\n<\/p>\n
Case:<\/strong> Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration<\/p>\n Citation:<\/strong> 1978 AIR 1675, (1978) 4 SCC 494.<\/p>\n Court:<\/strong> Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n Bench:\u00a0<\/strong>V.R. Krishnaiyer,\u00a0Y.V. Chandrachud,\u00a0Syed Murtaza Fazalali,\u00a0P.N. Shingal,\u00a0D.A. Desai.<\/p>\n Date of Judgment:<\/strong> 30 August 1978<\/p>\n Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration reshaped the constitutional status of Indian prisoners. The Supreme Court heard two connected writ petitions from inmates of Tihar Jail. Sunil Batra challenged his solitary confinement while under a death sentence. Charles Sobhraj challenged the continuous use of bar fetters on him. A five judge bench decided both matters through a common judgment. The Court firmly rejected the old hands off doctrine in prison law. This commentary examines how the Court built prisoners\u2019 rights into the Constitution.<\/p>\n Sunil Batra was a prisoner sentenced to death by the Delhi Sessions Court. His appeal against this sentence remained pending before the higher courts. Jail authorities placed him in solitary confinement under Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894. Batra argued that this confinement began before his sentence became final. He filed a writ petition challenging this action as illegal and unconstitutional.<\/p>\n Charles Sobhraj, another inmate of Tihar Jail, faced serious criminal charges at the time. Prison authorities kept him in bar fetters continuously under Section 56 of the same Act. Sobhraj argued that this prolonged use of iron fetters caused him constant suffering. He filed a separate writ petition challenging Section 56 as arbitrary and degrading.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court decided to hear both petitions together in a single judgment. Both petitioners argued that fundamental rights continue to protect a person inside prison. The Court examined the constitutional validity of Sections 30 and 56 in detail.<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Issues Before the Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Arguments from the Petitioner\u2019s Side<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Arguments from the Respondent\u2019s Side<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Judgment<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Reasoning of the Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Significance of the Judgment<\/strong><\/h2>\n