1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP., INDIA.

RESEARCH PAPER TITLE:

‘Solitary Confinement and human rights issues- A study’

SUBJECT

IPC- I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Dr. Katari Srinivas Rao

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE: JAHNAVI GOPALUNI

ROLL NO. 2020LLB035

SEMESTER III
 2

CERTIFICATE

Title of the subject: Criminal Law - I

Name of the faculty: Dr. Katari Srinivasa Rao

I, Jahnavi Gopaluni, hereby declare that this project titled “Solitary confinement
and human rights issues” is submitted by me is an original work undertaken by
me. I have duly acknowledged all the sources from which the ideas have been
taken. To the best of my knowledge, the research work is free from any plagiarism
issue.
Name: Jahnavi Gopaluni

Roll No. 20LLB035

Semester III
 3

ACKNOLEDGEMENT

I would like to sincerely convey my heartfelt appreciation to our respected IPC teacher, Dr. Katari Srini-
vasa Rao sir for giving me a great opportunity to make my project and for providing me with the guid-
ance to finish the project successfully.

I would also like to thank my classmates for giving their valuable insights and for co-operation.

I have attempted to collect information and compiled it here to the best of my knowledge.
 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS Pg. No

1. SYNOPSIS 5-6

2. INTRODUCTION 7-11

- HISTORY OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS A FORM

OF PUNISHMENT

- IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

3. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN INDIAN LAW 11-14

4. CASE LAWS 14-21

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS 21-22

6. CONCLUSION 22-23

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 23
 5

ABSTRACT

Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment in which an inmate is isolated from any hu-
man contact, with the exception of members of prison staff. It empowers prison personnel to
imprison prisoners for excessive hours without any form of communication, mobility, or ac-
cess to the facilities and facilities provided within the prison. Therefore, Solitary confinement
is widely criticized to be dehumanizing form of treatment. Through the year’s solitary con-
finement has been abolished as a measure of punishment in many countries, even in India sol-
itary confinement is given to the hardened criminals in rare cases but it still exists in the In-
dian penal code.

OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH:

The goal of the study is to:

1. Analyse the concept of solitary confinement and its impact on human rights
2. Examine the constitutional status of solitary confinement in India and relevant legisla-
tions prohibiting or regulating it.
3. Analyse the relevant case laws in which courts of the country have condemned solit-
ary confinement.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The study is limited to the analysis of solitary confinement as form of punishment in India
and its constitutional status in India.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. Whether solitary confinement is justified as a valid form of extreme punishment.

2. Whether solitary punishment is violative of basic human rights and is disproportionate
punishment to the crime committed.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:
 6
Solitary confinement breaches the basic human rights of prisoners and stifles the Human dig-
nity when imposed excessively or disproportionately or unreasonably in an unjust manner.

SOURCES REFERRED TO:

Primary sources:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Constitution of India, 1950.
3. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 2015.
4. Manupatra
5. SCC Online

Secondary sources:

1. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives

2. All India Legal Forum – Solitary Confinement
3. Law Audience Journal
4. www.Indiankanoon.com

LITERATURE REVIEW:

1. Abolish solitary confinement’ (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives) - Jail Mail is a

regular series of Prison Reform Updates from Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
for readers interested in the rights of prisoners and the reform of prisons as a matter of
public concern. Jail Mail critically analysed solitary confinement as punishment and cat-
egorically explained how it violates rights of those behind bars. This article has provided
deep evidence-based insight into solitary confinement and its impact on human rights of
prisoners. Therefore, it has proved to be valuable source of information for researcher of
the present study.

RESEARCH TYPE:

Analytical research.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Non- doctrinal method of research.

MODE OF CITATION:
 7
The researcher has employed Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorit-
ies (OSCOLA), Fourth Edition.

INTRODUCTION
In many of the countries, Solitary confinement is banned as a measure for punishment due to
the gravitas of torture. In India, maximum period of solitary confinement is 3 months and it
shall not exceed 14 days at a time. Relevant provisions of solitary confinement are sections
73 and 74 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this paper, we analyse the effects of solitary con-
finement on human rights, as well as provisions under Indian law and landmark judgments is-
sued by Indian courts.

According to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Convicts,
popularly known as the 'Mandela Rules,' solitary confinement is defined as "the incarceration
of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without substantial human contact." 1 2

Solitary confinement was defined by the Supreme Court in Kishore Singh Dev v. State of Ra-
jasthan 3
: “a confinement in which there is complete isolation of prisoners from other co-
prisoners and segregation from outside the world of fellow prisoners. Solitary confinement is
an extreme measure and is to be rarely invoked in exceptional cases, of unparalleled brutality
and atrocity. It is the slow vivisection of the soul. Solitary confinement detroits the mind until
it begins to border on insanity. Solitary confinement tortures the inmates mentally, physic-
ally, emotionally and is considered to be the most heinous kind of punishment. Even if a man
survives it, he becomes abnormal and an absolute misfit in the world.”

- HISTORY OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS A FORM OF

PUNISHMENT:

The idea of solitary confinement as a form of punishment dates back to the late 18th and
early 19th centuries, when the British government constructed a jail that served as a colonial
1
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 37(D).
2
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), UN
General Assembly, adopted on December 17, 2015.
3
Kishore Singh Dev v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 SCC (1) 503.
 8
jail cell and was also known as "Kaala Paani or Black Water Jail" because the whole prison
was encircled by the sea, making it impossible for a prisoner to flee.

The cellular jail recounts the narrative of Britishers' infamous mistreatment to Indian political
dissidents. During the war for Indian independence, the British employed the cellular prison
to banish political prisoners to the distant island.

Many important independence fighters were imprisoned here, including Batukeshwar

Dutta and the famed Veer Savarkar, among others. During World War 2, it was taken seized
by Japanese troops in 1942, and many British servicemen were incarcerated as a result.

Solitary Confinement as a modern type of punishment dates back to the United States in the
1800s, when it was first used as an experiment. Back then, it was assumed that inmates in se-
clusion would spend their time there to "repent their crimes." However, the outcomes were
far from what they had planned for. Solitary confinement led to the development of mental
diseases, which are frequently referred to as "prison psychosis." Solitary confinement has
been linked to a rise in psychosis among those imprisoned and detained in isolation, accord-
ing to clinical research from Europe.4

The US Supreme Court recognised the problems of solitary confinement in 1890, and issued
the following statements in response: “A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even
a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition” 5

After the Supreme Court ruled against the use of lengthy solitary confinement, prisons and
jails began to phase out the practise. With the introduction of the super-maximum-secur-
ity prison, solitary confinement resurfaces as a predominantly punitive measure to combat
prison violence. State and central governments already manage more than 60 such jails. With
the introduction of the super-maximum-security prison, solitary confinement resurfaces as a
predominantly punitive measure to combat prison violence. State and central governments
already manage more than 60 such jails.

- IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS:

4
Dennis Sadowski, ‘History of solitary confinement’ (Catholic News Service, 2016) <https://www.thecom-
passnews.org/2016/06/history-solitary-confinement-2/> Accessed on 27 November 2021.
5
ibid
 9
Solitary confinement, often known as incommunicado, is the pinnacle of harsh punishment in
which the prisoner is confined in isolated environments. Solitary confinement isolates a pris-
oner from the view and communication of other convicts, putting them on the borderline of
psychosis. Solitary confinement can cause psychotic episodes, paranoid delusions, panic, ag-
gression, paranoia, suicidal and psychopathic tendencies, among other things.

Loneliness which is an unpleasant emotional reaction to perceived social isolation and en-
forcement of social isolation, also referred to as social pain differs from isolation and loneli-
ness and the brain reacts differently. Loneliness or social isolation produces brain alterations,
which can lead to more serious repercussions including depression and anxiety disorders.
Solitary confinement as a form of punishment is nearly a of a sort of torture with devastating
physiological implications. Individuals who are confined face a variety of psychological is-
sues, including emotional, intellectual, and psychotic symptoms symptoms.

Solitary confinement is said to be hazardous to prisoners' mental health because it prevents

them from creating positive contact with other people, which is a cognitive stimulation that
humans require to stay healthy and productive. Solitary confinement for a longer period of
time is linked to increased mental health symptoms, which can have major emotional and be-
havioural effects. 6

Solitary confinement has a significant impact on detainees' or offenders' feelings of empti-

ness. Sensory overload causes significant health problems, such as changes in sleep patterns,
the underlying biological cycle that regulates our body's proper performance. According to
more studies, imprisoned convicts may have an enhanced sensitivity to regular stimuli, such
as the noise of closing doors, which could contribute to sleeping problems. Because offenders
are more likely to overreact to stimuli, reintegration into the broader prison community is
more challenging. With multiple visits to solitary confinement, these physical effects may in-
crease and aggravate existing psychiatric issues, as well as lead to the development of new
psychological aspects.

