PETITIONER

1st DR. SHANKAR DAYAL SHARMA

NATIONAL P.I.L. DRAFTING COMPETITION

Team Code – PIL_TC 69

IN THE HON’BLE SC OF INDIA

UNDER ART. 32

OF CONSTITION OF INDIA

PETITION NO._______OF 2023

JUCL (PETITIONER)

Versus

UOI. (RESPONDENT)

-MEMORANDUM on behalf of PETITIONER-

I
 PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………. … III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………….

IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………. ......VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………. VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………….... IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………………X

1: Whether the continued detention of Mr. M without a trial constitute as a violation of

his fundamental rights? ......……………………………………………………………….. X

1.1 Violation of right to liberty under art. 21 of the Constitution

1.2 Violation of right to fair & speedy trial under the Constitution

1.3 Violation of freedom from arbitrary detention under art. 22 of the Constitution

2: Whether Jail authorities fail to ensure the rights, safety, & well-being of inmates
within the Indian system? ……………………………………………………….
……………. XVII

2.1 Overcrowding leading to an unsafe & unwell environment for the prisoners.

2.2 Lack of healthcare in prison

2.3 Human rights violation & mental abuse of prisoners

3: Whether socioeconomic disparity is creating a hindrance in accessing

justice? ...XXIII

3.1 Violation of right to legal aid

3.2 Unavailability of accessible resources serves as a significant impediment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ……………………………………………………………XXVIII

II
 PETITIONER

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

§ section
& and
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Co. Company
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
ed. Edition
et. al. et alia
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
v. Versus

III
 PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 594
2. State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712
3. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
4. Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra 1983 AIR 378, 1983 SCR (2) 337
5. Maneka Gandhi v union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
6. Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516
7. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. (II) v. Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1369
8. Madhu Mehta v. Union of India 1989 AIR 2299, 1989 SCR (3) 774
9. Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149
10. All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002)4 SCC 247
11. Dilip Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416
12. Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702
13. Bhim Singh vs UOI (2015)15 SCC 605
14. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal no. 1277 of 2014
15. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) 2 SCC 549
16. Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary & Ors (2012) 5 SCC 1, 2012 AIR
SCW 3660
17. Rasikbhai Ramsing Rana v. State of Gujarat 1998 CriLJ 1347
18. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India 1989 AIR 2039
19. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Writ
Petition (Criminal) Nos. 149 of 2012 & 5 of 2013
20. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
21. Amit Kumar Dey v. State of Tripura (2014) 06 TP CK 0049
22. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1675
23. M. H. Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra 1978 AIR 1548, 1979 SCR (1) 192
24. Lingala Vijay Kumar v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 4 SCC 196

IV
 PETITIONER

25. Khatri & Ors. vs. State Of Bihar & Ors, 1981 SCR (2) 408, 1981 SCC (1) 627
26. Suk Das & Anr vs Union Territory Of Arunachal 1986 AIR 991, 1986 SCR (1) 590
27. Common Cause (a registered society) v. Union of India (1996)6 SCC 530
28. Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2)
516
29. Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 1514
30. Moti Ram & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1594
31. Ramamurthy v State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 1739

STATUES
1. Constitution of India,1950
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Cr.P.C.,1973
4. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. The Prisons Act, 1894
6. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

LIST OF BOOKS
1. M.P. Jain, “Indian Constitutional Law”, 7th ed., LexisNexis India
2. K I Vibhute, “PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law”, 15th ed., LexisNexis India
3. Abhilash Malhotra, Investigation to Trial: The Book for a Common Man, Lawmann’s

LIST OF ARTICLES & REPORTS

1. Report of National Crime Records Bureau, 2021
2. Report of National Crime Records Bureau, 2019
3. 74th Report of the Law Commission of India
4. Decoding Budget 2023 by The Hindu
5. 268th Report of Law Commission of India
6. Denied basic facilities, women prisoners impacted far worse than men: SC panel on
prison reforms by The Indian Express
7. UNDOC Infographic: “The Nelson Mandela Rules” by United Nations Organisation

V
 PETITIONER

8. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment by United Nations General Assembly
9. The Justice Amitava Roy (retired) Committee Report Suggestions by The Indian
Express

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to hear the present matter under
Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1949.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1949, reads as under:

“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto &
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.
3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) & (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers by the Court under clause (2). The right
guaranteed by this art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.”

