Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum set aside the transfer of an under-trial prisoner from Bengaluru Central Prison to Belagavi Central Prison, directing that he be returned to the Bengaluru facility. The Court held that whenever a transfer of an under-trial is considered, judicial scrutiny must balance the security concerns raised by prison authorities with the prisoner’s protected interests, including education, rehabilitation, family access, and legal assistance. The petition was allowed after the Court found that the transfer order was issued without giving the prisoner an opportunity to contest the grounds and without any indication that the Sessions Court had independently examined the basis for citing security reasons

The matter arose from the transfer of an under-trial prisoner who had been lodged in Bengaluru Central Prison since January 2023. During his incarceration, he was pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce degree through a distance education programme and claimed to have maintained good conduct in accordance with prison rules. A requisition was later issued by the Chief Superintendent of Bengaluru Central Prison seeking the movement of several under-trial prisoners to different prisons across the State on security grounds. Acting on this requisition, the Sessions Court ordered the transfer of the petitioner to Belagavi Central Prison.

Also Read: “No Good Reason To Disbelieve” Parents’ Account: Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction And Reduces Sentence To 6 Years

The petitioner challenged this action, asserting that the transfer adversely affected his education and rehabilitation efforts. He contended that he was not informed of the requisition submitted by prison authorities and was not given an opportunity to raise objections. He argued that the absence of reasons or supporting material deprived him of fair procedure guaranteed under constitutional protections.

In support of his submissions, he relied on a decision of a coordinate bench that emphasized the need for courts to apply their mind when considering such transfers and to give the affected prisoner an opportunity to be heard. The State opposed the challenge, stating that the transfer was based on security inputs received from law enforcement and that an under-trial prisoner has no right to remain in a particular prison.

The Court recorded that the petitioner’s transfer was based on a requisition referring to “security reasons.” It noted that the Sessions Court’s order “merely records the phrase ‘security reasons’ as the ground for transfer.”

Referring to the coordinate bench decision, the Court held that “the shifting of a prisoner is neither a mere administrative nor a ministerial act” and that it becomes necessary “to apply its mind to the circumstances projected for such transfer, and equally, to afford an effective opportunity to the prisoner to place his objections.” It recorded that this safeguard arises from Article 21, which requires a procedure that is “fair, just and reasonable.”

The Court stated that the petitioner was “never served with a copy of the requisition” and was “not given an opportunity to contest the grounds urged therein.” It noted that he was thereby “denied his right to be heard before an order adversely affecting him was passed,” adding that this omission “goes to the root of the matter.”

The Court recorded that the Sessions Court’s order “neither discloses the nature of such security threat nor demonstrates an application of judicial mind to the materials placed by the prison authorities” and that the recital “falls short of the standards required when fundamental rights under Article 21 are at stake.” It stated that the order did not contain any “balancing exercise” between the stated security concerns and the prisoner’s access to education, rehabilitation, legal assistance, and family visitation.

The Court stated that an under-trial prisoner “continues to enjoy all constitutional protections, save those which are necessarily curtailed by the fact of lawful custody,” including “the right to fair procedure, humane treatment, and protection against arbitrary exercise of power.” It also noted that the petitioner had “enrolled in the Bachelor of Commerce programme through Indira Gandhi National Open University.”

The Court held that “The impugned order has thus resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner, who as an under-trial prisoner retains his right to fair procedure. Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2025 directing the transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru Central Prison to Belagavi Central Prison is unsustainable in law. The petitioner is entitled to be re-transferred to Bengaluru Central Prison.”

In the subsequent order on being spoken to, the Court stated that the Sessions Judge “has exercised jurisdiction in this regard solely on the administrative and security aspects as requisitioned by the prison authorities. Therefore, the role of the NIA… does not render it a necessary or proper party to the present proceedings.” It further held: “Since the impugned order is passed under the provisions of the Prisons Act and not under the NIA Act or the UAPA, the contention that the petitioner’s only remedy lies by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act… cannot be accepted.”

Also Read: Allegations Without Proof Amount To Defamation: Karnataka High Court Convicts Newspaper Editor For Defamatory Publications Against Police Inspector; Sets Aside Trial Court Acquittal

The Court recorded: “The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Special Case No.706/2023 pending on the file of the learned XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru at Annexure-A stands quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to re-transfer petitioner to Bengaluru Central Prison forthwith.”

In the subsequent order on being spoken to, the Court recorded that “the impugned order having already been examined and disposed of on merits, there is no ground to recall or reopen the same.” It added that “the oral request made by the NIA stands rejected, and no further orders are warranted.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Sparsh Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. M.R. Patil, HCGP for R1 to R4

Case Title: Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh v. State of Karnataka and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:35812
Case Number: Writ Petition No.24840 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum