Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court has directed prison authorities to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and the provision of basic facilities to a remand prisoner who has been in judicial custody for over eleven years. The court issued the directive while disposing of a writ petition seeking the removal of the petitioner from solitary confinement and access to minimum facilities, including reading materials and education. The court also addressed broader concerns regarding prison conditions, the prolonged trial process, and the lack of adequate infrastructure for legal proceedings at the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases in Poonamallee.

The petitioner, Fakrudeen, a remand prisoner at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, had approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and the Superintendent of Prisons. The petitioner contended that he was being subjected to solitary confinement without justification and was deprived of basic rights, including access to reading materials and legal assistance. The petitioner, arrested in 2013 in connection with multiple cases, has remained in judicial custody for over a decade without the conclusion of his trial.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner was involved in multiple cases across different jurisdictions, including charges under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The authorities claimed that the petitioner had frequently caused disturbances in the prison, necessitating disciplinary measures. They further argued that all actions taken against him were in accordance with the prison manual and legal provisions.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the conditions under which the petitioner was held amounted to inhumane treatment, violating his constitutional rights. It was submitted that he was denied access to newspapers, books, and canteen facilities and that he faced restrictions on his right to education, despite being enrolled in a B.A. Political Science program. The counsel also argued that the petitioner had faced physical assaults from prison authorities and that his confinement conditions went beyond permissible restrictions for remand prisoners.

In light of these allegations, the court ordered the production of the petitioner via video conference. During the virtual hearing, the petitioner expressed concerns about being closely monitored by prison officials, stating that he was unable to speak freely for fear of reprisal. Given these concerns, the court directed that the petitioner be physically produced for examination. Upon being presented before the court, the petitioner reiterated allegations of mistreatment, stating that he had been subjected to physical abuse and continued to be denied basic facilities.

The court examined the legal provisions governing the rights of prisoners, observing that even those in custody retain their fundamental rights, including access to education and humane treatment. The court cited previous Supreme Court rulings, including Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858), which recognized the right to education as an extension of the right to life, and Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1977 SC 1926), which underscored the importance of educational opportunities for prisoners. The court also referenced international legal standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which stress the significance of education and humane treatment for incarcerated individuals.

The court also addressed systemic issues affecting the trial process, noting that several members of the Bar had raised concerns about the lack of adequate facilities at the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases in Poonamallee. Complaints were made regarding the absence of basic amenities such as drinking water and restrooms for lawyers and litigants. The court also noted concerns about the limited availability of legal representation for prisoners facing trial at the Special Court due to logistical challenges.

To expedite the trial process, the court, upon the petitioner’s request, facilitated the appointment of Advocate B. Mohan as defense counsel. The court directed the District Legal Services Authority to ensure timely disbursement of legal fees to the appointed counsel and any assisting lawyers. Additionally, the court instructed the Special Court to permit video conferencing for hearings, ensuring compliance with High Court guidelines on virtual proceedings.

In its final directives, the court instructed prison authorities to ensure that the petitioner was not subjected to inhumane treatment and that he was granted access to permissible facilities, including reading materials and educational resources. The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must adhere to legal provisions and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of prisoners. Furthermore, the court urged prison authorities and the prosecution to cooperate in expediting the trial process, given that the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for an extended period.

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons & Anr.
Case Number: W.P. No. 2207 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman

[Read/Download order]