Prisoners Not To Be Engaged Or Employed By The Prison Authorities In Their Residences For Household Works: Madras HC
📝 Background of the Case
A petition was filed before the Madras High Court highlighting the practice of some prison officials engaging prisoners to carry out domestic/household chores at their personal residences.
This was argued to be illegal, exploitative, and violative of prisoners’ fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity).
⚖️ Court’s Reasoning
Violation of Prison Rules:
The Court observed that prisoners can only be engaged in work inside prisons or for state-authorized activities under jail manuals and rules.
Utilizing them for personal household chores of prison officials is unauthorized, illegal, and arbitrary.
Violation of Human Dignity (Article 21):
Prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights completely. They are entitled to dignity, humane treatment, and protection from exploitation.
Making prisoners perform domestic labor at residences of officers is forced labor and amounts to modern-day bonded labor.
State Liability & Accountability:
Since prison authorities are agents of the State, such misuse is attributable to the State Government.
The Court directed the DGP (Prisons) to strictly prohibit such practices and ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory rights of prisoners.
📜 Relevant Case Laws
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
SC held that prisoners are not denuded of their fundamental rights.
Any inhuman or degrading treatment violates Article 21.
Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104
Prison regulations must be reasonable; prisoners retain basic rights to life and dignity.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608
Expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include right to live with human dignity.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 (Asiad Workers Case)
Forced labor prohibited under Article 23; applicable even if payment is nominal or indirect coercion exists.
In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700
SC directed reforms for humane treatment of prisoners, holding that prisoners’ rights are part of Article 21.
🏛️ Madras High Court’s Holding
Prison authorities are strictly prohibited from engaging prisoners in household works at their residences.
Such practice amounts to exploitation, violation of dignity, and abuse of power.
The Director General of Prisons was directed to issue circulars and guidelines ensuring compliance and to take disciplinary action against erring officers.
🔑 Key Takeaways
Prisoners retain their fundamental rights, except those curtailed by the sentence lawfully imposed.
Using prisoners for private household work of officials is illegal and unconstitutional.
Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity) and Article 23 (Prohibition of forced labour) safeguard prisoners from such exploitation.
👉 In essence, the Madras HC reaffirmed that prison authorities cannot treat prisoners as personal servants, and their rights to dignity and humane treatment must be respected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments