Open Access Research Article
‘PRISONER RIGHTS: AN ANALYSIS INTO ITS EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE’
Published Paper
Article Details
‘PRISONER
RIGHTS: AN ANALYSIS INTO ITS EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE’
AUTHORED BY - AAFREEN K. MOHAMMED
School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
ABSTRACT
Humane
conditions of prison systems are a question that has been under the fire for a long
period of time. Several Human rights organizations have opposed the idea of the
current prison system, but the system is one that has evolved over a long time
of reform and modification. But jurisprudentially put, are prisoners forfeited
of their rights fairly? How is the Constitution of our country invoked in such
cases, and how are rights prescribed by the court of law, are what the paper
seeks to address.
Historically, punishment
did not pertain to the purposes it does today. Barbaric treatment of wrongdoers
and subjecting them to harsh
conditions were the norm, and the purpose was revenge and vengeance. Prisoners
were not considered ‘persons’ then, but mere anti-social elements
dangerous to the society they lived in. However, with the
creation of various theories and philosophies, the human psyche and mental
state was given priority, thus realizing
that every human being, regardless of being lawbreakers, had to be subject to
rights and duties. Their rights could
not necessarily be enjoyed to the fullest; but it also could not be deprived
of. Human rights watches came into the
picture, and the status of
prisoners also took a turn.
Although
today prisoners undergo unfair treatment and torture, their conditions are
taken into consideration and are put
through various checks and analysis. Reformative facilities are given due
importance, and the extent of restriction on their rights
have been limited.
The paper aims to justify
the current prison
system, and to understand its evolution over the centuries.
KEYWORDS: Conditions, Evolution, Human Rights,
Jurisprudence, Punishment
RESEARCH PROBLEMS
1.
The deprivation of prisoner rights, fundamental and ordinary, through their confinement and imprisonment.
2.
The conditions under which they are imprisonment, and the invocation
of the judiciary to limit arbitrariness.
PRISONER RIGHTS: AN ANALYSIS
INTO ITS EVOLVING
JURISPRUDENCE
I.
Introduction
Early
history records systems of imprisonments at around 3rd millennia BC.
The most prominent reason for such a
system ever since was to detain people and to restrict the freedoms of
convicts. Ancient Greek and Roman empires
imprisoned wrongdoers in extremely narrow passageways or tight spaces. Initially, prisons were a prerequisite to a subsequent execution or
perpetual life of misery and slavery. It was with the interference of the English legal system that legislations
which reduced unreasonable imprisonment were introduced. The idea of a jury was significant in ensuring that
persons were not unfairly detained and tortured. In the 12th century
it was also propounded that no person
can be detained and imprisoned without a fair trial.1 Over time,
with civilization and evolution of
human beings and social settings, prison systems also evolved. They turned into
systems of reformation and spaces for behavioural correction.
Such spaces
were meant to serve wrongdoers to ponder upon their mistakes
and re-think their actions. Retribution and putting the guilty through the consequences of their action
was also a motive. Theories of punishment also
went through its phase of modification and development, with retributive and deterrent theories
put in the past by more modern concepts like the reformative theory.2
The
focus on just an individual wrongdoer was shifted to the society as a whole,
with the role of societies in the cause
of a crime and the creation of a criminal explained by various theorists. It
was also with the growth of humanized
approaches and the prominence of human rights that brought the conditions of
the imprisoned and their places of reform into light and change them into places with a kinder purpose.
II.
Extinguishment of rights
A prisoner
is deprived of certain rights
while in prison.
The obvious loss of freedom
apart, some inalienable rights of the prisoner as a human
being remain. Those rights can never be deprived, like the right
to food and water, the right
against violence and torture, etc. However liberty, freedom of movement, etc.
is in direct violation while a person is incarcerated. The perception of prisoners as a threat to the harmonious social structure is what deprives
them their right to vote. It is believed and justified that since they are doers of wrong against society,
they should not have a say in the democratic process of voting.
This is highly controversial, as the exclusion
of a certain class of people can result in the violation
of a lot of conditions under theories of equality, justice
and democracy. This,
however, is varying from country to country and
between different legal systems.
Even
though the journey to an alternate system to imprisonment is a long one, it is
still in the process of refinement.
Every legal system recognizes the deprivation and violation of many rights due
to the very nature of prison as an
institution itself, and seeks to reform this. A person who has been imprisoned
does not necessarily undergo
reformation or change in attitude. This contravenes the very purpose of a
prison, and can also result in prisoners’
lack of accommodation in society post their conviction period. Even after
undergoing the harsh treatments within four walls, inhumane conditions
and a repetitive, mechanical life, stepping out into a society
2 iBlog pleaders, Raunak Chaturvedi, November
19 2020, https://blog.ipleaders.in/theories-of-punishment-a-thorough-study/
which
neglects their presence and discourages their growth is a painful thought. The
preservation of rights of a prisoner
after their detention period is also necessary. How far has any country
achieved with regards to the above? Are these ideas put
into practice or are they a distant dream?
III.
The jurisprudence of prisoner rights
When
the concept of imprisonment is exercised, a serious look into the right to
liberty and freedom is important, and the balancing of the right of the state to take away one’s right and the right of an individual in society to claim his fundamental right is of extreme concern.
Every human being is vested
with rights, and there have been several
international organizations to
reaffirm the status of human beings and their human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights3
for instance, states the rights of a detainee even though he is a person who
has committed a crime or a wrong.
Prisoner’s rights hence has been a subject of wide interpretation and
evolution, and the light to human rights
around the world has put it into more meaningful change. Let us take a look into the contextualization of prisoner rights in India and the rest of the
world.
IV.
Prisoner rights
in England
Earlier,
a criminal or wrongdoer was interpreted as being deprived of his rights in
entirety. He was a menace to society, and any means of punishment against him could be justified. Prison administrators and officials were the sole authorizers of the prison, and
anything could be done to the prisoners at their own will. The prisoner was treated
according to the conditions and rules laid down by these very officials. No-one would question
their acts, thereby giving way to corruption and
torturous situations. However the beginning of the century threw light to the prevailing condition and demanded
change. Civil rights were non-existent for a prisoner initially, but it was then contented that this forfeiting of
rights can be fair only if it results in the direct safety of the general
public and to reform and rehabilitate the convict.
Currently,
the English legal system does not allow the automatic forfeit of a convict’s
rights.4 Regardless of a person’s sentence,
his civil rights
remain with him.5 Prisons are inclusive and functions with all civil and criminal
rights, and the officials are bound by them as well. One right taken
away would be their membership to the House of Commons, which is a direct result of a sentence
that extends beyond a year.
Prison
systems include a lot of physical and mental disharmony between inmates,
wherein there are possibilities of injury
and sufferings to prisoners by inmates. Earlier,
officials were were not charged
for any kind of negligence to the sufferings of prisoners. A prisoner did not have the
right to sue for such inconveniences faced by him. However, recent amendments have resulted in the courts allowing
persons who have been violated
of prison safety
rules to sue officials. The breach of duty of care of the prisoners by the prison
heads would result
in action against
them, and the creation of these rules have instigated the legitimacy of
their actions.6 Wherein there has been a destruction to property by prisoners, action will be initiated
against prison officials. The principle that even a prisoner remains and continues to be the Queen’s subject, and
does not become her enemy, has cleared way for
justifications as to why a convict’s rights cannot be forfeited
completely due to his actions.7 Thus, he continues to have the right to sue and initiate
action against any breach
of duty or care against him.
3 United Nations.
(1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
4 37 Halsbury's Laws of England (1982)
5 Raymond v.
Honey, [1982]
6 Hancock v. Prison Commissioners, [1959]
7 B.S. Sinha,
Law of Torts (1976
This
legal position of prisoners in modern day England has been a result of various
activists, protests and movements to ensure
the sustenance of human rights
with respect to incarcerated persons.
V.
Rights of Prisoners in India
Early
legislations with regards to prisoner’s rights include the Prisoner’s Act 1894,
Transfer of Prisoner’s Act, 1900, etc. Currently, apart from these special legislations, the Constitution of India maintains
certain fundamental rights which is also applicable to
prisoners. Early legislations were a result of the retributional approach that existed with regards to prison houses.
They were means to oppress and make the inmate suffer. The concepts of reformation and rehabilitation was least touched
upon, and the focus was on control
of movement and action, and restriction. The British made use of their own legal system
to relevantly apply it in India to imprison any politically opposing
parties or anyone not adhering
to their needs
and demands. The lack of accountability of prison officials
also allowed them to oppress and subjugate persons to pain if disobeyed.
The Indian constitution also did not exist
so as to create a system of trial and fair procedural aspects to ensure the
reasonable treatment of prisoners. But
legislations were further created so as to remove the arbitrariness of the
British. In the landmark Sunil Batra case8,
fundamental rights of the prisoner was reiterated, thus removing the
arbitrariness and the exercise of full freedom by the
prison heads.
Fundamental rights
of prisoners have been subject
to restrictions in India. The legal position
of a prisoner in India
is almost similar to that of England. However, sentence to prison
results in the automatic loss of certain civil
rights.9 Voting
rights have been suspended for a prisoner who has been sentenced, but only till
the extent of the sentence. Post
his release, he can continue exercising his right to vote. However, a prisoner
in India does not possess a right to sue against another
party, regardless of a civil wrong done against
him.
VI.
Constitutional approach
and its jurisprudence
While
the Constitution of India grants fundamental rights like the right to life,
right to personal liberty, etc., it is not
absolute and has reasonable restrictions to its exercise. Through various
landmark judgements, precedents have been created so as to put rights
into context. For instance, Article
1410 can be made relevant
to this situation. According
to Article 14, everyone should be treated ‘equally’ in the eyes of law, and
this has helped the legal system to
identify and differentiate between various classes of prisoners and group them
on the basis of needs, rights,
punishments and restrictions. Even with respect to article 19, several freedoms
have been granted to citizens.
However, they are also restricted, as freedoms can always be equated to
privileges and they can always be restricted under reasonable circumstances, imprisonment in this case. Freedom
of trade, business
and occupation cannot be
practiced by prisoners, but it cannot be concluded as an unfair violation of
this right. The rights forfeiture theory of punishment11 justifies that a person,
when committing a crime, relinquishes his right of not being subject to punishment and harsh treatment. It is but Article 21, that has been the centre of attention with regards
to prisoner rights and discussions revolving it. Arbitrary actions have been
curtailed with the landmark case of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India12, and prison officials cannot
initiate any self-willed actions against prisoners. The suspension of the above articles of the constitution must be assisted
by a fair and reasonable
8 Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1675.
9 Section 10 (d)
of the Citizenship Act 1955
10 Constitution of India,
Article 14 reads:- "The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India".
11 The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment, Christopher Heath Wellman, Vol. 122, No. 2 (January 2012), https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663791
12
A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597
procedure
by the court of law, and fair judgements must be the consequences of the
results thereon. In the A.K. Gopalan case13, article 21
was put under a lot of contentions and argumentations to finally reach a result
of fair and reasonable procedure as a
pre-requisite to forfeit the liberty of persons. Liberty was not absolute, and
it can be restrained in view of the
larger public welfare as per the judgement in this case. This furthers the
justification of incarcerated
individuals’ restrictions on movement and freedoms at the cost of the society
at large. With the coming of several important
cases, it was concluded that resistance and rights against
unfair torture and treatment falls under the ambit of Article 21,
although it is not explicitly mentioned.14 In the Sunil Batra case,
it was held that prisoners
can at any time include
the interference of the courts
when their right to fair treatment was violated. The courts upheld this right of
prisoners as they must satisfy the tests of the articles of the Constitution.
It is necessary for the court of law
to interfere in prisoner rights to ensure that the prison officials do not take
matters into their own hands.
Although they can differentiate between
ordinary and dangerous
prisoners, they cannot
take any action that would cause unnecessary torture
to inmates.
VII.
Judicial evolution
The
courts have approved of the punishment of jail to convicts, resulting in the
current prison system we have today.
It is with this theory in mind that the courts can, by all means, create
guidelines for the actions of prison authorities
in case of change in behaviour of inmates. The jurisprudential justification of
a prison and its punishment is the
lawful sentencing of a person to reform himself and to rethink the actions
which caused him his fate. It is not to avenge the guilty of his previous
actions but to allow a judge, a lawfully authorized individual to decide
his temporary suspension of otherwise state-provided rights. The state is also
obliged to ensure a fair and speedy
trial procedure to the guilty, so as to allow him to explain his state of
actions. The theory of Natural Justice
must be considered as under Article 21, and a reasonable trial, not an ordinary one is entitled
to the accused.
VIII.
Conclusion
It
is to be noted that deprivation of persons of certain aspects of his
fundamental rights cannot be unreasonable, as
in a social contract theory, a person receives rights from the State in return
of certain duties to be performed by
him. However, he can invoke the judiciary to ensure his right treatment inside
these confinement houses. A modern jurisprudential approach of rehabilitative and reformative imprisonment has been created,
and has a long way to go in terms
of finding alternatives and to better
the conditions of prisons to ensure that the purpose
of it is fulfilled. It is only a question
of law to figure out a way to reduce
the arbitrary use of power as it will delay justice to both
the accused and the victim, and ultimately the society.
13 A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras A.I.R.
1950 S.C. 27
14 P.N. Bhagwathi, "Human Rights in the
Criminal Justice System’’.
Article Information
‘PRISONER RIGHTS: AN ANALYSIS INTO ITS EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE’
Authors: AAFREEN K. MOHAMMED
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- 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.