Human rights serve as the protective shield for individuals within civil society, representing inherent entitlements acknowledged through legislative acts and enforceable in courts of law. These rights persist even in the face of legal transgressions, with the judiciary intervening to uphold the rights of individuals, including those in detention. This research endeavours to scrutinize the extent to which human rights are extended to detainees and the role played by the judiciary in upholding humanitarian principles. The chapter begins by highlighting the judiciary's acknowledgement of prisoners' rights, as various entitlements are conferred upon incarcerated individuals. The authors delve into the judicial perspective, particularly focusing on Article 21, encompassing rights such as the right to a speedy trial, access to legal aid, and the right to adequate wages for prisoners. Through this lens, the chapter seeks to unravel the nuanced approach taken by the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of those confined.The authors further explore contemporary challenges, specifically addressing the diminishing rights of prisoners of war and immigrant detainees on a global scale. The research aims to shed light on the intricate complexities surrounding the preservation of human rights in the context of detainees, emphasizing the need for judicial intervention to mitigate these challenges and uphold the principles of justice and humanity.
TopJudicial Recognition Of Prisoners' Rights
When the legislature and executive fail to deliver justice to any segment of society, it is the judiciary that wields the sword of judicial activism to uphold justice. In the evolution of jurisprudence about prisoners' rights, the courts have issued a multitude of pronouncements. William Black once remarked that “prisons are built with stones of law” (Alber & Lauterbach, 2009), placing the onus on those who uphold the law to intervene when human rights are overshadowed by arbitrary rule. Constitutional compassion is injected into the strategy of incarceration to ensure prison justice, as seen in the case of Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent Central Tihar Jail, New Delhi, A.I.R. 1978.
Over the past few decades, in the absence of specific legislation addressing prisoners' rights, the Supreme Court, driven by its judicial activism, has broadened the scope of Articles 14, 19, and 21, guaranteed under Part III, in addition to Articles 38, 39, 39A, and 42 under Part IV of the Constitution of India, to encompass the rights of prisoners. In scrutinizing the government's sluggish approach towards implementing basic rights, the Supreme Court has progressively reinterpreted the words of the Constitution. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 outlines the authority to arrest and certain safeguards essential in the process of detaining a person.
A reformative philosophy, rehabilitative strategy, therapeutic prison treatment, and the enhancement of a prisoner's personality through a technology of fostering the fullness of being, characterized as a creative art of social defence and correctional process activating fundamental guarantees of prisoners' rights, embody the optimistic vision of the national prison policy established by the Constitution and the Court (V.R. Krishna Iyar, 2020). The Indian judiciary has ventured into various domains, igniting the torch of human rights for prisoners.