Summary
In the continuing prisoners’ rights proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the Union Home Ministry to notify a Committee on Prison Reforms chaired by former Supreme Court judge Amitava Roy, with senior BPR&D and Tihar prison officials as members. Its remit covered implementation of prison guidelines, overcrowding, unnatural deaths, staffing, training, open prisons, women prisoners and children. The Union was to fund and support the Committee, and public authorities had to cooperate. Reports were requested on a preferred timetable, with further judicial consideration on receipt of the final report and liberty to revive the writ petition.
Issues
- What institutional process should review prison reform and the protection of prisoners’ rights.
- What remit, support, cooperation and reporting arrangements should govern the Committee.
Held
- Earlier reports and judicial directions had not resolved the systemic issues of prison overcrowding, unnatural deaths and inadequate or untrained staff. With the Attorney General accepting the proposal, the Court ordered creation of a Committee to review the wider range of prison-reform issues. (¶ 5–12)
- The Home Ministry was to notify forthwith a Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms chaired by former judge Amitava Roy, with the Inspector General of Police, BPR&D, and Director General (Prisons), Tihar Jail, as members. Its office was to be in Delhi; the Union was to provide infrastructure, personnel, financial support and the prescribed terms of service. (¶¶ 12, 14(A)–(F))
- The seventeen terms of reference included implementation of the Model Prison Manual 2016 and relevant advisories, reports on women in detention, prison staff training, conditions of children in conflict with law, overcrowding and undertrial review, legal aid, remission, parole, furlough, prevention of violence and unnatural deaths, medical care, staffing, open prisons and rehabilitation. The remit also covered minor children of women prisoners and children in observation, safety and special homes. (¶ 13)
- Recommendations on the first three terms were requested preferably within three months of provision of necessary facilities. Other recommendations were to be made as soon as feasible, with interim reports permissible and recommendations also sent to State Governments. Overall collection of information and recommendations to the Court was requested preferably within twelve months. These were preferred reporting periods. (¶¶ 14, 14, Directions 1 and 3)
- The Committee could devise its procedure, appoint advisers and experts, seek information and evidence, visit States and seek further court directions. Central, State and Union Territory authorities had to furnish assistance and cooperate; the Union was to provide an Additional Solicitor General’s assistance when required. The matter was to be listed on the final report, and the writ petition could be revived when required by the amicus. (¶¶ 14, Directions 2 and 4–7, 15)
Result
Prison Reforms Committee constitution, support, cooperation and reporting directions issued. Further listing on the final report; writ petition revivable at the amicus’s request.