When inmates or prisoners are liberated, they are faced with terrible traumas, which have a
devastating effect on their mental health. Quivering, sweaty palms, acute dizziness, and in-
6
‘Abolish solitary confinement’ (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives, 2015) < https://www.human-
rightsinitiative.org/> Accessed on 27 November 2021.
 10
creased heart rate are common complaints among isolated convicts. Solitary detainees also
have difficulty ingesting and digesting food, especially during the first three months of solit-
ary confinement. Isolated inmates may have difficulty sleeping. As a result, inmates report
feeling tired all of the time. 7

The majority of people confined in solitary confinement suffer from negative emotional im-
pacts that can vary from acute to chronic, depending widely on the person and the duration of
their isolation. Irritability, anger, and emotional instability are also reported by confined in-
mates as feelings of terror and rage. Additionally, they typically display anxiety symptoms
ranging from mild tension to severe panic episodes. Depressed convicts exhibit symptoms
like as despondency, depressed mood, and isolation while they are alone. These depressive
symptoms could lead to suicidal ideation and self-harm. In comparison to the general prison
population, solitary confinement inmates had higher rates of suicide and self-harm, such as
slashing and bashing one's head against the prison wall. 8

Inmates' mental abilities worsen over time while they are isolated, in addition to their emo-
tional processes being disrupted. Memory loss has been reported by certain confined offend-
ers, and a considerable number of solitary inmates have reported impaired concentration.
Former prisoners report feeling highly confused and lost in time and space when incarcerated.
Dispirited thinking, characterised as the difficulty to sustain a cohesive process of thinking, is
another confinement related psychological ailment that inmates may encounter. Symptoms of
psychosis can arise as a result of this disordered thinking. Night terrors, delusions, and ex-
treme paranoia, such as a continuous sense that they are being persecuted, are common
among inmates who show these psychotic symptoms. In certain cases, prisoners have de-
veloped paranoia to the point of full-blown insanity, necessitating hospitalisation.

Solitary confinement is a dehumanising power that allows a prisoner to spend inordinate

amounts of time locked up, denied of any sort of communication, mobility, and access to

7
David H. Cloud, Ernest Drucker, ‘Public Health and Solitary Confinement in the United States’ (20150

105(1) 18–26 < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265928/>.

8
, ‘Solitary Confinement’ (All India Legal Forum, 2020) < https://allindialegalforum.in/2020/08/25/solitary-con-
finement/> Accessed on 28 November 2021.
 11
amenities and facilities given in jail. It gives prison officials unrestricted power to employ
disproportionate force against a person placed in safe custody under their watch. It dehuman-
ises a detainee and prohibits him from being treated as a "person." 9

Solitary confinement has an irrevocable and irreparable effect. Even though there are numer-
ous international laws and conferences that advocate for the basic rights of prisoners and con-
demn the use of excruciatingly painful punishment, the immense pain they are subjected to
both physically and mentally brings up the question of the existence of human beings and
their basic human rights. Solitary confinement, in brief, is a violation of a human being's right
to a dignified life.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN INDIAN LAW

Solitary confinement is when a prisoner is isolated from other inmates. Solitary confinement
is not particularly specified as a penalty for any offence in the Indian Penal Code; rather, it is
defined clearly in section 73, with a limit set in section 74. Only in circumstances where the
Court has the authority to condemn the criminal to a harsh punishment can this punishment
be imposed by the appropriate Court. As a result, it is critical to remember that solitary con-
finement is prohibited when it is not part of the actual punishment meted out to a criminal.
The power to sentence a person to solitary imprisonment provided by section 73 of the IPC
applies solely to convictions under the IPC and does not apply to offences under other laws.
Solitary imprisonment cannot be imposed under any circumstances for violations of special
or local laws. As a result, solitary imprisonment can only be imposed under this clause for
IPC offences. It is a harsh measure that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances
involving unimaginable depravity and cruelty. 10

In India, both the court and the government can impose solitary imprisonment. Both awards
can be given for a maximum of three months. In the instance of judicial solitary confinement,
the length and duration of confinement are set by law and are determined by the kind and

9
Varun Kumar, ‘Solitary confinement’ (2020) 2 (1) Law audience journal (2019) < https://www.lawaudience.-
com/volume-2-issue-1/> Accessed on 28 November 2021.
10
kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625.
 12
length of imprisonment. In executive solitary confinement, on the other hand, the jail superin-
tendent has complete control over the punishment, with the bare minimum of safeguards.
Separate confinement and cellular confinement are two different types of confinement that
the superintendent might order. Both keep the prisoner from communicating with other in-
mates, but not from seeing them. While the former permits for a one-hour workout and a sup-
per with others, the latter places restrictions on even that. 11

Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with solitary confinement, with the fol-
lowing limitations:

“Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this code the court has
power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may, by its sentence, order that
the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprison-
ment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the fol-
lowing scale, that is to say-

A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;

A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months and
[ shall not exceed one] year;

A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.”

Solitary confinement can only be imposed by the court, where it has power to sentence the
offender with rigorous imprisonment.

The Indian Penal Code 1860 divides imprisonment into two categories:

1. Rigorous Imprisonment
2. Simple Imprisonment

Rigorous imprisonment is essentially a form of hard physical labour punishment, in which the
convicted individual is forced to perform hard manual labour in prison for which he or she is
reimbursed with minimal pay. Simple imprisonments, contrary to rigorous imprisonments,
are imposed for shorter periods of time.

11
Supra note 7.
 13
As a result, the language of Section 73 makes it plain that the offender can only be held in
solitary confinement if he or she has committed a crime for which the court can impose a
lengthy sentence.

SECTION 74 – LIMITS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT: The limitations of solitary

confinement are defined in Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code, which states clearly:

“In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed
fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods; and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months,
the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprison-
ment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration
than such periods.”

Because of the potential harm that long-term seclusion can have to a human's mind and body,
lawmakers have mandated that no offender be held in solitary confinement for more than 14
days at a time.

Additionally, according to this section, the court cannot hold a prisoner in solitary confine-
ment for more than three months, and even if it does, they cannot be held in solitary confine-
ment for more than seven days per month.

Section 74 places restrictions on the use of solitary confinement since it is barbaric, cruel, and
immoral, and any period spent in solitary confinement more than what is specified in sections
73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code would constitute a violation of the inmates' basic human
rights and infringe the fundamental rights provided by Indian constitution.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT UNDER PRISONS ACT, 1894:

The Prisons Act also governs how a detainee should be placed in solitary confinement.

According to section 29 of the statute:

“No cell shall be used for solitary confinement, unless it is furnished with the means of en-
abling the prisoner to communicate at any time with an officer of the prison, and every pris-
oner so confined in a cell for more than twenty-four hours, whether as a punishment or oth-
erwise, shall be visited at least once a day by the Medical officer or Medical Subordinate”
 14

CASE LAWS

1. In the well-known case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court re-
viewed the legality of solitary imprisonment. The Supreme Court's decision in this case
set a significant judicial precedent, ensuring that inmates' fundamental rights are not ab-
used. It also established a set of guidelines for prison personnel to follow. It also brought
attention to the terrible treatment of prisoners and the pressing need for criminal justice

and prison reform in the country.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) 12

Ratio decidendi: "Solitary confinement can only be imposed in rarest of rare circumstances,
otherwise, it is violation of Article 21.”

Facts of the case:

In a letter to the court, the petitioner Sunil Batra, a death row inmate in the Tihar Central jail,
notified the court of an instance of torture inflicted on another inmate who was kept under
solitary confinement, Prem Chand, purportedly by a jail warden Maggar Singh. As a result of
this petition, a Habeas Corpus writ under Article 32 was filed. The court-appointed amicus
curiae and directed them to pay a visit to the prison and undertake the necessary inquiry to
gather all the relevant information. Following their research, the amicus curiae found that the
prisoner Prem Chand had suffered a major anal injury as a result of a rod being forced into
his anus. The prisoner had to be taken to hospital since the bleeding was uncontrollable.

The writ petition was allowed because of the seriousness of the situation.

Defendants’ contention:

12
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0184/1978.
 15
The departmental officials claimed that the anus rupture was caused by an accident, self-in-
fliction, or piles and claimed that the prisoner is kept in solitary confinement owing to his
misbehaviour and bad conduct.

Issues raised:

1. Whether or not such grave incidents of violence in prison are to be considered as viol-
ation of fundamental rights under articles 14, 19 and 21?

2. Is solitary confinement and subsequent physical violence justified by any means un-
der law?

3. What legal and judicial remedies are to be made available to ensure that prisoners'
rights are not abused and that prison justice is achieved?

Judgement:

Court held: Prem Chand, the prisoner, was tortured illegally, and the Superintendent cannot
exonerate him of his responsibility in the case. It is a clear violation of constitution's funda-
mental rights. The State shall prosecute the investigating officers for allegedly conspiring to
conceal the facts of the case.

Court further set down some guidelines to prevent such inhumane incidents from happening:

1. All facilities for talks, visits, and private communication with inmates will be
provided to lawyers designated by the District Magistrate, Sessions Judge, High
Court, or Supreme Court for the purpose of monitoring prisons across the country. 
The appointed lawyers are required to make regular inspections, document, and sub-
mit to the appropriate court any findings that are relevant to legal claims.

2. The District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge must keep grievance deposit boxes in-
stalled within next three months. Such boxes shall be checked on a regular basis, and
appropriate action shall be taken in response to any complaints received.

3. District Magistrates and Sessions Judges shall visit prisons in their jurisdiction, either
personally or through intermediaries, and find out about the grievances of inmates.
 16
Local courts shall conduct prompt investigations and take appropriate corrective
measures. Case reports shall be submitted to the High Court, which shall decide
whether or not to pursue habeas corpus if needed.
4. No arrangement of solitary prison cell, punitive labour, denial of nutrition, any sort
of punishment or denial of rights and amenities shall take place without judicial per-
mit. If such intimation is difficult due to an emergency, such information shall be
given within two days of the action.

The court emphasised that solitary confinement should only be used in extreme circum-
stances, such as when the prisoner is so violent or dangerous that segregation is absolutely
necessary. The court further stated that putting inmates in bar fetters 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week puts them to the level of an animal and breaks down their mental wellbeing, and that it
is exceedingly degrading and demeaning. This treatment of prisoners not only breaks rules
and violates rights, but it also goes against the spirit of India's Constitution, according to
court.

2. In the case of Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev Etc v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court
ruled that solitary confinement should only be used in extreme circumstances. Further-
more, confinement in solitary chambers for periods ranging from eight to eleven months
is enough to be considered harsh and barbarous, and would constitute a violation of the
Supreme Court's ruling.

Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev Etc v. State of Rajasthan13

Ratio decidendi: “Keeping in solitary confinement for unreasonably long periods (8-11
months) is enough to be regarded as violation of Article 21.”

Facts:

13
Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev Etc v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 SCC (1) 503.
 17

In a telegram to one of the judges on this Court, one of the petitioners reported of inhumane,
illegal solitary confinement. He further claimed that he and the other two petitioners were
held in iron bar fetters. The petitioners were ordered to be released from solitary confinement
and summoned before the Court by an order of the Judge.
When the detainees were brought before the Court, they claimed that the escorting police had
used brutality on the person of one of the petitioners while in transportation, resulting in sig-
nificant wounds on his body.

Petitioners’ contention:

Petitioners filed a habeas corpus petition, pleading with the court to save them and provide
orders for their release from the torture and abuse they were subjected to by prison authorities
in solitary confinement for up to 18 months.

Defendants’ contention:

Petitioners were allegedly loitering in the prison, behaving contemptuously and in an uncouth
manner, according to prison officials. The reason behind this is that they were just placed in a
separate preserving jail discipline.

Judgement:

The court ordered those petitioners be released from solitary confinement immediately, and
that the jail superintendent give them with particular care and urgent medical attention.

Court held:

i. Keeping the prisoners in separate solitary rooms for long periods of time, ranging
from 8 to 11 months, and putting them in cross bar fetters over several weeks on the
poorly constructed and lame grounds of misconduct is a blatant disrespect for indi-
vidual human rights and the principles laid down in the Sunil Batra case.

ii. Articles 14, 19, and 21 function within jails in the same manner as Sunil Batra
case explains. Solitary confinement and a separate Cell are the same thing. If penal or
special isolation of specific convicts is necessary, it must be done only in rare circum-
 18
stances, in accordance with the rules established in the Sunil Batra case, and with due
regard for human dignity.

3. In the case of Charles Sobraj vs. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, the Su-
preme Court held that any cruel isolation of an inmate from the society of fellow inmates
by cellular detainment under the Prisoners Act, 1894 section-29 and 30 is punitive and
must be imposed only in conformance with the reasonable procedure, failing which incar-
ceration would be an infringement of Article-21 of the Indian Constitution

Charles Shobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar (1978) 14

Ratio decidendi:

“Solitary confinement must be inflicted only in accordance with the limitations and fair pro-
cedure established by law”

“If a person is imprisoned then that does not imply that he cannot lay claim to fundamental
human rights provided by constitution to every human being anymore. Prisoners do have
right to every fundamental right that a free citizen enjoys except the one that have been lim-
ited due to sentencing of that individual.”

Facts of the case:

The petitioner, Charles Shobraj, is a convict who served two long sentences in prison, had a
record of escaping prison and attempting to commit suicide within the prison cell. He is
guilty of many inhuman crimes committed in foreign countries. By filing a writ petition with
the court, the petitioner claimed that he had been subjected to barbarianism and inhuman
treatment, as well as deliberate discrimination by prison officials.

Petitioner contention:

Petitioner, alleging inhuman treatment by officials, requested he court to direct the jail au-
thorities to provide him with better foreign companions and to transfer him from a maximum-
14
Charles Sobraj vs. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi MANU/SC/0070/1978.
 19
security ward to a liberal ward. He invoked the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution.

Defendants’ contention:

Jail authorities contended that the petitioner is particularly dangerous category individual and
requires high security. Fundamental rights under article 19 does not apply as petitioner is not
an Indian citizen and moreover, the petitioner is not an under-trail but a convicted prisoner.
Therefore, prayed court to dismiss the petition.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the prisoners can invoke fundamental rights under part III of the constitution.
2. Whether solitary confinement strips off basic human rights from a convicted person.
3. Whether the petitioner in this case is entitled to invoke provisions under Article 19 of In-
dian constitution.

Judgement:

Court addressing the issue of Whether the prisoners can invoke fundamental rights held:
“Serving a sentence of imprisonment in itself means curtailing of certain basic human rights
like restricting personal liberty to freely move, practice any profession, get fair treatment etc.,
otherwise all the other fundamental rights to live with dignity, free speech etc., are still avail-
able. Whenever such constitutional rights are flouted the court has the right to intervene and
restore such rights to the individual. Moreover, when a convict kept in custody of state as a
part of the sentence, he/she is said to be in ‘lawful custody’. Hence, state is responsible for
the safety and security of that individual.”

Justice Sri Krishna Iyer remarked: “Imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental
rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, Courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of
Part III of the Constitution enjoyed by a free citizen. Prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by
free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement. Moreover, the rights
enjoyed by prisoners under Articles 14, 19 and 21, though limited, are not static and will rise
to human heights when challenging situations arise.”
 20
However, the court noted that the petitioner in the current case is a highly dangerous to other
inmates and has a history of misconduct, therefore he must be held in highest security at all
times in solitary cell. The court also stated that prison officials are allowed to create some fair
classification, even if it appears discriminatory as the situation demands. Further, because the
petitioner is a foreigner, he cannot assert rights under Article 19. Furthermore, he is now a
convicted criminal awaiting execution and is not being held in solitary confinement before
exhaustion of all of his remedies before execution.

Therefore, citing above reasons court dismissed the petition.

State of Uttarakhand v. Methab, Sushil and Bhura 15

4. In the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Methab, Sushil and Bhura, the Uttarakhand High
Court ruled that keeping a death row inmate in solitary confinement before his legal, stat-
utory, and fundamental rights have been exhausted is a violation of the constitution. As
soon as the death penalty is confirmed, the offender is placed in solitary confinement,
which isolates him from any contact with his fellow inmates. It was deemed unconstitu-
tional by the court, who stated that the convict should not be secluded until the death sen-
tence is finalised. Solitary confinement, according to the Court, is not a component of the
sentence, but rather an additional punishment imposed by the jail officials.

This practise was declared unconstitutional by the court in the aforementioned instance.
The convict will not be secluded until the death sentence has become final, conclusive,
and irreversible, meaning it can no longer be disputed, overturned, or voided through any
means. Furthermore, the court decided that the prisoner should be maintained in solitary
confinement for as little time as feasible. The court argued that such treatment is barbar-
ous and inhumane, causing excruciating pain and misery, and that it violates Indian Con-
stitution Articles 20(2) and 21. As a result of this ruling, the practise of keeping death row
inmates in solitary confinement before the final sentence is announced has been stopped.

