1398P

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF SKITTLELAND

AT XYZ

Petition No. 123/2016

Petition Filed Under Article 32

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. PETER RIDDICK.....................................................................................PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF SKITTLELAND...............................................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................v

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION.................................................................................................vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................vii

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IMPOSED ON MR. RIDDICK VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS....vii

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.......................vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..........................................................................................................1

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IMPOSED ON MR. RIDDICK VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS.......1

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.........................1

I. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 20(2)..............................................................1

II. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21...............................................................1

PRAYER..........................................................................................................................................4

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Acharaparambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala, 2004 CriLJ 755...................................................2

Anand Mohan v. State of Bihar, (2012) 7 SCC 225........................................................................1

CESC Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, 1992 AIR 572.......................................................................3

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 AIR 1295.................................................................2

Parmanand Katra v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039.......................................................................3

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579......................................................................2

Triveniben And Ors. V. State of Gujarat, 1989 AIR 1335...............................................................1

Treatises

Blacks Law Dictionary (Bryan A Garner Ed, 12th ed., 2012)....2

Constitutional Provisons

Article 20(2), The Constitution of India, 1950....1

Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950.1

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Peter Riddick, citizen of Kittleland was caught by the Skittleland Army and tried for the

offences of mass murdering and terrorism. He was convicted and sentenced to death. He has

been kept in solitary confinement for over a month by the prison authorities in name of peace in

the prison and safety of the fellow prisoners.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Honourable Supreme Court, Skittleland invoking its

jurisdiction to admit and adjudicate the present matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of

Skittleland and decide accordingly.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully.

5
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. WHETHER SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IMPOSED ON MR. PETER RIDDICK

VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IMPOSED ON MR. RIDDICK VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The rights guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 are conferred on the non-citizens as well as it is

believed that no one should be deprived of such basic and necessary rights even if he/she is a

foreigner.

Article 20 is violated when there is conviction of the convict for the same offence twice which is

unjust as once a convict is punished for his/her crime, he/she cannot be punished again for the

same. Same is the case with Mr. Peter and so his right against double jeopardy is violated.

Article 21 is all about protection of life and personal liberty and is inclusive of right against

solitary confinement and right to health. And thus Mr. Peters rights guaranteed under Article 21

are violated.

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IMPOSED ON MR. RIDDICK VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION

I. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 20(2)

Article 20(2) explicitly states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same

offence twice.1 If this is done, the person who is affected by it can take the defence of double

jeopardy.2

In the present case, Mr. Peter has already been given the punishment of death penalty and then

imposing solitary confinement on him would amount to double conviction which is violative of

Article 20(2).This was very well established in the case of Anand Mohan and etc. Vs. State of

Bihar3 where it was stated that

a prisoner was under a jail custody and if he was detained in solitary confinement then it would

amount to imposing punishment for same offence more than once which would be violative of

Article 20(2).

1 Article 20(2), The Constitution of India, 1950

2 Triveniben And Ors. V. State of Gujarat, 1989 AIR 1335.

3 Anand Mohan v. State of Bihar, (2012) 7 SCC 225.

1
 II. THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21

Article 21 talks about Protection of life and personal liberty which states that no person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.4

It is not merely restricted to breathing and surviving but has a wider meaning of leading a

meaningful, complete and dignified life.5

1. VIOLATION OF RIGHT AGAINST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

As mentioned right to life has many facets and one constitutive part of it is right against solitary

confinement. Solitary confinement implies the confinement of a prisoner in a cell or other place

in which he or she is completely isolated from his inmates .6 When a person is kept solitude he is

restricted from social contacts with his fellow prisoners and curtailment of personal liberty to

such an extent as to be a negation of it would constitute deprivation.7

This is a well-known principle of law that the convict carrying death punishment is not deemed

to be 'prisoner under sentence of death' unless death sentence becomes final, conclusive and

beyond Judicial scrutiny.8 Such convict is handed over to the Jail authority to be kept in safe and

4 Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950

5 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 AIR 1295.

6 Blacks Law Dictionary (Bryan A Garner Ed, 12th ed., 2012).

7 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579.

8 Acharaparambath Pradeepan v. State of Kerala, 2004 CriLJ 755.

2
protected custody with purpose that he may be available for execution of the sentence eventually

confirmed. This custody is different from custody of a convict suffering from simple or rigorous

imprisonment. And so it is unreasonable to impose solitary confinement on the prisoner.9

Also Mr. Peter was kept in isolation for over a month but solitary confinement as substantive

punishment cannot in any case exceed 14 days at a time with intervals between the periods of

solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.10 This is violative of the rules

established by law and hence unreasonable and not proportionate.

2. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social dimensions of wellbeing and not merely

absence of a disease. In recent years, this statement has been amplified to include the ability to

lead a socially and economically productive life. 11

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval and held

that the right to life included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the

human body in their prime conditions. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and

the right to repose and health.

9 Supra, note 2.

10 Supra, note 6; Section 73, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

11 CESC Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, 1992 AIR 572.

3
The person whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws

of the society, it is the obligation of the state to preserve life so that the innocent may be

protected and the guilty may be punished.12

It may be conceded that solitary confinement has a degrading and dehumanising effect on

prisoners. Constant and unrelieved isolation of a prisoner is so unnatural that it may breed

insanity. Social isolation represents the most destructive abnormal environment. Results of long

solitary confinement are disastrous to the physical and mental health of those subjected to it.13

12 Parmanand Katra v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039.

13 supra, note 7.

4
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it

is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Supreme Court of Skittleland that it may be

pleased to:

Declare the imposition of solitary confinement violative of Art. 20(2) and Art. 21 and

hence unconstitutional.
Issue a writ in nature of Habeas Corpus.

And pass any order in favour of the Plaintiff which this Court may deem fit in the ends of justice,

equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: October 1,2016 Counsel for the Petitioner

Counsel No.1398P