VI
 PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. M, the sole breadwinner for his family, resides in a poverty-stricken

neighborhood in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. He represents a segment of society
that is economically disadvantaged & marginalized. Throughout his life, Mr. M has
struggled to make ends meet due to his lack of education & job opportunities,
making it extremely challenging to provide for himself & his family. Despite these
hardships, Mr. M has been determined to lead an honest life & has never resorted to
criminal activities.
2. On April 24, 2016, a valuable jewelry box went missing from a local store, & the
store owner reported the theft to the police. The security camera footage was of low
quality, making it difficult to identify the thief. However, a few passersby claimed
they saw Mr. M near the store around the time of the theft. This led the police to
consider him a prime suspect without conducting a thorough investigation.
3. On April 25, 2016, Mr. M was arrested on the grounds of theft under § 378 of the
Indian Penal Code. He was arrested & detained by the police authorities based on a
complaint from the victim but failed to conduct a proper investigation into the theft.
4. The police were not able to find any evidence, such as fingerprints, concrete
surveillance footage, or eyewitness accounts, to link Mr. M to the crime. Despite
this, he was detained in police custody for 2 days before being produced before the
magistrate & sent to judicial custody.
5. However, instead of a speedy & fair trial, he was subjected to a nightmarish ordeal,
being held in detention for an astonishing 7 years without any proceedings to
ascertain his guilt or innocence, languishing behind bars, oblivious to the legal
intricacies that held him captive.
6. During this period, Mr. M's life continued to deteriorate. The prolonged trial & the
stigma of being a suspected thief took a toll on his mental & physical health, & the
jail conditions weren't of much help. His family faced financial hardship &

VII
 PETITIONER

struggled to make ends meet without his support.

7. An NGO named, JUCL came across the case & decided to file a PIL in Supreme
Court of India.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following questions are presented before the court in the instant matter-

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF MR. M WITHOUT A TRIAL

CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE JAIL AUTHORITY FAIL IN, ENSURING THE RIGHTS,

SAFETY, & WELL-BEING OF INMATES WITHIN THE INDIAN PRISON
SYSTEM?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITY IS CREATING A HINDRANCE

IN ACCESSING JUSTICE?

VIII
 PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF MR. M WITHOUT A TRIAL

CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the continued detention of Mr.
M without a trial constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. This would be substantiated
with the help of the following arguments, firstly, the continued detention led to the
transgression of the fundamental Right to Life & Personal Liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the
Indian Constitution; secondly, there was a violation of the Right to Fair & Speedy Trial under
the Constitution of India; lastly, there was a violation of Freedom from Arbitrary Detention
under Art. 22 of the Indian Constitution

WHETHER THE JAIL AUTHORITY FAIL IN, ENSURING THE RIGHTS,

SAFETY, & WELL-BEING OF INMATES WITHIN THE INDIAN PRISON
SYSTEM?

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the jail authorities failed in
ensuring the rights, safety, & well-being of the inmates within the Indian prison system. This
would be substantiated by the following arguments, firstly, because of overcrowding in the
prisons, there is an unsafe & unwell environment for the prisoners inside; secondly, lack of
healthcare has led to severe situations in the life of prisoners; lastly, there has been a violation
of human rights & mental health of prisoners has considerably increased.

IX
 PETITIONER

WHETHER SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITY IS CREATING A HINDRANCE

IN ACCESSING JUSTICE?

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the socioeconomic disparities
are creating hindrance in accessing justice. This would be substantiated by two arguments,
firstly, there has been a violation of Right to Legal Aid enshrined in Art. 21 & Art. 39A of the
Constitution of India where the accused was not given the chance to seek legal aid; &
secondly, there has been unavailability of accessible resources which serves as a significant
impediment to providing justice to the accused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF MR. M

WITHOUT A TRIAL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF HIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

The Hon’ble SC, as watchful guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens, has the
duty imposed by the Constitution to protect fundamental rights. Consequently, a breach of
the same will not be entertained. Without Art. 32 of the Constitution, “it would be a
nullity…it is the very soul of the constitution”.

It is humbly contended that Art. 32 of the Constitution confers a wide jurisdiction on the
Court to enforce fundamental rights. It is their constitutional duty to decide the dispute on
the merits irrespective of whether it involves jurisdiction, law, or fact. In Romesh Thappar
v. State of Madras1, it was held that the Court cannot refuse to entertain petitions praying
for enforcement as they are guarantors of the constitution.

1.1 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO LIBERTY UNDER ART. 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION

1
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCR 594.

X
 PETITIONER

It is respectfully submitted that there has been a transgression of fundamental rights

enshrined in Art. 21 of the constitution as the prison conditions took a toll on Mr. M’s
mental & physical health. In State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy 2, the court ruled
that, unless the constitution forbids it, a prisoner is entitled to all fundamental rights & that
the right to life is one of the basic human rights which is guaranteed to every person by
Art. 21. Even the State is not permitted to violate it since it is so fundamental. Even when
in jail, a prisoner retains their humanity. He still qualifies as a human being & has the right
to all fundamental freedoms, including the right to life.
That numerous rulings by the Supreme Court & State HCs have recognized the
fundamental rights of inmates who are convicted & awaiting trial. The right to life &
liberty under Art. 21 is the broadest in scope & includes a no. of rights that are applicable
to both prisoners & free people, including the right to free legal aid, the right to a fair trial,
the right to live with dignity, the right against cruel & inhumane treatment, the right
against solitary confinement, the right against the use of handcuffs & bar fetters, the right
against custodial violence, the right to protective homes & the right to meet family &
friends

That in the view of the esteemed Nelson Mandela, "No one truly knows a nation until one
has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens,
but its lowest ones". The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoner3 also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, were adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 2015 to ensure safe, secure, & humane custody of prisoners. India, a member
of the UNGA, follows these rules, emphasizing rehabilitation & social integration
programs during imprisonment & post-release services. The Nelson Mandela Rules
explicitly state that prisoners, specifically those who are under trial or un-convicted, do
have the right to live with dignity.

