Imprisonment Does Not Restrict Individual’s Right To Pursue Education: Bombay HC
Imprisonment Does Not Restrict Individual’s Right to Pursue Education – Bombay High Court
🔹 Context
Traditionally, incarceration is seen as restricting personal liberty, but it does not automatically strip inmates of their fundamental rights, including the right to education.
The Bombay High Court recently emphasized that prisoners are entitled to educational opportunities, and authorities must facilitate this.
🔹 Legal Basis
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
SC in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645 recognized education as part of the right to life.
Right to education is inherent in human dignity, which imprisonment cannot extinguish.
Article 14 – Right to Equality
Prisoners must not be discriminated against in accessing educational programs available to the general public or within institutional frameworks.
Prison Manuals / Model Prison Rules
Allow vocational training, literacy programs, and higher education for inmates.
Authorities are expected to facilitate admission, study materials, and online/offline classes.
🔹 Bombay HC Observations
Education as Rehabilitation
Education helps prisoners reintegrate into society, reducing recidivism.
Right to Access Educational Programs
Prison authorities cannot deny or obstruct an inmate’s pursuit of formal education, including:
School / college courses,
Online learning, or
Vocational training.
Individualized Facilitation
Each inmate seeking education must be reasonably accommodated, subject to security and administrative feasibility.
Judicial Precedent
Court reiterated SC’s principle: “Imprisonment restricts liberty but not the fundamental right to develop one’s personality, which includes education.”
🔹 Significance
Strengthens the rehabilitative objective of prisons.
Ensures fundamental rights are respected even during incarceration.
Encourages personal growth and societal reintegration.
Sends a clear message: Custody ≠ total deprivation of rights.
🔹 Key Cases
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) – Right to education part of Article 21.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) – Prisoners’ rights to dignity and development.
Bombay HC (2025) – Education cannot be denied to inmates; authorities must facilitate reasonable access.
🔹 Conclusion
The Bombay High Court affirmed:
👉 Imprisonment restricts freedom of movement, not the right to education.
👉 Prisoners should be facilitated, not obstructed, in pursuing studies.
👉 Recognizes education as a tool for rehabilitation and human dignity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments