S.P.ANAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner complaining of violation of the fundamental rights of the prisoners lodged in the jails of Madhya Pradesh

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that as against the capacity of the jails in Madhya Pradesh to accommodate 15,000 prisoners, there are more than 33,000 prisoners in the jails of Madhya Pradesh and this amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the prisoners and in particular their right to personal liberty and life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also alleged in the writ petition that convicts who have been lodged in the jail have to put in labour but they are being paid a sum of Rs. 1.00 per day which is much less than the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and this is being done in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution which prohibits beggar and other similar forms of forced labour. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to build up additional number of jails to accommodate the prisoners in the next ten years and to pay wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act to the convicts.

(3.) WHEN the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 20 -2 -2007, the petitioner brought to our notice the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules') made under the Prisons Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and particular Rule 30 of the Rules which provided inter -alia that 41.80 square meters should be taken as standard meter space per prisoner and accordingly the Court passed orders on 20 -2 -2007 calling upon the Inspector General of Prisons, the respondent No.3, to indicate in a short affidavit the actual space per prisoner which is now available as compared to the required space 41.80 square meters per prisoner, as provided in Rule 30 of the Rules. On 20 -2 -2007, a query was also put by the Court to the learned Additional Advocate General why a half day's wage was being paid to the prisoners and the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the prisons where the prisoners are supposed to work, sufficient work is not available so as to absorb them for the entire day. The Court however found that in Rules 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Rules elaborate provisions have been made for employment of convict labour for construction and repairs of jail buildings in execution of work by the Public Works Department and directed that an affidavit be filed by the respondent No.3 indicating therein the work that is entrusted to the prisoners in different jails in the State of Madhya Pradesh and in particular whether the convicts are employed in construction and repairs of jail buildings undertaken by the Public Works Department in accordance with the rules.