It is humbly submitted that in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 4, the court noted that the
concept of "life" encompasses more than just animal-like existence. The prohibition
against its loss applies to all the limbs & faculties that are used to enjoy life. The provision
also forbids the mutilation of the body through the removal of an eye, an arm, a leg, or any
other organ that serves as a conduit for the soul's communication with the hereafter. It can
2
State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712
3
UNDOC Infographic: “The Nelson Mandela Rules” (https://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/assets/pdf/16-
00403_Mandela_rules_infographic.pdf)
4
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

XI
 PETITIONER

be argued that the right to life does not only apply to animal existence. It implies more
than just a being's ability to survive physically.

'Life & Liberty' is an extremely broad phrase that, when properly defined, encompasses a
person's right to a prompt trial. For the living, "Life & Liberty." Everyone has a right to a
life that is unrestricted & healthy. In the victim's situation, seeking justice ultimately
requires years of court appearances. The accused in this situation spends years in jail
while awaiting trial. Everyone is aware that an accused person is innocent until proven
guilty. parties to a procedure in both circumstances. Their right to life & to personal liberty
is violated by the delay in the legal process, which also causes mental suffering. Their
stress, worry, cost, & inconvenience because of unwarranted delay should be kept to a
minimum.

That Justice Bhagwati in the Maneka Gandhi v union of India 5 observed that: “The
expression ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude & it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man & some of them have raised to the
status of distinct fundamental rights & given additional protection under Art. 19.”

1.2 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO FAIR & SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before this court that the right to a speedy trial under Art. 21 of the
Constitution of Mr. M has been violated as he had been held in detention foe an
astonishing 7 years without any proceedings to prove his guild under § 378 of IPC. It is
pertinent to observe that because of lack of administration of justice he has given up such
a big amount of time & his family faced financial hardships & struggled in every aspect as
Mr. M was the sole breadwinner of the family. It was further held in the case of Sheela
Barse vs State of Maharashtra 6, that it is a person’s fundamental right to have a speedy
trial implicit in Art. 21 of the Constitution & are not extinguished while in custody, it
further underscored the importance of proper investigation.

5
Maneka Gandhi v union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
6
Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra 1983 AIR 378, 1983 SCR (2) 337

XII
 PETITIONER

A speedy trial is crucial to prevent injustice, unjust imprisonment, & oppressive treatment
of prisoners. It also ensures the administration of justice by ensuring that all of its
residents receive fair & just trials. The Supreme Court in the case of Rattiram v. State of
M.P 7, observed that the fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence.

That the maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a powerful one in law. Justice is
denied when it is delayed in being delivered. Trials must start right away after a crime is
committed or an accusation is made against the defendant. Allowing continual
adjournments or the replacement of judges throws the trial off course, causing countless
time losses that impede the administration of justice. The delayed trial of Mr. M has
caused hardship both financially & emotionally. Throughout this duration, Mr. M dealt
with stress & anxiety too. Justice P. N. Bhagwati while delivering his judgment in the
8
widely known case of Hussainara Khatoon (V) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar that the
State has an obligation to provide for the person accused, a speedy trial & such a
constitutional obligation cannot be avoided by alleging financial or administrative
inability.

9
It is humbly contended by the petitioner that in In Madhu Mehta v. Union of India the
Supreme Court held that “Art. 21 is relevant in all stages. Speedy trial in criminal cases,
though may not be a fundamental right, is implicit in the broad sweep & content of Art.
21. Speedy trial is part of one’s fundamental right to life & personal liberty”.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 10, a two-judge
Supreme Court bench asserted that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental aspect of the
constitutional right to life & liberty guaranteed under Art. 21. Determining whether this
right has been violated involves considering various factors. These factors include
examining whether there was a delay, whether the delay was unavoidable given the nature
of the case, whether the delay was unreasonable, & whether the delay was a result of
defense tactics. There may be additional questions to consider as well. However, at its
core, the question of whether the right to a speedy trial has been infringed is
fundamentally about ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system, as fairness is the

7
Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516
8
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. (II) v. Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1369
9
Madhu Mehta v. Union of India 1989 AIR 2299, 1989 SCR (3) 774
10
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149

XIII
 PETITIONER

essence of the principle of natural justice, & "a fair & reasonable procedure" is what Art.
21 refers to as the "procedure established by law."

In the case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India 11, the apex court ruled that it
is a constitutional duty of the court to reduce the backlog of cases & take measures to
expedite case disposal. Besides the actions required to enhance the effectiveness of
judicial officers, it seems necessary to safeguard one of the fundamental components of
the Constitution, the judicial system, by ordering an increase in the no. of judges relative
to the population.

