The Supreme Court on Monday expanded its scrutiny of the failure to produce undertrial prisoners before trial courts, calling upon all high courts, police and prison chiefs across the country to explain what steps they have taken to ensure that constitutional safeguards for incarcerated persons are not violated.
A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan directed that the directors general of police and the heads of prison departments of all states and Union territories, along with the registrar generals of all high courts, be impleaded as party respondents in the case.
The court also sought specific details from high courts on whether dedicated virtual courts exist for producing undertrial prisoners through video conferencing, noting that such systems could help balance manpower constraints with security concerns.
“We are of the opinion that this is not a localised situation, but rather a pan-India situation, which the Court is inclined to address for the larger public benefit and especially, when it relates to the life and liberty of a common man,” the bench noted in its order released on Monday.
The directions came during proceedings in a case where the court had earlier summoned senior police and prison officials from Maharashtra after an undertrial prisoner was not produced before the trial court on 55 out of 85 hearing dates.
The Thane police commissioner, Kalyan jail superintendent and additional senior jailor (judicial) appeared before the court in person as directed earlier. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavits filed by the officers and said they had failed to comply with its earlier order directing them to submit a formal show-cause explanation.
“We are shocked by the conduct,” said the bench, noting that despite a clear direction that the officers “shall remain physically present with their show cause,” they had instead filed “just a simple affidavit”. The court described this as an indication of “extreme casualness” and said it could have proceeded with contempt action for violation of its order.
The bench also rejected the explanations offered by the officers for the failure to produce the prisoner, describing them as “lame excuses”.
“It is a common man’s right, that too a person who is incarcerated and is required under law to be produced before the Court so that he has an opportunity to tell the court with regard to any grievance he may have during his period of incarceration,” the bench said. It lamented that this right had been “totally extinguished” while the authorities treated the issue as trivial, citing administrative engagements and other contingencies.
The bench allowed the officers one final opportunity to file proper show-cause replies by March 10 after solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the state of Maharashtra and the officers, sought permission to withdraw the earlier affidavits. The Thane police commissioner also tendered an unconditional apology before the court for failing to file a show-cause explanation.
While expanding the case to a nationwide issue, the court pointed out that video conferencing facilities for producing prisoners from jails before courts had existed for several years but were not being widely used.
“We are impleading the high courts…as a provision was already there for quite some time for the prisoners to be produced before all the courts subordinate to the High Courts through video conferencing from the jail premises but the same is not being widely used,” the bench noted.
It asked high courts to inform the court what measures have been taken to create dedicated virtual courts specifically for the purpose of ensuring the presence of undertrial prisoners on routine dates when their physical presence may not be necessary. The case will now be taken up on April 1.
The matter arose after the court examined the case of Shashikumar, also known as Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jumrani, an undertrial accused in a case of attempted murder and rioting. Earlier, the court found that Jumrani had not been produced before the trial court on 55 of the 85 dates fixed during the course of the trial, largely due to a shortage of police escorts cited by the authorities.
In February, the bench termed this explanation “unacceptable”, observing that the prisoner ultimately bore the consequences of police and prison authorities shifting responsibility between themselves.