Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons   has held that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS) should be implemented effectively in all the states. 

What was the Background of In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Case? 

• In the present case, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal is serving as the Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in this matter and has submitted a note summarizing information received from various states. 
• Seven States - Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Kerala have submitted detailed information about their prison conditions. 
• Three states - Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal - have submitted voluminous reports exceeding 300 pages each. 
• Additional affidavits have been received from five states - Telangana, Assam, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. 
• The case involves review of: 
  • Prison overcrowding 
  • Infrastructure improvements needed 
  • Special facilities for women prisoners 
  • Facilities for children lodged with their mothers 
  • Basic amenities like toilets, bathrooms, and kitchens 
  • Medical facilities including de-addiction centers 
  • Construction of new jails and expansion of existing ones 
• Various committees have been constituted under District and Sessions Judges to examine and make recommendations about prison conditions in different states. 
• The matter relates to ensuring fundamental rights of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI). 
• This is an ongoing case where the Supreme Court is monitoring the implementation of prison reforms and improvements across various states in India. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • That State governments and Union Territory administrations have not fully recognized the severity of the prison conditions situation. 
  • The Court noted a sense of lethargy and lack of urgency in addressing prison issues, observing that state counsel typically just ask for more time rather than providing concrete solutions. 
  • The Court found the State of Bihar's approach particularly unsatisfactory, noting that they were being casual about urgent matters that cannot be dealt with lightly. 
  • Regarding approval processes, the Court observed there was no valid reason for delays in granting approvals for various prison improvement projects. 
  • The Court expressed concern that leaving matters to Prison Superintendents was ineffective since they are junior-most officers who cannot influence higher-level decisions. 
  • The Court pointed out that simply having a large campus area doesn't automatically mean enhanced prison capacity - proper facilities for each prisoner are what matter. 
  • The Court emphasized that proper prison facilities should include: 
    • Adequate sleeping area 
    • Mobility within the prison 
    • Kitchen and food facilities 
    • Health facilities 
    • Other basic amenities 
  • The Court firmly stated that prisoners are protected under Article 21 of COI and retain their fundamental rights even while in custody. 
  • The Court observed that many problems identified in earlier judgments (like Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka) continue to persist in Indian jails today. 
  • The Court stressed that all stakeholders need to "rise to the occasion" and fulfill their obligations as quickly as possible, rather than treating these matters casually. 
  • The Court found it "most unfortunate" that State counsels couldn't properly address the Court's queries due to lack of proper instructions from their respective states. 
  • The Court observed that states need to look at prison issues holistically, including both infrastructure and staffing needs like wardens, cooks, doctors, and other jail staff. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations, held that Section 479 of BNSS should be implemented effectively in all the States. 

Who is Considered as an Undertrial? 

• An undertrial is an accused person who is being held in custody by a court of law and is awaiting trial for a crime. 
• As per the 78th Law Commission Report, an undertrial also includes a person who is in judicial custody on remand during investigation. 

What is the Status of Undertrials in India? 

• Undertrials constitute 77% or three times the number of convicts. 
• As per the Prison Statistics India 2021 records: 
  • The number of undertrial prisoners has increased from 3,71,848 in 2020 to 4,27,165 in 2021 having increased by 14.9% during this period. 
  • Among the 4,27,165 undertrial prisoners, the highest number of undertrial prisoners was lodged in District Jails (51.4%, 2,19,529 undertrials) followed by Central Jails (36.2%, 1,54,447 undertrials) and Sub Jails (10.4%, 44,228 undertrials) as of 31st December 2021. 
  • Uttar Pradesh has reported the maximum number of undertrials (21.2%, 90,606 undertrials) in the country followed by Bihar (13.9%, 59,577 undertrials) and Maharashtra (7.4%, 31,752 undertrials) at the end of 2021. 
  • Among the 4,27,165 undertrial prisoners, only 53 were civil inmates. 
  • Out of 5,54,034 prisoners, 68% belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. 

What are the Issues Faced by Undertrials? 

• Prisons are dangerous places and so undertrials are subjected to abuse and violence such as physical mishandling, torture, group violence. 
• Many prisoners are unable to get bail due to lack of economic resources. 
• Most of them face problems of overcrowding and shortage of adequate space to lodge prisoners in safe and healthy conditions. 
• In the absence of the earning member of the family, the family is forced into destitution with children going astray. 
• They often get neglected in jail for many years, and in some cases, it exceeds the maximum sentence for the crime they had committed. 
• Circumstantial and young offenders often turn into full-fledged criminals. 

What is the Maximum Period for which Undertrial Prisoner can be Detained under Section 479 of BNSS?  

• Section 479 (1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail:  
  • Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law:   
  • Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond:   
  • Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.   
  • Explanation. —In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.  
• The Subsection (2) provides that: Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court.  
• The Subsection (3) provides that the Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.   

What are the New Features Introduced by Section 479 of BNSS?  

• The new features introduced by Section 479 of BNSS are as follows:  
  • There is a provision for release of first-time offenders in case they have undergone detention of period extending upto one third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence.  
  • A new provision added by way of sub section 2 is that an under-trial prisoner shall not be released on bail if an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than offence or in multiple cases is pending against him.  
  • Further, sub section 3 is added which provides that bail can be granted on the report of the Superintendent of jail.  

What are Landmark Cases cited in this Case?  

• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980):  
  • This is the landmark case on Anticipatory bail.  
  • The Court in this case held that the object of the bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the trial.  
  • The proper test to be applied while determining if the bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.  
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy. State of Bihar (1980):  
  • The Court in this case declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution.  
• Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992):  
  • It is the obligation of the State or complainant to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.  
  • In a given case where the accused demands speedy trial and is not given one may be a relevant factor in his favour.  
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022):  
  • The Court held that the provision contained in Section 436 A of CrPC will apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision.  
  • The court also stated that certain responsibility and accountability is expected form the courts, authorities and police officers to follow the concept presumption of innocence which entails that no purpose is fulfilled by arresting a person until proven guilty.