1.3 VIOLATION OF FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY DETENTION UNDER

ART. 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted that the detention of Mr. M was done arbitrarily. Every person so
arrested has a right to be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, but
this did not happen in the case of Mr. M. This right is derived from § 57 of the Cr.P.C. &
Art. 22(2) of the Indian Constitution. The purpose of this safety measure is to shield the
individual in custody from the possibility of abuse & torture while they are in the police's
care. This is a crucial right since it prevents the police from holding the individual in jail
against their will.

It is contended that in Dilip Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal 12, the court laid down
guidelines for the arrest & detention of individuals by the police, emphasizing the
importance of protecting the rights of the arrested persons, as enshrined in Art. 22 & Art.
21 of the Indian Constitution. The court's guidelines include the requirement of a memo of
arrest, informing a friend or family member of the arrest, & the right to be examined by a
medical practitioner.

That India being a part of United Nations General Assembly, the Principle 37 “Body of
11
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002)4 SCC 247
12
Dilip Kumar Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416

XIV
 PETITIONER

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment”13 : A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a
judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall
decide without delay upon the lawfulness & necessity of detention. No person may be kept
under detention pending investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an
authority. A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right
to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody.

It is submitted that, the standard of police investigation in India remains poor & that there
is considerable room for improvement. Similarly, a 2012 report of the Law Commission of
India observed that the principal causes of low rate of conviction in our country, inter alia,
include inept, unscientific investigation by the police & lack of proper coordination
between police & prosecution machinery.

It is further contended that § 436-A of the Cr.P.C., 1973, specifies that in serious offences,
if the undertrial prisoner has completed more than 50% of the maximum sentence that can
be awarded to him/her under the § for which he/she has been charged, he/she shall be
released on a personal release bond by the trial court. In the year 2005, § 436-A was
inserted in the Cr.P.C., 1973, with the objective of ensuring that undertrial prisoners were
not indeterminately detained in jail due to the slow progress of their cases. In Hussain &
Anr. v. Union of India14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed, “As a supplement to §
436-A of Cr.P.C., but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an under trial has completed
period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded
such under trial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by
the concerned trial courts from time to time.”

In the landmark judgement of Bhim Singh vs UOI 15, the apex court issued a series of
directives to state authorities to facilitate the release of under trial prisoners who have
served half of their probable maximum prison term, & it is highly significant in that the
SC set a deadline of two months-& directed district judges & prison officials to oversee

13
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/body-principles-protection-all-persons-
under-any-for detention#:~:text=No%20person%20may%20be%20kept,by%20him%20while%20in
%20custody.)
14
Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702
15
Bhim singh vs UOI (2015)15 SCC 605

XV
 PETITIONER

the process. The highest court's extraordinary directive was in response to a criminal
justice system that is widely regarded as 'dysfunctional', where under trial prisoners are
made to wait for years before their cases are even heard.

XVI
 PETITIONER

2. WHETHER JAIL AUTHORITIES FAIL TO ENSURE THE RIGHTS,

SAFETY, & WELL-BEING OF INMATES WITHIN THE INDIAN
PRISON SYSTEM?

2.1 OVERCROWDING LEADING TO AN UNSAFE & UNWELL

ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PRISONERS

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that due to overcrowding in the
prison, Mr. M suffered both mentally & physically. This congestion created a very unsafe
environment as both the convicts & under-trial prisoners were kept under the same roof. The
basic needs of prisoners such as healthcare, food, & accommodation are not being met
effectively. Additionally, this has questioned the inmates' fundamental rights, such as their
right to decent living conditions & the best possible levels of bodily & mental health.

It is contended that more than three-fourths of India’s jail inmates are undertrial prisoners,
according to data released by the NCRB 16. According to data made public by the National
Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), more than three-fourths of convicts in India's jails are
awaiting trial. In 2021, 427,165 prisoners or 77% of the total 554,034 prisoners were awaiting
trial. This was an increase of 14.9% from the 371,848 awaiting trials in prison in 2020.

In the present case, Mr. M was put behind bars for the crime of theft u/s 378 & the
punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with a fine, or with both, given u/s 379. The SC, in its judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar17, emphasises that arrests should not be common, especially when the potential
punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment & ensures that the police officer does
not arrest the accused unnecessarily & Magistrate do not authorize detention casually &
mechanically.

Moreover, there is a need to implement § 436A of the Cr.P.C. in all districts in the nation.
The undertrials who have served half of the maximum prison term allowed for the offence
may be released on personal bond under § 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code. But, due to

16
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
(https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/PSI-2021/Executive_ncrb_Summary-2021.pdf )
17
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2014

XVII
 PETITIONER

the unawareness of this provision, the prisoners are not getting any benefit from this.

There is a need to implement suggestions given by the Justice Amitava Roy (retired)
Committee18 to reform prisons, which was formed by the Supreme Court. To combat
overcrowding one of the finest methods to address the unjustifiable occurrence is still through
speedy trial. Secondly, minimum of one lawyer should be present for every 30 detainees,
which is not the case now. Establishing specialized fast-track courts to handle just minor
cases that have been outstanding for longer than five years is necessary. Additionally, those
who have been charged with minor offences & who have been granted bail but are unable to
secure surety should be released on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond.

