"Inuman Conditions in Prisons" case pending in Patna High Court since June 2018

“Detained people are included because human rights extend to all human beings. It is a basic tenet of international human rights law that nothing can put a human being beyond the reach of certain human rights protections. Some people may be less deserving than others. Some may lose many of their rights through having been imprisoned through proper and legal procedures. But the basic rights to life, health, fairness and justice, humane treatment, dignity and protection from ill treatment or torture remain. There is a minimum standard for the way a state treats people, whoever they are. No one should fall below it.” 

-Vivien Stern, A Sin Against the Future: Imprisonment in the World (1998)

“Treating prisoners not as objects, but as the human beings they are, no matter how despicable their prior actions, will demonstrate an unflagging commitment to human dignity. It is that commitment to human dignity that will, in the end, be the essential underpinning of any endeavor to transform prison cultures.”

-Lynn. S.  Branham, The Mess We’re In: Five Steps Towards the Transformation of Prison Cultures, Indiana Law Review, 2011

The matter of "The Letter Of The Secretary General Dated 16.05.2018 Of Hon'ble The Supreme Court Of India vs. The State of Bihar and Others" was listed "for orders"before the Patna High Court's bench of 43rd Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy on January 3, 2025. The order reads: As jointly prayed for, post on 14.02.2025." It is hoped that the case will get decided prior to the retirement of the current Chief Justice on April 24, 2025 given the fact that public interest litigations are quite sensitive for public welfare. 

Prior  to the case being listed before the 43rd Chief Justice of Patna High Court, it was listed before Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh on June 29, 2021, July 1, 2021, July 5, 2021 July 9, 2021, July 12,2021, July 13, 2021, July 14, 2021, July 15, 2021 and July 16, 2021 who could not pass any order. It is inexplicable as to why it is taking so long to comply with Supreme Court's directions. 

Notably, the petition was filed and registered in the Patna High Court on June 22, 2018. Besides the State of Bihar, there are five respondents including the I.G. Prisons and Correctional Services, the Joint Secretary-cum-Director Administration, the Prisoner Welfare Officer, Bihar, the Additional Chief Secretary and Director. Shashank Chandra is amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner and Raghwanand is the counsel for the respondent.

The bench of Patna High Court's 39th Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad passed the first order in the case on June 25, 2018. The order reads: "We request the learned Advocate General present in the Court to look into the issue in question and assist us in disposal of the matter by providing necessary information with regard to the issue in question. Six weeks’ time is granted for the said purpose. List after six weeks."

On February 20, 2020, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and S. Kumar passed the second order. It reads: "Mr. Prashant Kumar is appointed as Amicus Curie to assist the Court. The present petition stands registered on the communication dated 16.05.2018 issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 through the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India. The order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced hereunder:'Kindly please find enclosed herewith an order dated 08.05.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 titled “Re: Inuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons” with a request to place it before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of your High Court.'In compliance of the directions issued in this case a Suo Motu Writ Petition is required to be registered in the High Court with regard to the issues of ‘Overcrowding in Prisons’ and ‘Vacancies in the prisons staff’ mentioned at point 2 and 3 respectively of the Order. The matter is to be listed before the Honb'le Supreme Court of India on 2nd August, 2018. May I, therefore, further request you to please inform the undersigned the details of the Suo Motu Writ Petition, registered pursuant to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter, as soon as the same is registered so that Hon’ble Court may be apprised accordingly.' List this case along with C.W.J.C. No. 24346 of 2019 on 20.03.2020."

The bench of 42nd Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar passed the third order on November 23, 2020. The order reads: "We request Additional Solicitor General to assist this Court. List on 01.12.2020."

The same bench passed the fourth order on December 7, 2020. It reads: Let the I.G. (Prison), submit his report indicating, in a tabular form, prison-wise, position with regard to the overcrowding of prisoners, if any, in all the jails established within the State of Bihar. Also, he shall indicate the vacancies, if any, of the post sanctioned of all cadres for manning each one of the jail establishments. Needful be done within four weeks. We request the learned Advocate General to personally follow up the matter at all levels, considering the fact that the instant petition stands initiated pursuant to order dated 8th of May, 2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 by Hon’ble the Apex Court. List on 12th of January, 2021." 

