Solitary confinement

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 21 Jan 2014 Binding (Supreme Court precedent on constitutional matters; three-Judge Bench de Reportable Reported as Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 1 (or similar citation in SCC 2014)

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 73, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Undue, unexplained and inordinate delay in the disposal of mercy petitions filed under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, entitling a death row convict to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The procedure for executing death sentences must be just, fair and reasonable, and prolonged delay in deciding mercy petitions creates a dehumanizing effect equivalent to torture, making such execution constitutionally impermissible. While no fixed period of delay can be prescribed (overruling the two-year rule in Vatheeswaran), each case requires examination of the nature and extent of delay and all supervening circumstances (including mental illness developed on death row) in light of all the facts to determine whether execution should be carried out or commuted. The scope of limited judicial review of executive orders under Article 72/161 extends to examining whether the order was passed with application of mind, without mala fides, without extraneous considerations, with consideration of all relevant materials, and without arbitrariness. The gravity of the crime cannot preclude commutation based on delay as all death sentences are already for rarest of rare cases where gravity exhausts itself at sentencing. The distinction between TADA and IPC offences for mercy consideration is per incuriam and violates Article 14 (equality). Mental illness including schizophrenia developed by death row prisoners is a valid supervening circumstance warranting commutation. Solitary confinement of death row prisoners prior to rejection of mercy petition by President is unconstitutional.

   On this section: Referenced to show that solitary confinement under IPC carries safeguards and restrictions that cannot be circumvented through executive action

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Union of India Home Department Secretary vs Dharam Pal

   Supreme Court of India 24 Apr 2019 Binding (Supreme Court - Three Judge Bench)

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 73, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a death row inmate has undergone inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of a mercy petition by the President/Governor, has been subjected to illegal solitary confinement prior to rejection of the mercy petition, and material facts that influenced the original death sentence have not been placed before the constitutional authority deciding the mercy petition, the death sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment as such circumstances violate the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and constitute grave injustice. The exercise of mercy power under Articles 72 and 161 is a constitutional duty requiring expeditious disposal, and prolonged delay has a dehumanizing effect that mandates judicial intervention.

   On this section: Cited in Sunil Batra case to establish that solitary confinement is a separate punishment that only courts can impose, not executive authorities

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Jasbir Singh @ Jassa vs State of Punjab

   High Court 26 Jul 2019 Persuasive (Other High Court) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 73, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Inordinate delay in execution of death sentence, though a significant factor, cannot by itself be the sole ground for commutation of death sentence. The delay must be considered along with the nature and gravity of the crime. Time spent in judicial proceedings and review petitions at the instance of the convict should not be counted as delay. Only undue and long delay in disposing of mercy petitions or delay at the instance of the executive is material. In the present case, there is no such inordinate delay, and the heinous nature of the crime (cold-blooded murder of a 16-year-old child for ransom) precludes commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment.

   On this section: Limits on solitary confinement as a punishment - cannot exceed 14 days at a time with intervals

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.