It is further submitted that Court on Its Own Motion In Re: Regarding Various Irregularities
at Central Jail, Tihar19, the HC expressed concern about the huge no. of under-trials prisoners
& the problem of overcrowding at Central Jail, Tihar. It observed that if the no. of inmates is
reduced, many of the problems at the jail would get rectified on their own as a consequential
measure. The effect of excess no. of inmates not only enhances the need for space, but
necessities like water etc. get strained as well. Emphasizing the large under-trial population
i.e., 65 per cent of the total prison population, the Court expressed concern over the
incarceration of those who had been admitted to bail but was unable to furnish surety.

In the case of Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 20, the Supreme Court determined that
prison overcrowding constitutes a violation of prisoners' rights. As a result, the Court
mandated a series of actions to tackle this problem. These actions encompassed the release of
undertrial prisoners on personal bonds, the establishment of legal aid committees, & the
enhancement of living conditions within prisons.

In the case of Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary & Ors 21, the apex court
highlighted the issue of prison overcrowding & stressed the need for prison reform, urging
the government to take steps to decongest prisons & ensure humane conditions for inmates.

It is respectfully submitted that the 78th Report of the Law Commission in 1979 proposed
various recommendations to mitigate prison overcrowding. These suggestions encompassed
the relaxation of bail conditions, with a specific focus on releasing certain categories of
18
Justice Amitava Roy (retired) Committee (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/denied-basic-facilities-
women-prisoners-impacted-worse-men-sc-panel-prison-reforms-8925934/ )
19
Crl MA No 7030/2007 & Crl Ref 1/2007
20
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) 2 SCC 549
21
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary & Ors (2012) 5 SCC 1, 2012 AIR SCW 3660

XVIII
 PETITIONER

undertrial prisoners on bail. Additionally, to alleviate congestion in prisons, the report

recommended increased utilization of fines as an alternative to incarceration. It also advised
considering civil commitment & probation as methods to reduce the burden on prisons.

2.2 LACK OF HEALTHCARE IN PRISONS

It is humbly submitted that Mr. M has gone through severe health conditions due to lack of
proper living conditions inside the prisons. There is a general impression of people where it is
understood that being in prison the prisoner has lost their right of liberty because he is being
forced to live in a closed confined place. In India, most convicts are uneducated,
underprivileged, & members of marginalized social groups with little knowledge of their own
health & lifestyle choices. They therefore make up a unique & vulnerable health population
that needs specific treatment. Mr. M also went through similar situation.

Even though all prisoners receive a medical checkup when they begin serving their sentences,
inmates in India are not even checked for certain infectious diseases. It is well known that
STIs, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B, & Hepatitis C are all prevalent among prisoners. The confined,
usually highly overcrowded housing conditions increase hostility among detainees. No one
wants to go to prison however good the prison might be. To be deprived of the liberty &
family life & friends & home surroundings is a terrible thing. In Parmanand Katara (Pt.) v.
Union of India 22, the Supreme Court established that the state is obligated to preserve life,
irrespective of a person's innocence or guilt in a criminal matter. This ruling set a significant
precedent for the rights of prisoners in India, specifically with regard to the fundamental right
to health as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In Rasikbhai Ramsing Rana v. State of Gujarat23, the court held that negligent officials were
personally liable & that petitioners confined at the Central Prison, Vadodara, who had serious
diseases, were refused adequate & prompt medical care because there weren't enough jail
escorts to take them to the hospital. In a 2005 Suo moto writ case, the Gujarat HC gave the
state government instructions to ensure that all Central & District prisons had an ICCU, a
pathology lab, skilled doctors, enough staff, including nurses, & the most modern medical
equipment.

22
Parmanand Katara (Pt.) v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 248
23
Rasikbhai Ramsing Rana v. State of Gujarat 1998 CriLJ 1347

XIX
 PETITIONER

It is humbly submitted that 1,775 inmates passed away while they were in judicial custody in
2019, according to jail statistics published by the NCRB in 2019 24. In addition, 406 convicts
out of the total no. of natural deaths passed away from heart disease & other illnesses brought
on by difficulties. By offering functional medical facilities, these issues can be avoided.

However, there must be a check on whether the government is also fulfilling its duty as
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on February 1, 2023, said financial support will be
provided to poor persons who are in prison & are unable to afford penalties & bail amounts 25
but so there has been no check & implementation on this so far. Still, the conditions in the
prisons remain the same. To improve the prison conditions, it does not mean that prison life
should be made soft; it means that it should be made human & sensible for prisoners.

In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr 26,
the Calcutta HC ruled that prisoners have the right to access adequate medical treatment &
facilities. It held that the state has a responsibility to ensure the health & well-being of those
in custody.

2.3 HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION & MNETAL ABUSE OF THE PRISONERS

It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the prolonged trial of Mr. M & the stigma of
being suspected of being a thief took a toll on his mental health, this is nothing but a violation
of human rights, while he was inside the prison, his family went through mental trauma &
financial hardships.

International human rights law is built on the tenet of human rights' universality. Numerous
international human rights conventions, declarations, & resolutions have reaffirmed this idea,
which was originally emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. For
instance, the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights said that regardless of their
24
NCRB in 2019 (Prison Statistics India, 2019, National Crime Records Bureau,
https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/PSI-2019-27-08-2020.pdf 177)
25
(https://www.thehindu.com/business/budget/budget-2023-financial-support-for-poor-in-prisons-&-unable-to-
afford-penalty-bail-amount-finance-minister/article66457644.ece#:~:text=Finance%20Minister%20Nirmala
%20Sitharaman%20on,speech%20in%20the%20Lok%20Sabha. ),
26
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 149
of 2012 & 5 of 2013

XX
 PETITIONER

political, economic, & cultural systems, States have a responsibility to advance & safeguard
all human rights & basic freedoms. In India, the use of torture in detention facilities is both
common & pervasive. It has spread throughout the world unhindered & unfettered, becoming
a "normal" & "legitimate" practice. Torture is applied not only to the accused but also to
legitimate petitioners, complainants, or informants during criminal investigations, confession
extraction, & punishment by law enforcement agencies. This practice is cruel, inhumane,
barbaric, & degrading & is gravely offensive to the dignity of the individual human being.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 27, the SC stated that “The quality of a nation’s civilization
can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. The
horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same the time, the crime rate is also increasing.
the court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of
indiscriminate arrests. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest
is one of balancing individual rights, liberties & privileges, on one hand & individual duties
obligations & responsibilities on the other; of weighing & balancing the rights, liberties &
privileges of the single individual & those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding
what is wanted & where to put the weight & the emphasis; of deciding which comes first –
the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider.”

Moreover, prisoners are socially isolated since they serve the majority of their sentences in
solitary confinement. They are placed in an unfamiliar setting & cut off from their friends,
family, & community, which makes them feel isolated & despondent. Additionally, due to
the poor maintenance standards in Indian prisons, inmates are forced to live in appallingly
unhygienic conditions with inadequate facilities for both basic physical & mental health
treatment. Prisoners who have to endure these situations, frustrations, & deprivations for an
extended period of time develop a variety of psychiatric problems. Prisoner confinement
causes ailments including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder & other related problems like
lowered self-esteem & confidence. These factors have led to the observation that prisoners
experience mental diseases three times as frequently as the general population.

28
The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 is the first piece of legislation discussed. The Mental
Healthcare Act is a comprehensive legal document that includes several significant clauses

27
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
28
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2249/1/A2017-10.pdf

XXI
 PETITIONER

that address the mental health of prisoners. The Mental Healthcare Act's § 31(2) mandates
that medical officers in prisons get primary & emergency mental healthcare training. In
addition, every State Government must set up a Mental Health Establishment in the medical
wing of at least one prison in the state, according to § 103(6) of the Mental Healthcare Act.

In Amit Kumar Dey v. State of Tripura29, the Additional Sessions Judge declined to grant bail
to the accused despite the fact that the medical professionals who had evaluated him had said
he was not in a sound mental state. Thank goodness, this case was appealed to the HC, which
ruled that the trial judge should have based his judgement on solid evidence, allowing the
accused to have a chance at a free & fair trial.

However, there is still a need for adjustments in the field of the treatment for the mental
health of jail inmates & those who are awaiting trial despite the numerous reforms that have
been made to improve the environment in prisons. Since a person's mental health is a very
sensitive aspect of who they are as a person, extra care must be taken to ensure that they
remain in a "normal" condition while they are incarcerated or in court. Also, when the
inmates are denied the same rights that are essential to their existence as human beings, the
entire objective is defeated. Because they are also people, there is a need to take action to
guarantee that their fundamental human rights are upheld & that they are treated with dignity.

In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. 30, the Supreme Court emphasized
its role in reforming prison practices & instilling a sense of constitutional awareness within
the prison system. The Court rejected a "hands-off" approach, asserting that prisoners are in
custody due to court orders &, therefore, the court should not disregard their fundamental
rights. The Court stressed that prison staff should not have complete disciplinary autonomy,
as it can lead to human rights violations & prevent prisoners from seeking justice. The rule of
law prohibits imposing additional punishments that defeat the primary purpose of
imprisonment, such as forced solitary confinement or the use of iron fetters. The Court
highlighted the importance of rehabilitation in incarceration & argued that harsh treatment of
prisoners should not be justified. It recommended more humane measures, like liberal
paroles, open jails, family meetings, & placing convicts in facilities close to their homes to
reduce stress & ensure security. The Court also discussed solitary confinement, indicating

29
Amit Kumar Dey v. State of Tripura (2014) 06 TP CK 0049
30
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1675

XXII
 PETITIONER

that it should be imposed only by the court & not on prisoners sentenced to death. Under-trial
prisoners should be treated more leniently than convicts, & the use of bar fetters &
indiscriminate handcuffing of accused individuals is considered a violation of human dignity
& should be avoided, except in cases of clear & present danger.

XXIII
 PETITIONER

3. WHETHER SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITY IS CREATING A

HINDRENCE IN ACCESSING JUSTICE?

It is humbly submitted that, ‘Access to justice’ is a term with diverse meanings. In a narrow
sense, it is often equated with access to judicial remedies. However, access to justice can also
be used in a wider sense to seek freedom from systematic & entrenched injustices such as
poverty, inequality, & discrimination. This aspect of access to justice is critical for upholding
the rule of law & protecting individuals' rights.

3.1 VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LEGAL AID

It is respectfully submitted that there has been a transgression of fundamental right enshrined
in Art. 21 & 39A of the constitution as the accused did not get a fair chance to seek legal aid.
In the case of M. H. Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra31, the SC emphasized the importance of
free legal aid & held that it is a fundamental right of every person who is arrested & detained.
The court directed that free legal aid should be provided at the stage of arrest, during
interrogation, & at all subsequent stages of the criminal process.

That the Supreme Court has itself recognized, in the case of Lingala Vijay Kumar v. Public
Prosecutor32, that when one of the parties is vulnerable, the judge should be more
interventionist, & ensure that the rights & interests of the person are protected. One way in
which a judge can intervene to protect the rights of a poorly represented person, is to
proactively ensure that the rights of the person are being secured, without waiting for the
party to file applications on the issue. This is especially true in criminal cases, where access
to the benefit of many statutory provisions, including, for example, bail, depends on
applications being moved by the accused, rather than on the burden being on the state to
justify why an accused should continue to be held in incarceration pending trial.

Moreover, Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in the case of Khatri & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Ors33, mandated that Session Judges must inform the accused of their rights to free legal aid,

31
M. H. Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra 1978 AIR 1548, 1979 SCR (1) 192
32
Lingala Vijay Kumar v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 4 SCC 196
33
Khatri & Ors. vs. State Of Bihar & Ors, 1981 SCR (2) 408, 1981 SCC (1) 627

XXIV
 PETITIONER

especially when the accused is unable to afford legal representation due to poverty or
indigence. However, in the case of Mr. M, he remained unaware of these rights & was left in
the dark for an extended period of seven years.

Justice Bhagwati, further in the case of Suk Das & Anr vs Union Territory of Arunachal 34
elaborated on the large no. of illiterate people due to which they are not aware of their rights.
Hence, the essential need to promote legal literacy & legal awareness among the people & it
is an important component of legal aid as well.

It is humbly contended by the petitioner that the Apex court has issued directions regarding the
release of Under Trial prisoners on bail in the case of Common Cause (a registered society) v.
Union of India35. The prisoners are allowed to be released on bail for offences punishable
with imprisonment up to three years, five years, seven years or less, & one year in jail. They
can also be discharged if criminal proceedings relating to traffic offences have been pending
for more than two years. If an offence compoundable with court permission has been pending
for more than two years, the court will discharge or acquit the accused. If a non-cognizable &
bailable offence has been pending for more than two years without a trial, the court will
discharge the accused. If the offence is punishable with a fine only & not of recurring nature,
the accused will be discharged.

In a memorable judgement of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. (II) v. Home Secretary, Bihar,
Patna36, The Supreme Court has firmly established that the right to access free legal aid is an
inherent & indispensable component of a "reasonable, fair, & just" legal procedure. This right
is deemed essential because, without it, individuals facing economic or other disadvantages
would be unjustly denied the opportunity to seek justice. The Court further emphasized that
merely making the promise of legal aid on paper would be ineffective if it were left to a
financially disadvantaged, uninformed, & illiterate accused person to request such services.
To rectify this situation, the magistrate or session's judge before whom the accused appears
bears a responsibility. They are obligated to inform the accused that if they are unable to
afford legal representation due to poverty or indigence, they are entitled to receive free legal
services at the expense of the state. This not only underscores the importance of providing
free legal aid but also ensures that those who need it most are made aware of their rights to
34
Suk Das & Anr vs Union Territory Of Arunachal 1986 AIR 991, 1986 SCR (1) 590
35
Common Cause (a registered society) v. Union of India (1996)6 SCC 530
36
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. (II) v. Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1369

XXV
 PETITIONER

access this crucial service.

3.2 UNAVAILABILITY OF ACCESSIBLE RESOURCES SERVES AS A

SIGNIFICANT IMPEDIMENT

The petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that in the realm of justice, the
unavailability of accessible resources stands as a formidable barrier, affecting the plight of
undertrial prisoners. These individuals, accused but not yet convicted, stand on one
fundamental principle stands paramount: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,
find themselves caught in a labyrinthine system, where the unavailability of vital resources
hampers their pursuit of a fair & just legal process.

It is humbly contended that in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator,
Union37 Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Art. 21 ’embodies a constitutional value of supreme
importance in a democratic society’, & further accentuated that prisoner, like all human
beings, are entitled to basic human rights, & their rights must be respected. The judgment
addressed issues such as inhuman treatment & inadequate resources in prisons.

In the case of Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi 38, the Supreme
Court, in its examination of judicial intervention in prison matters, asserted that when
fundamental rights are violated or legal protections disregarded to the detriment of prisoners,
the Court's authority extends even behind prison walls. The Court emphasized that it has a
duty to ensure the rule of law prevails, especially when it comes to safeguarding prisoners'
rights. The principle of 'hands off' was rejected, & the Court maintained that it must step in
when constitutional rights & legal standards are violated, causing harm to the prisoners. The
Court reiterated that a person's right to life goes beyond mere existence; it encompasses their
dignity & worth as individuals, which are protected by Articles 19 & 21 of the constitution,
even within a prison context. The Court stressed the need for a connection between the
deprivation of freedom & the legitimate goals of the correctional system. Imprisonment does
not equate to a total abandonment of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
constitution.

37
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
38
Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 1514

XXVI
 PETITIONER

It is respectfully submitted that the Rule of law plays an important function of supporting
effective institutional mechanisms, so as to ensure that citizens are able to exercise their
rights & participate sufficiently to effect good governance. In the Indian constitutional
system, every person is entitled to equality before law & equal protection under the law.
However, wide disparity in socio-political conditions of the citizens leaves sections of the
society marginalized. Access to justice provisioned by rule of law & legal education then
becomes critical for these marginalized citizens to not only exercise their rights but also gain
access to welfare schemes run by the government.

It is submitted that A combination of factors such as poverty & illiteracy, not understanding
the language of the court, ignorance of the law, & ineffective or absent legal representation
renders the prisoners helpless. It is further submitted that there is a high need for social
workers inside the prison establishments to facilitate legal aid & rehabilitation as to when a
poor person is arrested, the family cannot meet him as to lack of knowledge of proper
procedure & a jail visit means a day’s wages lost. Further implying to if prisoners lose touch
with their families, it becomes difficult for them to come out or seek help from family. In the
uncanny case of State vs person whose photograph has been placed on the file, since there
was nobody to furnish the surety bond of Rs 30000, the accused spent over 22 years in
juridical custody without a trial, he was released on bail as part of the remissions granted
under Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav in 2022.

In the case of Moti Ram & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh 39, the Supreme Court
emphasized the severe consequences of pre-trial detention, stating that it subjects presumed
innocent defendants to the hardships of jail life, often under worse conditions than convicted
defendants. This situation leads to job loss & hampers their ability to prepare a defense,
affecting not only the accused but also their innocent family members. The Court recognized
that many poor individuals are forced into jail for minor offenses because trials are delayed,
& bail amounts are set too high for them to afford. The Court condemned the practice of
pricing the poor out of their liberty in the justice system. It stated that geographical or
linguistic discriminations should not hinder justice. The Court called for a liberal
interpretation of bail provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code in the interest of social
justice, individual freedom, & indigent individuals. Bail should be granted on a personal

39
Moti Ram & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1594

XXVII
 PETITIONER

bond, with or without sureties, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals. The
amount of bail should consider the financial condition of the accused, & courts should be
lenient in releasing vulnerable individuals, including young people, the infirm, or women, on
their own recognizance.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of Ramamurthy v State of Karnataka40, the Supreme
Court identified nine issues concerning prisons, such as overcrowding, trials being
delayed, the torture & ill-treatment of prisoners, neglect of health & hygiene, insubstantial
food & inadequate clothing. It brought to the forefront an urgent need for bringing
uniformity in laws relating to the prisons & has directed the Central & State Governments
to formulate a new Model Prison Manual. Earlier, the All-India Committee on Jail
Reforms (1980-83) had also emphasized the need for a consolidated law on prisons.
Accordingly, with the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs, the Bureau of Police
Research & Development constituted a Model Prison Manual Committee at the national
level for the formulation of a Model Prison Manual. The Committee submitted the Model
Prison Manuel in the year 2003. Prison administrations being a state subject the state
governments have framed Prison Rules under the Prisons Act which are more or less
similar with slight modifications in view of the local conditions.

40
Ramamurthy v State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 1739

XXVIII
 PETITIONER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, the authorities cited & arguments advanced, the
Petitioner prays & implores before this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Issue a decisive proclamation of Mr. M's exoneration, unambiguously declaring his

innocence, and rectify any damage to his reputation caused by the wrongful
accusations.

2. Mandate that the government takes swift and appropriate action against the
responsible authorities who have erred in delivering justice to Mr. M, a man who
endured a prolonged period of uncertainty, anxiety, and despair.

3. Instruct the relevant authorities to provide substantial and just compensation to Mr.
M as redress for the suffering he endured during the wrongful accusation and legal
process.

4. Advocate for comprehensive reform within the criminal justice system,

emphasizing the urgent need for policy changes to prevent similar injustices from
befalling innocent individuals in the future. Emphasize the importance of upholding
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, especially for those
who are economically disadvantaged and less educated.

5. Appeal for a widespread campaign of public awareness and advocacy aimed at

addressing the pervasive issues of injustice within the legal system, galvanizing
support from the public, legal professionals, and policymakers to bring about
meaningful change.

&/OR

Pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of Justice, Equity, & Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound, forever humbly pray.

Sd/-
(COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE

XXIX
 PETITIONER

PETITIOENRS)

XXX