LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2017 INSC 955Decided 15 Sept 2017
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013
Justice Madan B. Lokur · Justice Deepak Gupta

Background

This is a long-running suo motu public interest litigation that originated from a letter by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti flagging four systemic prison problems: overcrowding, unnatural deaths of prisoners, inadequate staff, and insufficient staff training. An earlier order (5 February 2016) had already addressed overcrowding; this judgment, assisted by Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal, specifically takes up the second issue, unnatural deaths in prisons (suicides, murders by inmates, deaths from negligence, etc.), drawing on National Crime Records Bureau data and submissions from the Attorney General on the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and international standards (the Nelson Mandela Rules).

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that unnatural deaths in prisons (particularly suicides) are a serious and continuing concern, driven by factors such as overcrowding, inadequate counselling, poor medical facilities, insufficient contact with family/legal counsel, and lack of staff training. It issued a detailed set of binding directions to the Union and State Governments, including: setting up State-level oversight mechanisms, mandatory sensitisation/training programmes for prison and police staff on prisoners' rights (through State Legal Services Authorities), appointment of counsellors/support persons for prisoners, exploring phone/video-conferencing access for prisoners with family and lawyers, State-level studies and performance audits of prison conditions, improving medical facilities, constituting Boards of Visitors under the Model Prison Manual by 30 November 2017, encouraging "open prisons," and directing the Ministry of Women & Child Development to formulate a system for tracking unnatural deaths of children in custodial child-care institutions by 31 December 2017. The matter was listed for a follow-up compliance report in December 2017, as part of the Court's continuing supervisory jurisdiction over this PIL.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court can use its continuing-mandamus power in a public interest litigation to issue binding, time-bound directions to governments on systemic human-rights failures (here, unnatural deaths in prisons) even while keeping the broader case open for monitoring compliance, showing that court oversight of institutional reform can be an ongoing, phased process rather than a single one-off order.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case