The same bench passed the fifth order on January 12, 2021. It reads: "We request Shri Shashank Chandra, Advocate, to assist as an amicus curiae. He shall be entitled to remuneration as per notification dated 18.05.2017 issued by the State Government to be paid by the Patn High Court Legal Services Committee. Let the State supply a copy of the brief to the learned amicus curiae. As prayed for, list on 17.2.2021."

The same bench passed the sixth order on February 18, 2021. It reads: "Shri Shashank Chandra, learned Amicus Curiae, invites our attention to the chart submitted in a tabular form (Annexure ‘C’) of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 11.01.2021. Undoubtedly, there is overcrowding of prisoners in the jails at the sub-divisional level. Shri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to A.G., has orally explained the reasons of overcrowding of prisoners in jails, perhaps, emanating from the current pandemic Covid-19. Be that as it may, the authority needs to take immediate remedial measures. As such, we direct the I.G. (Prison), Bihar to have the matter examined and take appropriate action at the earliest. Even though, we had clarified that fact in our earlier order dated 7th of December, 2020, however, we reiterate that initiation of the instant petition is based on the order dated 8th of May, 2018 passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.406 of 2013, titled as 'Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons'.We only hope and expect the I.G. (Prison), Bihar to file his personal affidavit within a period of eight weeks from today Learned Amicus Curiae points out that in the supplementary counter affidavit there is no reference of the status of the jail complexes under construction as was indicted in the earlier affidavit dated 10.08.2018 filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Inspector General (Prison), Home Department, Bihar, Patna. Let status report with regard to jails under construction and the one proposed to be constructed be als indicated in the affidavit to be filed by the I.G. (Prison), Bihar. List on 22.04.2021."

This public interest litigation must be seen in the backdrop of an order dated September 25, 2018 passed by a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The order was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur. The order reads: "Over the years, public interest litigation has brought immense social change through interventions made and directions issued by this Court. Public interest litigation has been initiated, very rarely, by suo motu exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. On most occasions, it has been initiated through a writ petition filed by activist individuals or organisations. Again, quite infrequently, it has been initiated on the basis of a communication received by this Court. During the last several decades, public interest litigation has compelled this Court to consider issues relating to the environment, social justice, violation of human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the failure of the State to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by Parliament or due to mis-governance by the State, that is, the Central Government, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations leading to rampant illegalities. The failure of the State to take remedial steps to fill in the gap when there is no operative law, except that enshrined in the Constitution, more particularly Article 21 has resulted in public interest litigation and at least two cases where a treaty obligation ought to be fulfilled7. In recent times, usually and regrettably, the State has chosen to challenge the idea of public interest litigation or denigrate it by chanting the mantra of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘separation of powers’. In most cases, these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the State to recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing social justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. There must be a realization that public interest litigation has given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women and children. Public interest litigation is one of the more important contributions of India to jurisprudence. In fact, the Indian experience has encouraged some other countries to introduce public interest litigation in their jurisprudence."

At least since December 18, 2019, a 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India, Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant started hearing the case but later it was allotted to another 3-judge bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao. Since September 23, 2022, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari started hearing the matter. Subsequently, since August 29, 2023, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal started hearing the matter. In its order, this bench observed: "Having perused the Terms of References forwarded by this Court to the Committee for giving its recommendations in terms of the order dated 25th September, 2018, we are of the opinion that some other issues are also required to be addressed, which include the following: (i) Availability of medical facilities to the inmates in jail. (ii) Imparting vocational training to the inmates in the jail, make them useful on going back to the society. (iii) Availability of adequate IT infrastructure in the jail premises for the purposes of conducting virtual Court proceedings and for visitation rights of family members." The bench's order dated December 14, 2023 reads:"we are of the opinion that all the State Governments/Union Territories be called upon to furnish the following details, as on 01st January, 2024: (i) Details of the number of jails presently setup in each State/Union Territory. (ii) The sanctioned capacity and the actual capacity of the jails mentioned at (i) above. (iii) The current requirement to set up more jails and the steps initiated. (iv) Stage at which such plans are for setting up more jails in each State/Union Territory."  

