This Case Commentary is written by Ananya Sharma, a Fourth-Year Law Student of Symbiosis Law School

Case details-

Court- Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Citation- 1981 SCR (2) 408.

Bench- Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice A.P. Sen

Decided on- 19.12.1980

Case type- Writ petition

Abstract-

A.K. Roy Khatri, the petitioner, filed a writ suit under Article 32[1] of the Indian Constitution, requesting that Article 21[2]'s guarantees of the right to life and personal liberty be upheld.
The petitioner expressed apprehensions regarding the excessively packed and cruel circumstances that exist in many prisons and lock-ups across Bihar.
It was argued that these circumstances, which exposed convicts to appalling living conditions and deprived them of access to basic amenities and human dignity, violated the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution.

The petitioner further contended that these circumstances represented a grave risk to the inmates' health and welfare and demonstrated the State's disregard for its obligation to those in its control.

Introduction-

In this controversial case, several inmates at the Bhagalpur Central Jail were blinded. It is one of the worst instances of torture during incarceration that occurred when several undertrial inmates were blinded by acid poured by police officers. In this instance, the blinded inmates filed habeas corpus petitions at the Supreme Court by Article 32[3] of the Constitution. The Assistant Jailor of the Bhagalpur Central Jail and the State both submitted counter-affidavits to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the State produced several statements on the blinded inmates that were derived from the Judicial Magistrates' case files. The Sessions Judge also sent a letter to the Supreme Court Registrar stating that, due to the reasons stated in the letter, the Sessions Judge did not survey the Bhagalpur Central Jail in 1980. In addition, the Registrar provided the Supreme Court with the transcripts of the blinded inmates' remarks as well as a statement from the former jail administrator, B.L. Das. While some of the inmates received bail, others were left to endure abhorrent circumstances in the absence of remand orders. After that, the blinded inmates were sent to New Delhi's Rajendra Prashad Ophthalmic Institute. Nevertheless, the convicts' eyesight was so ruined that neither surgery nor medicine could restore it. There were several writ petitions submitted to the Supreme Court. The petitioners alleged that the police had tortured the detainees in one of the cases brought under Article 32[4] of the Constitution. The State was in charge of the police's actions. As a result, the petitioners argued that the State was required by Article 21[5] to compensate the blinded convicts for the infringement of their basic rights.

Issues Raised-

· Whether or not the squalid and cramped conditions seen in Bihar's prisons and lock-ups breached the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21[6] Of the constitution?

· Is it the State of Bihar's responsibility to ensure that prisoners are housed in humane circumstances and to provide them with necessities for their well-being?

· Whether or not the State had broken its constitutional duties by not making changes to the deplorable conditions within its prisons and lock-ups?

Arguments Made by the Parties-

The Petitioner-

The counsel for the visually impaired prisoners conveyed apprehension that the victims would not feel secure going back to Bhagalpur, especially while the blinding crimes were being looked into. It was also contended that the State need to supply the blind victims in New Delhi with some kind of accommodation. The petitioners further contended that the State ought to compensate the blinded inmates for the basic rights violated under Article 21[7].
Furthermore, it was argued that the State was obligated to compensate the blinded inmates for the violations of their rights under Article 21[8] by the police officers, who were employed by the State.

The Respondent-

The pleader for the State argued that there was still no proof linking the blindness to the police because the investigation was still underway. Furthermore, it was maintained that even in situations when the police violated Article 21[9] Of the Constitution by blinding the detainees, the State should not be required to pay the victims.

Laws Highlighted-

Article 21[10]: Free Legal Aid and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. - "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law,". Following the ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)[11], the definition of "personal liberty" has grown significantly. The term "personal liberty" as employed in this clause is wide and encompasses a wide range of rights. The right to free legal assistance is recognized by the Apex Court as a basic right under Article 21[12] On several occasions.

Article 22[13]: Right to appear before the magistrate within twenty-four hours; protection against arrest and imprisonment in specific circumstances- A person who has been arrested is required under Article 22(2)[14] To appear before the magistrate within twenty-four hours after the arrest. It can be extended beyond twenty-four hours if it is just in court custody. Except on the magistrate's direction, no one may be detained on remand for more than twenty-four hours. An arrest would be illegal if the detained individual was not brought before the closest magistrate within 24 hours.

In this instance, several of the accused were not brought before the Judicial Magistrate within the allotted 24-hour period. The State and its Police were instructed by the Court to ensure that the legal and constitutional requirement of presenting an accused person before the Judicial Magistrate within the allotted time be adhered to. After their initial appearance, some of the accused were detained in custody without being given detention orders and were not brought before the magistrate. The State was ordered by the Supreme Court to look into these anomalies and ensure that similar legal infractions don't happen again.

Article 32[15]: Right to Constitutional Remedies- Article 32[16] Is the heart and soul of the Constitution. Declarations of fundamental rights are meaningless unless they are accompanied by a workable system for carrying them out. A right is worthless without a means of redress.

The right to request the realization of the basic rights granted by Part III of the Constitution through "appropriate proceedings" is outlined in Article 32(1)[17] Of the Constitution. To carry out any of the rights granted by Part III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered under Article 32(2)[18] To issue relevant directives, orders, or writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrants, and certiorari.

Article 39-A[19]: Legal Aid at No Cost- Article 39-A[20] Gives the State the responsibility to ensure that the judicial system promotes justice based on equal opportunity and to particularly set up free legal assistance by suitable laws, programs, or other means.

Analysis of the Judgement-

The Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar[21] Said that the impoverished and overcrowded conditions in Bihar's prisons and jails did violate the basic rights of the prisoners as protected by Article 21[22] Of the Constitution.

It was said that the un-liveable conditions in Bihar's jails, which included overcrowded barracks, insufficient food and medical care, and unhygienic surroundings, violated the fundamental rights of the prisoners. The Court found that the State of Bihar was obligated by the Constitution to provide the humane treatment and well-being of anybody in its care, regardless of whether the individual was a defendant or an undertrial.

The Court directed the State administration to take prompt, decisive action to enhance the conditions within its prisons and lock-ups. This involved taking action to reduce congestion, improve hygienic conditions, supply adequate food and medical care, and ensure the security and safety of convicts. The Apex Court further stressed the need for ongoing monitoring and inspection programs to ensure that its directives are followed and to prevent future violations of the same kind.

Conclusion-

This case brought to light how vital it is that the prisoners also have access to free legal aid. This right is essential to upholding justice. The primary issues raised in this case were whether the State of Bihar had an obligation to compensate the blinded accused for the violation of their basic right under Article 21[23] And whether the State should provide free legal aid to prisoners. A few of the blind accused were not legally required to appear before the Judicial Magistrate. The State of Bihar and its police were strongly warned by the Court to make sure that the legal and constitutional need to produce an accused person before the Judicial Magistrate is adhered to. The majority of the blinded inmates, according to the Supreme Court, were not represented by counsel either when they appeared before the Judicial Magistrate or when the remand orders were issued. The justification offered for not offering legal aid was that they didn't request it.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the lack of knowledge regarding free legal assistance and the need for the Sessions Judge or Magistrate to inform the accused of their entitlement to free legal help. States, including the State of Bihar, were instructed to guarantee free legal assistance to those confined by financial or other limitations.


References-

[1] Constitution of India, art 32.

[2] Constitution of India, art 21.

[3] Constitution of India, art 32.

[4] Constitution of India, art 32.

[5] Constitution of India, art 21.

[6] Constitution of India, art 21.

[7] Constitution of India, art 21.

[8] Constitution of India, art 21.

[9] Constitution of India, art 21.

[10] Constitution of India, art 21.

[11] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.

[12] Constitution of India, art 21.

[13] Constitution of India, art 22.

[14] Constitution of India, art 22 (2).

[15] Constitution of India, art 32.

[16] Constitution of India, art 32.

[17] Constitution of India, art 32 (1).

[18] Constitution of India, art 32 (2).

[19] Constitution of India, art 39A.

[20] Constitution of India, art 39A.

[21] Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627 (SC).

[22] Constitution of India, art 21.

[23] Constitution of India, art 21.