15
State of Uttarakhand v. Methab, Sushil and Bhura, Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018. 
 21
RESEARCH FINDINGS:

1. In India, judicial solitary confinement, the length and duration of confinement are set
by law and are determined by the kind and length of imprisonment. In executive solit-
ary confinement, on the other hand, the jail superintendent has complete control over
the punishment, with the bare minimum of safeguards.
2. Solitary confinement can cause psychotic episodes, paranoid delusions, panic, aggres-
sion, paranoia, suicidal and psychopathic tendencies, among other things thereby af-
fecting prisoner’s mental health.
3. Courts of India ruled that the prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except
those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement.

SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS:

Inmates who are kept in solitary confinement are more likely to become mentally unstable
and increase the aggression. The notion that solitary confinement increases prison violence
was demonstrated at a European jail where mentally ill inmates were taken from solitary con-
finement and treated, resulting in a reduction in jail cell violence. Although, the idea that sol-
itary confinement deters aggression has been debunked in other cases, such as in the British
prison system, where instead of attempting to enforce harsher punishments for misbehaviour,
they rewarded decent behaviour by giving inmates more access to mental health therapies and
social programmes, as well as enabling them to post complaints and earn family visits. The
outcomes have been extremely beneficial, with less long-term isolation and reduced violence.

If solitary confinement is necessary, the amount of time a person spends in it must be regu-
lated. Within five to seven days, solitary confinement begins to have a negative impact. This
should be the maximum amount of time an inmate should be held in solitary confinement.
There should also be limits on how often inmates can be placed in solitary confinement. Al-
ternative methods of rehabilitation for aggressive or dangerous inmates must be adopted
without disregarding basic human rights of such prisoners.
 22

CONCLUSION

Solitary confinement is one of the most severe penalties, in which the prisoner is kept com-
pletely secluded and made to face extreme difficulties. Every other day, while the prisoner is
alone inside the cell, solitary confinement breaches the core concept of human rights and
stifles human dignity. Solitary confinement is an excruciating and agonizing experience for
inmates. Many people die inside the solitary cell as a result of the psychological con-
sequences of such punishments.

The bulk of the convicts are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvant-
aged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law. Solitary confine-
ment has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own
death under this form of punishment.

Solitary confinement is a type of torture perpetrated against detainees or prisoners. It has a

negative impact on the psychological well-being and can exacerbate pre-existing mental
health issues. When detainees are held in solitary confinement, their physical health is jeop-
ardised. Furthermore, placing juveniles in solitary confinement will make it more difficult to
have a good impact on them. Solitary confinement is an unsuccessful and dangerous practise
that was discovered to be ineffective and detrimental in the 1800s yet is still being used
today.

Within jail, inhumanity conditions, and abuse are all too common, and the authorities should
be aware of them. Our prison justice system is in desperate need of reform. Solitary imprison-
ment causes so much sorrow and anguish that it has become a stigma in the shape of words in
our legal texts. Solitary confinement should be prohibited to maximum extent. It does not ap-
pear to reduce prisoner hostility, rather, it appears to increase it. Solitary confinement should
be utilised in moderation, and for shorter periods of time. Combining this with alternative
techniques first should benefit the jail system as well as society at large.

BIBLIORAPHY

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Constitution of India, 1950.
 23
3. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 2015.
4. Manupatra
5. SCC Online
6. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives
7. All India Legal Forum – Solitary Confinement
8. Law Audience Journal
9. www.Indiankanoon.com

“The bulk of the convicts are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a
court of law. Solitary confinement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of  punishment. The
bulk of the convicts are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of
law. Solitary confinement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of  punishment. The bulk of
the convicts are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law.
Solitary confinement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of punishment. The bulk of the
convicts are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law. Solit -
ary confinement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of punishment. The bulk of the con-
victs are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law. Solitary
confinement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of punishment. The bulk of the convicts
are from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law. Solitary con -
finement has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of  punishment. The bulk of the convicts are
from marginalised, socially oppressed, and financially disadvantaged groups who are too defenceless to defend themselves in a court of law. Solitary confine -
ment has an irreparable psychological impact. Every day, the prisoner witnesses his own death under this form of punishment.”
24