Scribd
Upload
562 views4 pages

Case Summary - Sheela Barse

The Supreme Court treated a letter from journalist Sheela Barse as a writ petition after she interviewed women prisoners in Mumbai Central Jail who complained of assault, torture, and lack of legal assistance. An investigation found the allegations to be true. The Court held that fundamental rights including legal assistance apply to prisoners. It issued guidelines for women's protection in police lockups, including separate lockups guarded by women officers and checks by women officers only. The Court also directed states to establish legal aid organizations and protect prisoners' right to interviews while verifying information.

Uploaded by

Pragya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
562 views4 pages

Case Summary - Sheela Barse

The Supreme Court treated a letter from journalist Sheela Barse as a writ petition after she interviewed women prisoners in Mumbai Central Jail who complained of assault, torture, and lack of legal assistance. An investigation found the allegations to be true. The Court held that fundamental rights including legal assistance apply to prisoners. It issued guidelines for women's protection in police lockups, including separate lockups guarded by women officers and checks by women officers only. The Court also directed states to establish legal aid organizations and protect prisoners' right to interviews while verifying information.

Uploaded by

Pragya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

CASE SUMMARY: SHEELA BARSE v.

STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
Name of the Case:

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra.

Citation:

1983 SC 378.

Bench:

Chief Justice M.M. Dutt, Justice Ranganath Misra, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice Amarendra
Nath and Justice R.S. Sen.

Facts of the Case:

A letter was addressed to the Supreme Court of India by Sheela Barse, a journalist, showing her
concern about the ill treatment of women in the prison lockups. In an interview, conducted by
her, at Mumbai Central Jail, five out fifteen women complained about the assault and torture
which they were facing from the police officers. Two women who were foreign nationals even
told that a lawyer duped and defrauded them and took most of their money and jewelry on the
pretext that he was retaining his fee. Also, the permission to interview was withdrawn by the jail
authority after knowing that the interviews with the prisoners were tape-recorded by her.

The Supreme Court treated her letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution.

Simultaneously, Nirmala Niketan, the Director of the College of Social Work, was instructed to
interview the women of Mumbai Central Jail without the presence of anyone else to verify
whether the allegations which was put forward in the writ petition are true or not. The Director
after interviewing the women prisoners, stated in her report that, “all the allegations in the writ
petition are true. Apart from this there was no proper system of providing legal assistance to
female prisoners”.

Page | 1
Issues raised before the Court:

1. Adequacy of the safety and security of women prisoners in police lock up and their
protection against torture and ill-treatment. Whether the current treatment infringes rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

2. State’s liability to provide legal assistance to all prisoners in jails and to poor or indigent
accused who are arrested.

3. Whether by disallowing interview of prisoners, the fundamental rights of the petitioner


under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution were infringed upon by the
authorities?

Judgement:

The court held that, legal assistance should also be provided to poor who are being arrested as it
is guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19 and Article 39A of the Indian Constitution. The Court
directed the Social workers to make report regarding ill treatment of the female prisoners in the
lock ups, if any.

The Supreme Court further issued a notice to the Inspector of Jail to form a ‘legal aid
organisation’ at High Court and District levels. Apart from this, the Court also directed
guidelines to Inspector General of Maharashtra Jail about the prisoners under which a notice was
to be issued to all the Superintendents of Maharashtra, which was:

 Send a list of all the prisoners and the crimes committed by them. Males and females
details must be separately specified.

 A list should be put up by the police officers regarding the lawyers appointed to the
prison people. This should be done to make prisoners aware about their lawyers.

 Facilities should be provided to lawyers to come to meet the prisoners.

The Court also held that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution is also granted
to the prisoners and hence, public access should be granted to them too, and thus, interviews

Page | 2
become necessary for the same as otherwise correct information may not be collected about the
prison and conditions of the prisoners.

It was further held that although the interviews of the prisoners are allowed, they are not
uncontrolled and also that the information collected shall be verified with the competent
authorities.

Guidelines issued by the Court:

The Court issued certain guidelines for the protection of female prisoners in the lockups which
are as follows –

 There should be separate lockups for female prisoners and it should be guarded by female
police officers only.

 Interrogation of the female prisoners should only be done in the presence of female
officers only.

 The person should be informed about the ground of arrest and provision of bail.

 It is mandatory that a female suspect is to be checked by a female police officer only


under section 160(1) of CrPC.

 Women prisoners cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise.

Cases Referred:

Prabha Dutt v. Union of India & Ors.1: where the court before considering the merits of the
application, observed that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred
by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is neither an absolute right, nor does it confer any right on
the press to have unrestricted access to means of information. Also, the press is entitled to
exercise its right to freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not
invade the rights of other citizens and which is not a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, public order, decency, and morality.
1
1982 SCR(1) 1184.

Page | 3
S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2: where it was held that the demand for openness in
the government is based principally on two reasons. It is now widely accepted that democracy
does not consist merely of people exercising their franchise once in five years to choose their
rulers, and once the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and not taking any interest in the
government. Today it is common ground that democracy has a more positive content and its
orchestration has to be continuous and pervasive.

2
AIR 1982 SC 149.

Page | 4

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy