Semester- VIII

B.COM. LLB. (Hons.)

CASE ANALYSIS ON

“Sheela Barse & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.”

As part of Project Work Component in Interpretation of Statutes

Course Coordinator
MR. NEELESH SHUKLA

Prepared & submitted by

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Sheela Barse and another petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution against Union of India and others. The petition was filed in 1986 in the Supreme
Court of India. The petitioners brought to the attention of the court the plight of undertrial
prisoners in various prisons across India, particularly in the state of Maharashtra. The petitioners
alleged that the undertrial prisoners were being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment,
and their basic human rights were being violated. The petition highlighted various instances of
torture and custodial violence in jails, including the use of third-degree methods, such as electric
shocks, waterboarding, and beating. The petition also highlighted the lack of basic facilities in
the jails, such as clean drinking water, adequate medical facilities, and proper food. Such
treatment violated the fundamental rights of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

ISSUES FORMULATED

The issues raised in this case was:

 In jails, were children under the age of 16 treated and cared for appropriately?
 The main issue in the case was whether the conditions of undertrial prisoners in various
prisons across India, particularly in Maharashtra, were violative of their fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
 ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

The key arguments advanced by the parties in this case were as follows:
The petitioners argued that the conditions in which undertrial prisoners were being kept were
inhumane and degrading. They argued that the prisoners were being kept in overcrowded cells
with no access to basic amenities such as clean water, toilets, and medical facilities. They also
argued that the prisoners were being subjected to torture and abuse by the police and prison
officials.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the conditions in prisons were not as bad as
alleged by the petitioners. They argued that the government was taking steps to improve the
conditions in prisons and that the situation was gradually improving. The respondents also
argued that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the petition as they were not directly
affected by the conditions in prisons. The respondents further contended that the judiciary should
not interfere with the functioning of the prison authorities and that the courts should adopt a
hands-off approach in matters relating to the administration of prisons. They argued that the
prison authorities were best suited to decide the needs of the prisoners and that the courts should
not interfere with their decision-making.

INTERPRETATION DONE BY THE COURT

The court interpreted the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution to include the right to live with human dignity. The court held that the
conditions in which the undertrial prisoners were being kept violated their fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the overcrowding in prisons was a
major contributing factor to the poor living conditions of prisoners.

Even though Acts are recorded in the statute book, some states have not enforced them. The
Supreme Court stated that this legislation is necessary to fulfill a constitutional obligation and is
a helpful law. Usually, it is up to the State Government to determine when to implement a
specific statute. However, in the current situation, the Court believes that it is suitable for all
states to ensure without delay that the Act is enforced and administered according to its
provisions.
The court further directed the government to take immediate steps to improve the conditions in
prisons. The court ordered the government to set up a committee to look into the issue of
overcrowding in prisons and to take steps to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners. The court
also directed the government to provide basic amenities such as clean water, toilets, and medical
facilities to the prisoners.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed that the conditions in
which the prisoners were being held were in violation of their fundamental rights. The court held
that the prisoners were being subjected to inhumane treatment and were being denied basic
amenities like food, clothing, and medical care. The court also observed that the prisons were
overcrowded, and the prisoners were being subjected to cruel and degrading treatment, which
violated their dignity.

The court, therefore, laid down several guidelines to ensure that the fundamental rights of
prisoners were not violated. The guidelines included the following:

1. Every prisoner should be provided with adequate and nutritious food, clothing, and
medical care.

2. Every prisoner should be allowed to meet his or her family members and friends at
regular intervals.

3. Every prisoner should be provided with adequate space to move around freely.

4. Every prisoner should be allowed to pursue his or her religious beliefs and practices.

5. Every prisoner should be allowed to receive education and vocational training.

6. Every prisoner should be protected from any form of physical or mental abuse.

7. Every prisoner should be given access to legal aid.

8. Every prisoner should be provided with adequate facilities for his or her recreation and
entertainment.

The court also directed the central and state governments to ensure that the guidelines were
implemented in all the prisons across the country. The court further directed the governments to
constitute a committee to monitor the implementation of the guidelines
 DECISION OF THE COURT

The court directed the government to take immediate steps to improve the conditions in prisons
and to ensure that the fundamental rights of undertrial prisoners were not violated. The court also
directed the government to set up a committee to look into the issue of overcrowding in prisons
and to take steps to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners.

The court, therefore, directed the state to take immediate steps to improve the conditions in the
jails and ensure that the prisoners' fundamental rights were not violated in any manner. The court
also directed the state to set up a committee to monitor the implementation of its directions and
submit periodic reports to the court.

The court, in its judgment, laid down the following guidelines to be followed by the state to
prevent custodial violence and torture:

1. No prisoner shall be subjected to any kind of violence or torture.

2. The state shall ensure that all prisoners are provided with basic facilities, such as clean
drinking water, adequate medical facilities, and proper food.

3. The state shall take steps to improve the conditions in the jails and ensure that the
prisoners' fundamental rights are not violated in any manner.

4. The state shall set up a committee to monitor the implementation of the court's directions
and submit periodic reports to the court.

The court also directed the state to pay compensation to the prisoners who had been subjected to
custodial violence and torture.

VIEWPOINT

The decision of the court in the Sheela Barse case was a landmark decision in the history of
Indian jurisprudence. The court recognized the right to live with human dignity as a fundamental
right under the Constitution and held that the conditions in which undertrial prisoners were being
kept violated their fundamental rights. The court's directions to the government to improve the
conditions in prisons and to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners have had a significant
impact on the criminal justice system in India. However, more needs to be done to ensure that
the conditions in prisons are in line with the basic human rights of prisoners.
This case is significant because it sheds light on the plight of prisoners in India and highlights the
need for the government to take steps to improve their living conditions. It also emphasizes the
role of human rights activists in holding the government accountable for its actions and ensuring
that the rights of prisoners are protected.
However, despite the court's orders, the conditions of prisons in India continue to be a cause for
concern. Overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate medical facilities remain major issues,
and prisoners continue to be subjected to inhumane treatment.
In conclusion, while the Sheela Barse case was a positive step towards improving the conditions
of prisons in India, more needs to be done to ensure that the rights of prisoners are protected. The
government must take swift and effective measures to address the issues faced by prisoners and
provide them with a safe and humane living environment.

LAWS DISCUSSED

Statutes Referred: 

 Constitution of India.

 Children’s Act.

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 144 - Duty of the Subordinate Courts/Judicial authorities to
comply with the directions of the apex Court explained.

Constitution of India, Art 39(f)-Legislation, enactment and enforcement of Children’s Acts-