Read Time: 07 minutes

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court while hearing a matter related to overcrowding of prisons in various states, directed the petitioners to withdraw and file afresh with specific instances.

The matter was sought relying on the directions issued by the Top Court in In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

The Petitioners submitted in their plea that the prison system in India is heavily overcrowded. In this context, it is averred,

The national average prison occupancy rate was 18.5% as of 31 December 2019 according to the National Crime Records Bureau Prison Statistics India 2019 Report. According to the same report several States and territories have had a glaring occupancy rate including Delhi (174.9%), Uttar Pradesh (167.9), Uttarakhand (159%), Meghalaya (157.4%), Madhya Pradesh (155.3%), Sikkim (153.8%), Maharashtra (152.7%) and Chhattisgarh (150.1%). Additionally, the petitioner also brought on record a study titled, “Countermapping pandemic policing: A study of sanctioned violence in Madhya Pradesh” highlighting police role in increased arrest during the ongoing pandemic.

Reliance was placed on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons, calling the State Government and Union Territories to take necessary measures to decongest the overcrowded prisons and to prevent the spread of COVID19 in its premises, given that several prisons are heavily overcrowded and that COVID-19 may spread rapidly in enclosed and crowded places such as prisons where norms of physical distancing and hygiene are difficult to maintain. Further, by order dated 23.03.2020, the Top Court directed each State/UT to constitute High Powered Committee to determine the class of prisoners guided by the following factors; (i) Directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (ii) Nature of Offence, (iii) Number of years the convict has been sentenced for, (iv) severity of the offence, (v) Any other factor as the committee may consider. Furthermore, the petitioner in its Annexure P6 “National Campaign Against Torture” on page 199 gives a detailed report on “Status of COVID-19 in Indian Prisons” and “Intervention of the Supreme Court of India during COVID-19” on page 210, respectively.

It is submitted by the petitioners that despite formation of the aforementioned HPCs number of infected prisoners kept increasing in prisons all over the country. Further, due to limited visit of the lawyers to prisons, access to legal aid has become rare and therefore, HPCs may also be given this power to extend interim bails to persons arrested in petty offences. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the overcrowding in prisons is kept in check, it is imperative that the interim bails and paroles are extended periodically, the plea submits.

Moreover, the petition states, there is a need to outline a long term strategy to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, otherwise an ad hoc approach may lead to an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the minds of prisoners, both incarcerated and released, and their family members.

Reliance was placed on settled cases upholding Prisoner Rights as a facet to Article 21; Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642, Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700, Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039 and order by Kerala HC in WP (c) No. 9400 of 2020 taking a firm view against unnecessary arrest in the State of Kerala.

Case Title: Ameya Bokil and Anr v. Union of India