoners, to ensure their secure custody, he is authorized to employ irons for
their confinement. This action must be carried out in accordance with
prescribed rules and instructions established by the Inspector General, with
the sanction of the State Government
5. Confinement of prisoners under
sentence of transportation in irons
Section 57 of the Prisons Act, 1894
addresses the matter of confining prisoners sentenced to transportation while
being restrained with irons. The section is outlined as follows: Confinement of
prisoners sentenced to transportation in irons.—(1) Prisoners who have received
a transportation sentence may, subject to any rules established under Section
59, be kept in fetters during the initial three months following their
admission to the prison. (2) If the Superintendent deems it necessary, either
for the prisoner's own safety or for other valid reasons, to extend the use of
fetters beyond the initial three-month period, he must seek approval from the
Inspector General. The Superintendent is required to submit a request to retain
the fetters for the duration he deems necessary, and the Inspector General may
grant authorization accordingly.
Based on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh[9],
there are two key takeaways:It is established that various forms of confinement
prescribed in the Prisons Act can only be imposed within certain limits, which
are determined by the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and
21 of the Constitution of India. These fundamental rights are applicable to
prisoners as well, ensuring their protection and entitlement to these rights. Solitary
confinement is recognized as a punishment that can only be imposed by a court.
However, for the commission of a prison offense, a milder form of punishment,
such as separate confinement or cellular confinement, can be authorized. It is
important to note that the power to impose solitary confinement rests solely
with the judiciary, and the prison administration alone does not possess the
authority to subject a prisoner to such confinement.
Prisoner’s rights
Indeed, prisoners are
afforded certain essential rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Similarly, the Indian constitution delineates the privileges of prisoners,
encompassing safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment and various severe
disciplinary measures[10].
Even while incarcerated, individuals do not relinquish their fundamental rights
as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the Prisons Act, 1894.
Prisoners, as individuals, maintain certain inherent rights that remain intact
throughout their confinement. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Challa Ramkrishna Reddy[11],
it was unequivocally stated that prisoners retain all their essential rights
unless their liberty has been inherently restricted. The Supreme Court emphasized
that regardless of whether a person is a convict or an undertrial, they retain
their status as a human being and continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution of India, including the inviolable right to life.
Article 14 of the
Constitution of India ensures that every individual is entitled to equality
before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
Therefore, Article 14 should be fully applied, including its constituents, when
considering the treatment of prisoners. It applies to all citizens and serves
as a guiding principle for prison authorities in determining the rights and
treatment of inmates.
Article 19 of the
Constitution of India grants various freedoms to citizens, such as the freedom
of speech and expression, and the right to form associations. However, due to
the nature of imprisonment, prisoners may have limitations placed on these
particular freedoms, as they are subject to the inherent constraints of their
confinement.
Article 21 of the
Constitution of India establishes that no person shall be deprived of their
life or personal liberty except through a procedure established by law. This
article encompasses the principles of the right to life and personal liberty,
extending its protection not only to the general population but also to
individuals within the prison system. In the Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration case[12],
the prisoner was subjected to solitary confinement on January 19, 1970,
following a sentence imposed by the Session judge. In light of these
circumstances, the Court argued in favor of the prisoner, contending that the
attempt to take his life after spending ten years in prison, including an
unauthorized period of nearly eight years in solitary confinement, constituted
a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
Right to a speedy trial and legal aid
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of
detainees, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right
guarantees a timely, equitable, and efficient judicial process. It is crucial
to acknowledge that a speedy trial is not only in the public interest or serves
the societal welfare, but it is also an inherent right of the accused. It is of
utmost importance for all parties involved to expedite the determination of the
accused's guilt or innocence within the given circumstances. The judiciary has
played a crucial role in shaping the concept of legal aid and expanding its
scope to ensure access to justice in cases of human rights violations. In the
landmark case of M.H. Hayawadanrao Hoskot
v. Territory of Maharashtra[13],
the Court firmly established that the right to legal aid is a fundamental
element of a fair and impartial legal system.
Right against solitary confinement, handcuffing &
bar fetters, and protection from torture
The term "solitary
confinement" generally refers to the practice of confining an individual
prisoner, typically at the discretion of state authorities, with minimal interaction
allowed with others. Strictly speaking, solitary confinement entails the
complete isolation of the inmate from all aspects of social life. Regrettably,
there are cases where law enforcement or investigative agencies resort to
torture as a means to extract information, obtain knowledge about accomplices,
or coerce confessions. These actions, carried out by police officers entrusted
with protecting civil liberties, flagrantly violate the fundamental rights of
citizens. Nevertheless, the act of one
human inflicting torture upon another is an assertion of power over the
vulnerable. The psychological trauma inflicted by torture is so profoundly
distressing that it leaves lasting and un healable wounds in the individual's
soul. It is a tangible and intangible injury that lingers. In the absence of
justifiable circumstances, it is unjust to subject an arrested person or a
prisoner on trial to unnecessary handcuffing. Those who have been arrested are
already aware of their situation, committed to the cause of justice, and
typically pose no flight risk, especially if their offenses are bailable. The
case of Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan[14]
established that the imposition of solitary imprisonment should be an
exceedingly rare occurrence, reserved only for the most exceptional cases
involving unprecedented levels of depravity or brutality. According to this
landmark ruling, the use of solitary confinement should be employed sparingly
and strictly limited to extraordinary circumstances where it is necessary to
confine convicts within their cells.
Similarly, in the case of
Ranbir Singh Sehgal v. State of Punjab[15],
the court emphasized the need for a rational and reasonable connection between
the objective of the law and the specific provision aimed at maintaining
discipline among prison inmates. The court held that the authority to enforce
such provisions lies with senior correctional officers who are expected to act
with sound judgment, objectivity, and impartiality. Moreover, the court
stressed that the imposition of the penalty of solitary confinement is a power
reserved exclusively for the judiciary and, due to its inherent risks, must be
subject to strict limitations. By ensuring that unnecessary handcuffing and
solitary confinement are avoided, we can uphold the principles of fairness,
dignity, and respect for the rights of arrested individuals and prisoners on
trial. The petitioner was an under-trial prisoner in Tihar, in the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration[16],
in connection with some pending cases, he had to be taken from prison into
court and back regularly. The court directed the officer in question not to
include handcuffing while escorting him to the court and away unless warranted.
But perhaps the escorts were forced to handcuff him. Therefore it sent out a
telegram to one of the judges of the Supreme Court, according to which the court
had accepted the current habeas corpus petition.
Right to expression
In the case of State Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Panduranga[17],
the court asserted that the right to personal expression encompasses the
privilege of writing and publishing a book. However, it noted that the detained
applicant had exercised this privilege in violation of Article 21, without any
lawful authority.
In the case of R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others[18],
the petition addressed the issue of freedom of the press in relation to the
right of citizens to private protection. It also raised the question of the
boundaries of the press's rights to criticize and comment on the actions and
conduct of public officials. The court ruled that the petitioners have the
right, even without the consent or authorization of the subject, to publish
what they claim to be Auto Shankar's life story or autobiography as long as it
is based on information found in public records. However, they may encroach
upon his right to privacy and be held accountable for the consequences under
the law if they go beyond that and publish his complete life history. Moreover,
the court affirmed that the State or its officials cannot prohibit or restrict
such publication.
Provision of Shelter
and Secure Custody for Excess Inmates Beyond Prison Capacity
Efficient measures are in
place to ensure the shelter and safe custody of inmates exceeding the capacity
of any given prison. Adequate arrangements are made to address this situation
and provide suitable accommodations for such individuals.
Effects and impacts of
solitary confinement
The utilization of
solitary confinement as a punitive measure within the judiciary system carries
far-reaching consequences. Inmates subjected to solitary confinement experience
a multitude of psychological ailments and physical afflictions. Extensive
research conducted by numerous scholars unequivocally demonstrates the
detrimental effects of solitary confinement, including the manifestation of
visual and cognitive hallucinations, desensitization to touch and sound,
disturbances in sleep patterns, overwhelming feelings of fear and impending
demise, an alarming increase in suicide rates, distorted perceptions, and the
development of various traumatic disorders.
In a comprehensive
investigation conducted in the United States by Andersen (2000), interviews
were conducted with 133 inmates placed under solitary detention, while 93
inmates were subjected to solitary confinement. Through the utilization of
numerous questionnaires and active prisoner participation, extensive surveys
were carried out to gauge their experiences (Sastry 2005). The findings
provided irrefutable evidence that individuals placed in solitary confinement exhibit a higher prevalence
of mental illness in comparison to their non-confined counterparts.
Furthermore, it was observed that regular prisoners, who were not subjected to
solitary confinement, displayed significantly fewer psychological disturbances.
Andersen's seminal 2000 study introduced the term "disorder" to
encapsulate issues such as violent impulses, chronic fatigue, profound
disintegration of self-identity, suicidal tendencies, and impairments in
interpersonal communication[19].
Abolition of solitary
confinement as punishment
Punishment serves as a
means to help wrongdoers acknowledge their mistakes. It should be implemented
in a manner that dissuades repeat offenses, while ensuring the individuals'
well-being is not compromised. It is crucial to ensure that the punishment is
understood by the recipient and does not result in emotional or physical
distress during the duration of the penalty. In response to public demand for
the abolition of certain penalties, scholars have conducted extensive research
to examine the adverse effects of solitary confinement and combat potential
abuses.
Studies conducted by
Brodsley and Scogin (1988, p. 279) shed light on the detrimental impact of
psychological strain experienced by individuals confined in a cell. Brodsley's
experiment involved 69 prisoners who were assessed through the Isolation
Sentence-Completion Test, revealing that a significant portion—ranging from
two-thirds to one-third—exhibited psychiatric symptoms. Additionally, 45%
reported feelings of anxiety, while 36% exhibited chronic psychosis[20].
In the case of State Of Haryana v. Arun And Ors, the Punjab and Haryana[21],
High Court took a significant stride by eliminating the use of solitary
confinement for death row inmates in Punjab and Haryana. The High Court firmly
stated that there is no scientific or logical justification to segregate death
row inmates from other prisoners immediately after the pronouncement of their
death sentence. This practice inflicts profound mental trauma on the convicts
and violates Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Similarly, the
constitutionality of solitary confinement came into question in the State of Uttarakhand v. Mehtab[22], a
case before the Uttarakhand High Court. Advocates advocating for its abolition
argue that it is an exceedingly inhumane, brutal, and agonizing form of
punishment that flagrantly violates fundamental human rights. Acknowledging the
growing trend towards its eradication, the Uttaranchal High Court ruled that
detaining an offender in solitary confinement before their constitutional,
legal, and basic rights are fully exercised is unconstitutional. According to
the Court, solitary confinement should not be considered as an integral part of
the sentence, but rather an additional sanction imposed by prison authorities.
Once the death sentence is confirmed, the prisoner is immediately subjected to
solitary confinement, devoid of any interaction with fellow inmates. The Court
deemed it unlawful to subject a criminal to solitary confinement until they
have fully exhausted their constitutional, legal, and basic rights. Moreover,
the Court determined that the duration of solitary confinement should be kept
to the shortest period feasible. The Court strongly condemned such treatment as
barbaric, cruel, inflicting extreme pain and suffering, and violating Articles
20(2) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the High Court has
officially prohibited the practice of placing death row inmates in solitary
confinement subsequent to the pronouncement of their sentence.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court, in
the case of Manna v. People of Illinois, recognized that life extends beyond
mere existence and that individuals behind bars cannot be denied equal
treatment. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees this right to every
person, and even the State does not possess the authority to infringe upon it.
Whether a prisoner is a convict, under trial, or in detention, they do not
cease to be human beings. They retain all the rights that any free individual
enjoys, albeit with certain limitations. Simply being incarcerated does not
strip them of their fundamental rights. Even when confined in prison, they
continue to enjoy all their fundamental rights. Despite being convicted of a
crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with established legal
procedures, prisoners still retain residual constitutional rights.
The significance of
upholding the rights of every individual requires no emphasis, and it becomes a
sacred duty of the Court, as the guardian and protector of the fundamental and
essential human rights of citizens, to prevent any infringements thereof. The
Supreme Court has made significant strides in fighting for these rights.
However, the fact remains that it is the responsibility of the police and
prison authorities to be trained and equipped so that they take the prisoner's
rights seriously. The Indian legal system has always upheld the belief in
granting individuals the opportunity for reform. Prison walls represent more
than just concrete barriers; they symbolize the possibility of transformation
and the hope that wrongs can be made right. However, provisions like solitary
confinement undermine the very principles that the Indian justice system
embodies. Solitary confinement is a form of inhumane treatment inflicted upon
any individual, whether they are a convict or not. Merely being convicted of a
crime does not warrant subjecting someone to torture. The effects of solitary
confinement are numerous, leading to the deterioration of mental and physical
health and inner peace. It imposes psychological and physical illnesses on
prisoners. Unfortunately, solitary confinement often has long-lasting effects
that make individuals worse offenders rather than promoting their
rehabilitation. As a nation, we have always regarded punishment as an opportunity
for convicts to realize their mistakes and be given a chance to reform.
However, resorting to solitary confinement not only deprives them of that
chance but also inflicts mental and physical suffering, which is not only
morally unjust but also runs counter to our constitutional values. Therefore,
the use of solitary confinement in prisons should be an exceptional measure of
last resort, exercised sparingly, and never as a tool to suppress the rights of
prisoners. Instead, we should explore alternative methods of punishment and
rehabilitation that prioritize the well-being of individuals within the
criminal justice system
* Assistant Professor, University Institute of Laws,
Panjab University Regional Centre Ludhiana, phn. 9501049094. Email-
homa.bansal57@gmail.com.
[1] A
Detailed Study on Solitary Confinement, Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/world-of-law/a-detailed-study-on-solitary-confinement-46558/(Visited
on April 21,2023).
[2] WRIT
PETITION NO. 17840 OF 2022.
[3] Manas
Ranjan Padhi, ‘Solitary Confinement: A Paradox in The Constitution of India’ 8 International Journal of Creative Research
Thaughts 1111 (2020).
[4] Solitary
Confinement: Violation Of Constitutional Rights Of The Prisoners, available at: https://www.iralr.in/post/solitary-confinement-violation-of-constitutional-rights-of-the-prisoners(Visited
on May 24, 2023).
[5] Solitary
Confinement Sec 73 of IPC, available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9804-solitary-confinement-sec-73-of-ipc.html(Visited
on May 25,2023).
[6] Supra note 4.
[7] J.Sneha,2K.Roja,’
A Study On Solitary Confinement As A Punishment’’ 120 International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 866(2018).
[9] (2012)
13 SCC 192.
[10] Taking
Prisoners Rights Sriously, available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/po.htm#:(Visited
on May 20,2023).
[11] AIR
1980 SC 1579.
[12] AIR
1978 SC 1675.
[14] AIR
1954 Raj 264.
[15] AIR
1961 P H 524, 1961 CriLJ 687.
[16] 1980
AIR 1535, 1980 SCR (3) 855.
[17] 1966
AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702.
[18] 1995
AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632.
[19] Supra note 4.
[20] Psychological
Distress in Solitary Confinement: Symptoms, Severity, and Prevalence in the United
States, 2017–2018, National Library for Medicine, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6987940/(
Visited on April 20,2023).
[21] Murder
Reference No.03 of 2017.
Article Information
A RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN VIS - A -VIS FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Authors: HOMA BANSAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/06
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.