In its order dated January 30, 2024, the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed:"we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to issue directions to constitute a Committee in each District of the States/Union Territories to do the following: (i) Assess the available infrastructure in jails and take a decision on the number of additional jails to be constructed in the Districts; (ii) to assess the current capacity of the existing jails and requirement of constructing more jails or enhancing the capacity of existing jails to meet the standard laid down in the Model Prison Manual, 2016. (iii) Besides the above, the Committees shall also keep in mind the requirement of incorporating Artificial Intelligence and introducing video conferencing for conducting Mulakaats and tele-medicine facilities for the ease of the inmates. Each State Government/Union Territory is directed to set up a Committee comprising of (i) Principal/District Judge (Chairperson of the District Legal Services Authority), (ii) District Magistrate (Incharge Administrative Head of the District on Executive Side), (iii) Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Police, (iv) Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority and (v) Superintendent(s) of Jail. The said Committee shall be notified by the State Governments/Union Territories within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The Secretary of the DLSA shall be the convenor of the Committee. The Committees shall convene the first meeting within two weeks from the date of their constitution. The Committees shall initiate steps to examine the requirement of expanding the existing jails and acquiring land to set up new jails within the District, depending on the current capacity, occupancy and future demands of the District and come up with firm proposals. The Committees will also take an update on the status of all the ongoing projects/proposals that are pending in the Districts and ensure that milestones are set down for completing the ongoing projects. Wherever a project has yet to take off for want of land, steps be taken identify the land for the purposes of acquisition and the report be tabled before the Chief Secretary, of the State Government/Union Territory for obtaining necessary approvals and fast tracking the process. The Committees are permitted to examine the needs of the respective Districts and make proposals over and above of those that have been laid down the Model Prison Manual. However, the minimum requirements prescribed under the said Manual shall not be compromised. Future projections shall span over in a period of at least 50 years for implementation. A Fresh Status Reports shall be filed by all the State Governments/Union Territories on or before 05th April, 2024. An affidavit shall be filed by Chief Secretary of each State /Union Territory with all the requisite information as directed ordered above, within the same time line."   

In its April 23, 2024 order, the bench noted that Bihar and few other States have only referred to the recommendations made by the respective Committees, but has not filed affidavits through their Chief Secretaries setting out the manner in which the said recommendations shall be implemented and the timelines within which the same shall be done. Its direction reads: "The Chief Secretaries of the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh shall file their respective affidavits mentioning the milestones for implementing the recommendations made by the Committees along with the relevant details."

Its May 14, 2024 order refers to the reportable order. It reproduced its operative part. Its paragraph 42 reads:"  Before concluding, we may reiterate that prisoners are covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration ((1980) 3 SCC 488)2, this Court had pointedly answered that prisoners are persons who are entitled to Fundamental Rights even while in custody. (Rama Murthy v State of Karnataka (1997) 3 SCC 642)3, was a case where this Court had identified some problems plaguing jails in India, some of which continue to linger till today. Even before these cases, the view of this Court in respect of prisoners and undertrials was exposited in State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri (AIR 1966 SC 424)4 and Mohan Patnaik v State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 185)5. These are merely illustrative but sufficient to demonstrate the intent of this Court to secure basic facilities for those housed in prisons and were noticed in Orders/Judgment passed in this writ petition reported as (2016) 3 SCC 700 (Order dated 05.02.2016)6, (2016) 10 SCC 17 (Order dated 03.10.2016)7, (2017) 10 SCC 658 (Judgment dated 15.09.2017)8, and (2018) 18 SCC 777 (Order dated 25.09.2018)9. We expect all stakeholders to rise to the occasion and discharge the obligation cast on them as expeditiously as is possible.” The paragraphs 4-13 of the order deals with the status of overcrowding in jails in Bihar. It has been flagged (a) District Jails at (i) Aurangabad, (ii) Darbhanga, (iii) Gopalganj, (iv) Khagaria, (v) Lakhisarai, (vi) Madhepura, (vii) Biharsharif, (viii) Navadah, (ix) Saharsa, (x) Chapra, (xi) Sitamarhi, (xii) Siwan, (xiii) Supaul, (xiv) Hajipur; (b) Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, and (c) Central Jail, Purnea for overcrowding. 

The order dated August 13, 2024 takes note of the submission of the amicus curiae regarding Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which has a provision relating to the ‘Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained’. The first proviso of Section 479 creates a requirement for release of a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) on bond by the Court, if he/she has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such an offence under a particular law. He submitted that the said provision needs to be implemented at the earliest and it will help in addressing over-crowding in prisons. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General submitted that she may be granted time to obtain instructions from the Department and file an affidavit clarifying the aforesaid position and application of the said provision to all the undertrials across the country. 

