- Ritu Kumar, Advocate

1. In the cover of obscurity and low visibility, fundamental human rights like right to life, health, dignity of a person can be easily violated and denied.2. Segregation of ‘offenders’ from the society can lead to social and psychological problems which can seriously impact the mental and physical well being of a person.3. While in custody a person cannot choose the doctor or hospital where he can get his treatment and the kind of treatment, therefore doctors have undue powers over the person’s well being. 4. With overcrowding and unhygienic conditions diseases contagious can easily spread.

1. Visiting doctors and committees are important to ensure that regular health check-ups are done.

2. Hygienic conditions and sanitisation of the environment is relevant.

3. Affiliation with specialised hospitals and doctors for proper treatment.

1. By interacting with a visitor inside the prison is the only way a person in custody can interact with the society.

2. Visitors can ensure transparency, accountability and monitoring in the prison administration system.

3. Visitors can ensure that a person’s physical and mental health is maintained while in custody.

4. Visitors can help the person to enhance his skills and be productive once released from the jail.

5. Visitors can help address any specific issues faced by the persons under custody.

1. Official Visitors2. Non-Official Visitors3. Lawyers4. Family and Friends

The Prisons Act, 1894Section 59 (25) Power to make rules-

25. for the appointment and guidance of visitors of prisons. The Indian Jail Committee, 1919-20,–  The person selected for the position of a non-official visitor of a jail should be chosen on the ground of definite qualifications, such as an interest in prison matters or other social work, or ability and willingness to assist in finding work for prisoners on release. …… Selection should not be made solely on the ground of social position, wealth or political influence, but on the basis of special fitness…. (515 – Report of the IJC- 19-20)

Prison Manual of Maharashtra, Chapter XV, Rule 6 –

Prison Visitors ‘Appointment of Non-official Visitors’

The appointment of non-official visitors (other than members of the Maharashtra Legislature) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), be made by the State Government from amongst persons who in its opinion, are interested in the administration of prisons and are likely to take interest in the prisoners and their welfare both while they are in prison and after their release.

Prison Rules provide for the constitution of ‘Board of Visitors’ through the office of the District Magistrate/Divisional Commissioner. The purpose of the constitution of these Boards is – 1.To regulate prison visits by official and non-official visitors through the ‘roster of visitors’.2.To ensure at least one visit of the prison per month by an agency other than the officials of the department.3.To involve all persons nominated as official or non-official visitors and to give each one of them some occasions of visiting prison.4.To provide a forum for discussing problems of prisons and prisoners outside the intervention of the prison department.

Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, 1988 Supp. SCC 169

The Supreme Court observed: “The Visitor’s Board should consist of cross-sections of society: people with good background social activities, people connected with the news media, lady social workers, jurists, retired public officers from the judiciary as also the executive. The Sessions Judge should be given an acknowledged position as a visitor and his visits should not be routine ones. Full care should be taken by him to have a real picture of the defects in the administration qua the resident prisoners and under trials.”

“The visitors of jails include senior executive officers of the Division, Sessions Judges and District Magistrates (see rule 47). This is ordinarily an All India pattern. The duties of official visitors include satisfying themselves that the provisions of the Prisons Act, rules, regulations, orders and directions are duly observed. Undoubtedly, the proper adherence to S. 56 and the related rules falls within the purview of 'rule’49 . 'Rule‘ 53 states that all visitors shall have the opportunity of observing the state of jail, its management and every prisoner confined therein. The visitors, official and non-official, have power to call for and inspect jail records.”

“All institutions that hold people against their wishes need outside supervision, for, by definition, they lack the internal checks and balances that make such supervision unnecessary elsewhere. One can check out of a hotel if abused, but not out of a prison. Prison staffs, which unlike hotel staffs, can also totally circumscribe the activities of inmates-have extensive coercive power that must be checked by an outside authority if it is not to be abused. While sharing the, purposes of the penal system, the outside authority should be altogether independent of the management of the institutions it is to super vise and of its personnel.”

“Jail visitors have no powers to cancel the superintendent's orders nor obligation to hold enquiry save to pity and to make remarks. Periodical parades prisoners, when the visitors or dignitaries call for a turn-out, prove a circus in a zoo from a practical standpoint or/and journal entries and history-tickets a voodoo according to rule, the key point to be noted being that after this public exhibition within the prison, the complaining prisoners are marked men at the iron mercy of the hierarchy, there being no active legal aid project busy within the prison. This ferocious rule of law and rule, cannot be sustained as anything but arbitrary, unreasonable and procedurally heartless. The peril to its life from the lethal stroke of Articles 14, 19 and 21 read with 13 needs no far-fetched argument.”

A challenge was made to a prison rule which permitted only one interview in a month with the members of the family or legal advisor. The interview with the legal advisor was to be held after obtaining permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, and in the presence of an officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement. The rule was held violative of Article s 14 and 21. The SC held, “We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of security and hence unreasonable. “

“We think that it would be quite reasonable if a detenu were to be entitled to have interview with his legal adviser at any reasonable hour during the day after taking appointment from the Superintendent of the Jail, which appointment should be given by the Superintendent without any avoidable delay. We may add that the interview need not necessarily take place in the presence of a nominated officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement but if the presence of such officer can be conveniently secured at the time of the interview without involving any postponement of the interview, then such officer and if his presence cannot be so secured, then any other Jail official may, if thought necessary, watch the interview but not as to be within hearing distance of the detenu and the legal adviser.”

Neglect of health and hygiene“35. The Mulla Committee has dealt with this aspect in Chapter 6 and 7 of its Report, a perusal of which shows the pathetic position in which most of the jails are placed insofar as hygienic conditions are oncerned. most of them also lack proper facilities for treatment of prisoners. The recommendations of the Committee in this regard are to be found in Chapter 29. We have nothing useful to add except pointing out that society has an obligation towards prisoners' health for two reasons. First, the prisoners do not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens have. Their incarceration places limitations on such access; no physician of choice, no second opinions, and few if any specialists. Secondly, because of the condition son their incarceration, inmates are exposed to more health hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore, suffer from a double handicap.”

Streamlining of jail visits

41. Prison visits fall into three categories: (1) relatives and friends; (2) professionals; and (3) lay persons. In the first category comes the spouse. Visit by him/her has special significance because a research undertaken on Indian prisoners sometime back showed that majority of them were in the age group of 18 to 34, which shows that most of them were young and were perhaps having a married life before their imprisonment. For such persons, denial of conjugal life during the entire period of incarceration creates emotional problems also. Visits by a spouse is, therefore, of great importance.42. …in many jails facilities available to the visitors are degrading. At many places even privacy is not maintained. If the offenders and visitors are screened, the same emphasises their separation rather than retaining common bonds and interests. There is then urgent need to streamline these visits.44. As to visits by professionals, i.e. the lawyer, the same has to be guaranteed to the required extent, if the prisoner be a pre-trial detainee, in view of the right conferred by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

The case brought into sharp focus the pitiable state of jails in the State of M.P. The callous behaviour of doctors, maltreatment by jail staff and tampering of jail records came up for judicial scrutiny. All this went on for years with the Visitors’ Committee apparently oblivious of it all.

The Court directed a thorough probe into the matter against those found to be remiss or negligent in their duty, and criminal prosecution against those found to be guilty.