TRISHA CHANDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to immediately remove Sanjay Kumar and Marri Srinivas Reddy currently lodged at Cherlapally Central Prison from solitary confinement and permit their movement within jail and communication with other prisoners. The petitioner requests the respondents to ensure that Sanjay Kumar and Marri Srinivas Reddy currently lodged in Cherlapally Central Prison are treated equally with the other prisoners in Cherlapally Central Prison and are provided access to all facilities available to other prisoners including television, newspaper, work, library and access to outdoor and common spaces.

(2.) Sri P. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Manoj Reddy submits hat the petitioner is an advocate working with Project 39A which is a criminal justice initiative based in National Law University, Delhi who provide pro bono legal representation before the Supreme Court and various High Courts to prisoners sentenced to death. It is stated that this Writ Piton is filed representing two death row prisoners lodged in Cherlapally Central Jail 1) Sanjay Kumar, S/o Pavan Ram and 2) Marri Srinivas Reddy, S/o Bal Marri Reddy. It is stated that Sanjay Kumar was sentenced to death on 28/10/2020 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in S.C.No. 107 of 2020 for the offences under Ss. 449, 328, 380, 404, 302 IPC. and confirmation proceedings i.e. RT 2 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2021 against the conviction and death sentence are pending before the High Court. It is submitted that Marri Srinivas Reddy was sentenced to death on 6/2/2020 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No. 109 of 2020 and S.C.No. 110 of 2020 for the offences under Ss. 366, 376(3), 376-A, 302, 201 IPC. and Sec. 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and confirmation Proceedings RT 2 of 2020 and RT 3 of 2020 and Criminal Appeals No. 248 and 249 of 2020 are pending before the High Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the persons were confined in a solitary ward and they have been segregated from the other prisoners on the ground of death sentence imposed on them. Now they are lodged in individual cells which have only one window without any ventilation. They were instructed to collect the meals and eat them alone inside their respective cells which in turn bar them from interacting with other prisoners. It is submitted that they are denied access to all common areas in the prison, including library and television viewing area which they had access to before. Further, they are under constant surveillance as the prison guards check on them every 20-30 minutes making it difficult for them to undertake routine activities. It is submitted that Marri Srinivas Reddy also informed the petitioner that he is only provided a small place inside the cell and a wash room and he is not allowed to use the sanitization facilities used by the other prisoners. His cell is isolated due to which he is unable to see or talk to any other prisoners. These restrictions and the segregation imposed on him has caused irrevocable harm to both their physical and mental health and they are not allowed to leave their cell throughout the day barring one hour in the morning and evening when they are allowed to walk outside. Earlier, they were permitted to move around within the confines of the prison during the day and also allowed to work at the garment department within Cherlapally Central Prison and now the authorities are removing all the amenities such as access to common sanitation facilities, television and newspapers. Four other prisoners on death row are also being similarly kept in isolated cells, segregated and prohibited from communicating with the rest of the prison population. It is submitted that pursuant to the video mulaqat, an e-mail was addressed to the Superintendent of Cherlapally Central Prison requesting to ensure that these prisoners are not kept in solitary or segregated confinement and they have also specifically mentioned that these kind of confinement and differential treatment from other prisoners amounts to violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India. When there was no response, they have also addressed a notice to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy vide e-mail dtd. 2/4/2022. It is submitted that the petitioner has visited the prison on 6/4/2022 and she was informed that they are still confined in separate and individual cells and are not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. Hence, they have come before this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration,(1978) 4 SCC 494. wherein the solitary confinement is defined as 'seclusion of the prisoner from the sight of other prisoners and from communication with other prisoners. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev. V. State of Rajasthan,(1981) 1 SCC 503. and submits that the lodgment in a separate cell is no different from solitary confinement. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons,(2019) 2 SCC 435. held that the convicts on death row have the right to move freely within the confines of the prison like any other convict undergoing rigorous imprisonment and he is entitled to every comforts that are available to other prisoners including communication with prisoners, books reading material, etcetera. Learned Senior Counsel submits that solitary confinement is impermissible under the Prisons Act, 1894 and keeping them in the custodial segregation / solitary confinement before exhaustion of his constitutional, legal and fundamental rights is without authority of law and amounts to torture. He submits that the death sentence imposed by the trial Court is pending confirmation before this Court and the sentence is not beyond judicial scrutiny, as such, they do not fall within the ambit of 'prisoners under the death sentence' in the context of Sec. 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894. He submits that there is no judicial order directing them to be placed under solitary confinement as a form of punishment under Sec. 73 of the IPC. Hence, such confinement is illegal. He also submits that as per the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 does not prescribe any form of solitary confinement to the prisoners sentenced to death. He submits that a judicial order under Sec. 73 IPC. must be passed sentencing a person to solitary confinement. In this case, there is no order passed under Sec. 73 IPC. directing that the accused be kept in solitary confinement. When once there is no such order, confining the petitioner in a separate cell is in violation of the Prison Rules. Additionally, Rule 773 under Chapter XLIV does not prescribe any form of segregation or solitary confinement to the petitioner. He submits that it is not the case that immediately after the conviction, they were segregated from the other accused. In fact, earlier they were permitted to move along with the other prisoners and without any reason now they were segregated from other prisoners. This amounts to imposing additional punishment and separate punishment not authorized by law and this will amount to torture. Learned Senior Counsel submits that though both Sanjay Kumar and Marri Srinivas Reddy are death convicts, they have a right to move freely within the confines of the prison and also have right to have a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he submits that a direction may be issued to the respondents to immediately remove both Sanjay Kumar and Marri Srinivas Reddy from solitary confinement and permit their movement within the confines and shall be permitted to communicate with other prisoners and also to treat them equally along with other prisoners and provide access to the facilities available to other prisoners including television, newspapers, library.