The Supreme Court on Monday expanded its examination of the failure to bring on-trial prisoners before lower courts, calling on all high courts, police and prison chiefs across the country to explain the steps they have taken to ensure constitutional safeguards for incarcerated people are not violated.
A bench of Justices Ehsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan ordered that directors general of police and heads of prison departments of all states and union territories, along with registrars general of all high courts, be included as party defendants in the case.
The court also requested specific details from higher courts on whether there would be dedicated virtual courts to produce prisoners on trial through video conferencing, noting that such systems could help balance manpower constraints and security concerns.
“We are of the view that this is not a local situation, but a pan-India situation, which the court is inclined to address in the larger public interest especially when it comes to the life and liberty of a common man,” the bench noted in its order issued on Monday.
These directions came during proceedings in a case in which the court had earlier summoned senior police and prison officials from Maharashtra after an undertrial prisoner was not produced before the trial court in 55 out of 85 hearings.
Thane Police Commissioner, Kalyan Jail Superintendent and Additional Senior Jailer (Judicial) appeared before the court in person as per earlier directions. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavits submitted by the officers and said they had failed to comply with its earlier order directing them to give a formal explanation as to why.
“We are shocked by this conduct,” the board said, noting that despite clear direction that officers “shall remain physically present in their show case,” they instead provided “merely a simple affidavit.” The court described this as indicative of a “serious incident” and said she could have proceeded with contempt proceedings for breach of her order.
The authority also rejected the explanations provided by the officers for not bringing the prisoner, describing them as “false excuses.”
“It is the right of the common man that any person who is imprisoned and wanted under the law should be produced before the court so that he has an opportunity to inform the court of any grievance he may have during his period of imprisonment,” the bench said. She regretted that this right had been “completely dropped” while the authorities were treating this issue as trivial, citing administrative engagements and other emergency situations.
The bench gave the officers a final opportunity to file appropriate show-cause replies by March 10 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing Maharashtra and the officers, sought permission to withdraw the earlier affidavits. The Thane Police Commissioner also tendered an unconditional apology before the court for failing to provide a justified explanation.
Expanding the case to include a national case, the court noted that video conferencing facilities to produce prisoners from prisons before the courts had been in existence for several years but had not been widely used.
“We are requesting the High Courts… as there has already been a provision for some time that prisoners should be produced before all the benches of the High Courts through video conferencing from the prison premises but this is not being used widely,” the bench noted.
It asked the High Courts to inform the court about the measures taken to set up virtual courts specially designated for the purpose of ensuring attendance of under-trial prisoners on routine appointments when their physical presence is not necessary. The case will now be heard on April 1.
The matter arose after the court took up the case of Shashikumar, also known as Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Gomrani, an accused on trial in the attempt to murder and riots case. Earlier, the court found that Al-Jamrani did not appear in court on 55 out of 85 dates set during the trial, largely due to the lack of police escort reported by the authorities.
In February, the court described this explanation as “unacceptable,” noting that the prisoner ultimately bears the consequences of the police and prison authorities exchanging responsibility among themselves.
