Safety of Prisoners Paramount, No Compelling Reason for Transfer: Karnataka HC Denies Consolidation of Inmates at Bangalore Central Prison
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a writ petition filed by several inmates seeking transfer to Bangalore Central Prison. The petitioners, facing charges in a criminal case, sought consolidation at a single prison for alleged safety concerns and to facilitate easier access to legal counsel, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Facts and Issues: The petitioners were dispersed across various prisons following an order by a lower court, based on recommendations by the National Investigating Agency (NIA). This transfer was due to security concerns after one of the accused expressed intentions to turn approver, increasing the risk of intra-prison violence. The petitioners claimed that their safety was at risk in their current facilities and that they faced difficulties in accessing legal counsel.
Court’s Assessment: The court found no compelling reason for the transfer, given the state’s measures for prisoner security and legal communication. It highlighted the state’s duty to ensure the safety of all prisoners. The court was not persuaded by the petitioners’ argument regarding the attack in the Central Jail, Dharwad against one Suleiman, noting that this incident did not directly involve the petitioners. The court acknowledged the state’s assurance that it would ensure the safety of all prisoners and directed enhancement of video conferencing facilities in prisons for better legal access, including the provision of headphones to maintain privacy during consultations.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court rejected the request for the consolidation of the petitioners in Bangalore Central Prison. It emphasized the need to balance security needs with prisoners’ rights and directed the State to improve legal communication facilities in prisons and to ensure the protection of all inmates.
Date of Decision: 19th March 2024
ABDUL BASHEER & Others VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PRISONS) & Others