The order of August 23, 2024 records that Additional Solicitor General submitted that "instructions have been obtained from the Department to the effect that the aforesaid provision under the BNSS shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them before 01st July, 2024, the date when the newly minted legislation has come into effect." The order reads: "In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition. The aforesaid steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Reports shall be submitted by the Superintendent Jails to their respective Heads of the Department within the same time line for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by each State Government/Union Territory through their respective Chief Secretaries. The affidavits shall furnish the details of the number of undertrials who would be entitled to extension of the benefit of Section 479 of the BNSS, the number of applications moved before the concerned Courts for their release and the number of undertrials actually released by the date of filing of the affidavits. Compliance of the aforesaid provisions shall be made by the concerned District & Session Judges in all States/UTs who are in-Charge of the Under Trial Review Committees so that there is no laxity in implementation of the aforesaid beneficial provision."

From October 22, 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy ad S.V.N Bhatt started hearing the matter. Its order reads: "The latest data suggests that of the total jail inmates, over 4 lakh are of the undertrial category and they constitute over 75% of the incarcerated prisoners. The over crowding of the jails is pegged at around 131%. The undertrial inmates are undoubtedly facing criminal charges but under our jurisprudence, they are to be presumed innocent till proved guilty. The state of mind of the incarcerated can be best understood by the following lines penned by Oscar Wilde in his Ballad of Reading Gaol.
“I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
PageIs that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.”

The bench observed:"In order to smoothen the process of identification of deserving undertrials, the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district must play a more pivotal role by coordinating with the Jail Superintendents of all Jails in the country. The Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authority should mobilize their panel advocates/ para legal volunteers so that relevant information on the incarcerated undertrials can be updated. This should be a continuous process as a particular undertrial may cross the threshold bar of one-half or one-third sentence the very next day or soon the information is collected. Therefore effective continuous steps must be taken to ensure release of the deserving undertrials under the provisions of Section 479 of BNSS, in a proactive way. An undertrial, who is entitled to be released, under Section 479 of the BNSS deserves effective consideration under the beneficial provision of the law. An incarcerated person must be thinking constantly of the day when he can be out of the jail walls. The filing of appropriate supplementary reports by the States/Union Territories in terms of this Court’s order dated 23.08.2024 is accordingly ordered. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal with the assistance of Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar representing NALSA will then collate the information of each State and Union Territory, in alphabetical order and file before the next hearing. In their respective response/additional response, the State/Union Territory must indicate the reasons why a particular undertrial has not got the benefit of release order, although he falls within the permissible category, under Section 479 of the BNSS and his applications were presented before the competent Court. This input enables this Court to issue directions to the Court for discharge of duty or function at their end...A copy of this order be communicated to Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories."

The order of this bench dated November 19, 2024 records that "no response has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tripura and the Union Territory of Goa. Despite the fact that the last order passed by this Court (on 22.10.2024) was communicated to the Chief Secretaries of all the State and Union Territories, the non-filing of response by the concerned States shows that perhaps the concerned States/UTs are lax in ensuring that the benefits of Section 479 of the BNSS are availed by the deserving category of undertrials. Therefore, submission on this score was heard from Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P., Mr. Samir Ali Khan, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, learned counsel for the UT of Goa and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, learned Counsel for the State of Tripura. Each of them has assured the Court that the requisite response would immediately be filed." It has underlined that "the identification of the deserving undertrials should not only be complete but must also be accurate. The eligible cases must be forwarded to the concerned Court to facilitate the release of the undertrial prisoner, through the Court’s order regarding Section 479 of BNSS. Equally important is the follow-up steps before the Court to obtain appropriate orders for each of the undertrials who have been identified and whose cases have been referred to the Court. The Report to be furnished by the States/UTs are required to be furnished from time to time (this being an ongoing process) in a format provided by the Court at page no. 10 of its 11 page long order. 

The order dated December 10, 2024 states that information has now been furnished by the State of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Goa and Tripura. It is however seen that although bail orders were passed for prisoners at Sl No.29, 30, 31 and 32 in the response of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the benefit of the bail order has not reached the concerned prisoners. Likewise for prisoners at Sl. No.28 in the response filed by the State of Bihar, the undertrial who is accused under Section 414 of the IPC is still detained for non-furnishing of bail bonds. It observed that since the data from some states regarding the number of female prisoners is unclear, one might usefully refer to the report of the Justice VR Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners (1987) and the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs titled ‘Prison – Conditions, Infrastructure and Reforms (2023), wherein specific recommendations were made for the release of women prisoners. "The Justice Amitava Roy Committee appointed in this very PIL also highlighted that the correctional justice system is ‘evidently gender exclusionary’. Therefore, special efforts must be made to ensure the release of all deserving under-trial women prisoners languishing in jails."

It all began with the judgment of the Supreme Court which was delivered by a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and  R. K. Agrawal. In its first order dated February 5, 2016, the bench recalled that in 1980, the Court had occasion to deal with the rights of prisoners in Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration wherein  it observed: "Are prisoners persons? Yes, of course. To answer in the negative is to convict the nation and the Constitution of dehumanization and to repudiate the world legal order, which now recognises rights of prisoners in the International Covenant on Prisoners’ Rights to which our country has signed assent. In Batra case (1978), this Court has rejected the hands-off doctrine and it has been ruled that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration." The judgement was authored by Justice Lokur. He authored his last order in this regard on December 13, 2018. Before that Justice Lokur led bench had constituted a 3-member Committee headed by Justice Amitava Roy in September 2018 to examine and recommend reforms for India's prisons. The committee's objectives included: Examining overcrowding in prisons and correctional homes, Recommending measures to prevent unnatural deaths, Assessing the availability of medical facilities in prisons, Recommending training and educational modules for staff and Recommending steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor children of women prisoners. Some of the committee's recommendations included:Cloud-based photo documentation, Ensuring transparent communication, Providing access to welfare schemes, Speedy trial, Lawyer to prisoner ratio, Special courts, Avoid adjournment, Use of ICT, Filling vacancies and Modern cooking facilities. Notably, the other committees that have examined the state of prisons in India are the Mulla Committee, the Malimath Committee, and the Justice Krishna Iyer Committee. The committee submitted its final report in December 27, 2022.

The Court's order of February 5, 2016 reads:“Prisoners are peculiarly and doubly handicapped. For one thing, most prisoners belong to the weaker segment, in poverty, literacy, social station and the like. Secondly, the prison house is a walled-off world which is incommunicado for the human world, with the result that the bonded inmates are invisible, their voices inaudible, their injustices unheeded. So it is imperative, as implicit in Article 21, that life or liberty, shall not be kept in suspended animation or congealed into animal existence without the freshening flow of fair procedure.”

In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (1997),  , Court identified as many as nine issues facing prisons and needing reforms. They are: (i) over-crowding; ii) Delay in trial; (iii) Torture and ill-treatment; (iv) Neglect of health and hygiene; (v) Insubstantial food and inadequate clothing; (vi) Prison vices; (vii) Deficiency in communication; (viii) Streamlining of jail visits and (ix) Management of open air prisons.

In T. K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka (2000), the Court observed: “The therapeutic approach aims at curing the criminal tendencies which were the product of a diseased psychology. There may be many factors, including family problems. We are not concerned with those factors as therapeutic approach has since been treated as an effective method of punishment which not only satisfies the requirements of law that a criminal should be punished and the punishment prescribed must be meted out to him, but also reforms the criminal through various processes, the most fundamental of which is that in spite of having committed a crime, maybe a heinous crime, he should be treated as a human being entitled to all the basic human rights, human dignity and human sympathy. It was under this theory that this Court in a stream of decisions, projected the need for prison reforms, the need to acknowledge the vital fact that the prisoner, after being lodged in jail, does not lose his fundamental rights or basic human rights and that he must be treated with compassion and sympathy.”

Significantly, the Court referred to a letter on 13th June, 2013 addressed by Justice R.C. Lahoti, a former Chief Justice of India to the Chief Justice of India relating to conditions in prisons is rather disturbing. Justice R.C. Lahoti invited attention to the inhuman conditions prevailing in 1382 prisons in India as reflected in a Graphic Story appearing in Dainik Bhaskar (National Edition) on 24th March, 2013. A photocopy of the Graphic Story was attached to the letter.

Justice R.C. Lahoti pointed out that the story highlights: (i) Overcrowding of prisons; (ii) Unnatural death of prisoners; (iii) Gross inadequacy of staff and (iv) Available staff being untrained or inadequately trained.

Justice R.C. Lahoti also pointed out that the State cannot disown its liability to the life and safety of a prisoner once in custody and that there were hardly any schemes for reformation for first time offenders and prisoners in their youth and to save them from coming into contact with hardened prisoners.

Justice R.C. Lahoti ended the letter by submitting that the Graphic Story raised an issue that needed to be taken note of and dealt with in public interest by this Court and that he was inviting the attention of this Court in his capacity as a citizen of the country. We may say that Justice R.C. Lahoti has brought an important issue to the forefront, dispelling the view:

“Judges rarely express concern for the inhumane treatment that the person being sentenced is likely to face from fellow prisoners and prison officials, or that time in prison provides poor preparation for a productive life afterwards. Courts rarely consider tragic personal pasts that may be partly responsible for criminal behavior, or how the communities and families of a defendant will suffer during and long after his imprisonment.” 

The Court drew insights from the working paper entitled "Decency, Dignity, and Desert: Restoring Ideals of Humane Punishment to Constitutional Discourse" by Eva S. Nilsen, Boston University School of Law. 

By an order dated 5th July, 2013 the letter was registered as apublic interest writ petition and the Registry of this Court was directed to take steps to issue notice to the appropriate authorities after obtaining a list from the office of the learned Attorney General.

In reply to the notice issued by this Court, several States and Union Territories gave their response either in the form of communications addressed to the Registry of this Court or in the form of affidavits. It is not necessary for us to detail each of the responses. Suffice it to say that on the four issues raised by

Justice R.C. Lahoti there is general consensus that the prisons (both Central and District) are over-crowded, some unnatural deaths have taken place in some prisons, there is generally a shortage of staff and it is not as if all of them are adequately and suitably trained to handle issues relating to the management of prisons and prisoners and finally that steps have been taken for the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. However, a closer scrutiny of the responses received indicates that by and large the steps taken are facile and lack adequate sincerity in implementation. 

The Social Justice Bench of Supreme Court had passed an order on March 13, 2015 requiring the Union of India to furnish certain information primarily relating to the more serious issue of over-crowding in prisons and improving the living conditions of prisoners. 

In its order dated October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court's bench observed:"There are a host of decisions rendered thereafter by this Court on the same subject of the fundamental rights and human rights of convicts and undertrial prisoners repeated every decade over the last so many years. We may mention only a few of them: Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.10 More recently, in Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh this Court observed in paragraph 38 of the Report as follows:“It is imperative to state that it is the sacrosanct duty of the police authorities to remember that a citizen while in custody is not denuded of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The restrictions imposed have the sanction of law by which his enjoyment of fundamental right is curtailed but his basic human rights are not crippled so that the police officers can treat him in an inhuman manner. On the contrary, they are under obligation to protect his human rights and prevent all forms of atrocities.”

It expressed it's dismay saying: "Unfortunately, it seems that the views of this Court over the 50 years (since Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri in 1966) have continuously fallen on deaf ears and the situation does not seem to be changing even now. Unless due importance is given to the fundamental rights and human rights of the people, the right to life and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution will have no meaning." 

Supreme Court's order of Justice Lokur led 3-judge bench dated February 17, 2017 disclosed that for the year 2015-2016, in the State of Bihar, the average expenditure per inmate was Rs.83,691 per annum. It underlined the necessity of having "the accounts audited to ascertain whether the money is being spent wisely and whether it is being utilized for the benefit of the prisoners or not." It was pointed out that directions have been issued by the Court for the constitution of a Board of Visitors to visit jails. Many of the jails do not have a Board of Visitors and where a Board of Visitors is available, the visits to jails are sporadic and the recommendations given are probably not implemented.

The May 2, 2017 order of the Court has recorded that "With regard to the expenses in all the jails, it is stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General has carried out some audits. However, learned counsel for the Union of India states that the matter is being taken up with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that the audits are conducted on a regular basis so that there is not wasteful expenditure. It is further stated that a Scheme is being proposed and will be discussed with the Comptroller and Auditor General and others States/Union Territories in this regard.

The bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Justices Deepak Gupta passed the following directions in its order dated September 15, 2017:
1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit a copy of this decision to the Registrar General of every High Court within one week with a request to the Registrar General to place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to register a suo motu public interest petition with a view to identifying the next of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an unnatural death as revealed by the NCRB during the period between 2012 and 2015 and even thereafter, and award suitable compensation, unless adequate compensation has already been awarded.
2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will ensure circulation within one month and in any event by 31st October, 2017 of (i) the Model Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph prepared by the NHRC entitled “Suicide in Prison - prevention strategy and implication from human rights and legal points of view”, (iii) the communications sent by the NHRC referred to above, (iv) the compendium of advisories issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the State Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules and (vi) the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Director General or Inspector General of Police (as the case may be) in charge of prisons in every State and Union Territory. All efforts should be made, as suggested by the NHRC and others, to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in prisons and to document each and every death in prisons – both natural and unnatural.
3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs will direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the distinction between unnatural and natural deaths in prisons as indicated on the website of the NCRB and in its Annual Reports and also explain the sub-categorization ‘others’ within the category of  unnatural deaths. The NCRB should also be required to sub-categorize natural deaths. The sub-categorization and clarification should be complied with by 31st October, 2017.
4. The State Governments should, in conjunction with the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the National and State Police Academy and the Bureau of Police Research and Development conduct training and sensitization programmes for senior police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of prisoners. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Member-Secretary of each SLSA to follow-up and ensure compliance.
5. The necessity of having counselors and support persons in prisons cannot be over-emphasized. Their services can be utilized to counsel and advice prisoners who might be facing some crisis situation or might have some violent or suicidal tendencies. The State Governments are directed to appoint counselors and support persons for counselling prisoners, particularly first-time offenders. In this regard, the services of recognized NGOs can be taken and encouraged.
6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner should be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to consider extending the time or frequency of meetings and also explore the possibility of using phones and video conferencing for communications not only between a prisoner and family members of that prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the lawyer, whether appointed through the State Legal Services Authority or otherwise.
7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) should urgently conduct a study on the lines conducted by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority in Bihar and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in Rajasthan in respect of the overall conditions in prisons in the State and the facilities available. The study should also include a performance audit of the prisons, as has been done by the CAG. The SLSAs should also assess the effect and impact of various schemes framed by NALSA relating to prisoners. We request the Chief Justice of every High Court, in the capacity of Patron-in-Chief of the State Legal Services Authority, to take up this initiative and, if necessary, set up a Committee headed preferably by the Executive Chairperson of the State Legal Services Authority to implement the directions given above.
8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to inmates in prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right to health is undoubtedly a human right and all State Governments should concentrate on making this a reality for all, including prisoners. The experiences in Karnataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the effect that medical facilities in prisons do not meet minimum standards of care is an indication that the human right to health is not given adequate importance in prisons and that may also be one of the causes of unnatural deaths in prisons. The State Governments are directed to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary.
9. The constitution of a Board of Visitors which includes non-official visitors is of considerable importance so that eminent members of society can participate in initiating reforms in prisons and in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Merely changing the nomenclature of prisons to ‘Correction Homes’ will not resolve the problem. Some proactive steps are required to be taken by eminent members of society who should be included in the Board of Visitors. The State Governments are directed to constitute an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter XXIX of the Model Prison Manual indicating their duties and responsibilities. This exercise should be completed by 30th November, 2017.
10. The suggestion given by the learned Amicus of encouraging the establishment of ‘open jails’ or ‘open prisons’ is certainly worth considering. It was brought to our notice that the experiment in Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and the semi-open prison in Delhi are extremely successful and need to be carefully studied. Perhaps there might be equally successful experiments carried out in other States as well and, if so, they require to be documented, studied and emulated.
11. The Ministry of Women & Child Development of the Government of India which is concerned with the implementation of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed to discuss with the concerned officers of the State Governments and formulate procedures for tabulating the number of children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in child care institutions where they are kept in custody either because they are in conflict with law or because they need care and protection. Necessary steps should be taken in this regard by 31st December, 2017.

It concluded saying, "We expect the above directions to be faithfully implemented by the Union of India and State Governments. In the event of any difficulty in the implementation of the above directions, the Bench hearing the suo motu public interest litigation in the High Court in term of our first direction is at liberty to consider those difficulties and pass necessary orders and directions."

Taking note of overcrowding in a large number of jails where overcrowding is well above 150% and in one case it is as high as 609%, in its order dated March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court observed: "This is extremely unfortunate and clearly suggests the complete lack of commitment of the State Governments and the Union Territories to the human rights of prisoners and also indicates the failure of the Under Trial Review Committee to take their responsibilities seriously." The order dated December 4, 2018 had recorded that "the number of under-trial prisoners of this country constitutes more than 67% of the prisons’ population."