SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS VIOLATING OF ARTICLE 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02
2. ARTICLE 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------03
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT------------------------04
4. DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS INSIDE THE SOLITARY CELLS--------------07
5. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT UNDER THE INDIAN LAWS ------------------------------09
6. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME
OF INDIA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
7. LANDMARK CASES REGARDING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN INDIA --------11
8. RECOMMENDATIONS OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS ----------------------------------14
9. CONCLUSION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
1|Page
1.INTRODUCTION
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary1, solitary confinement refers to “the separate
confinement of a prisoner, with only occasional access of any other person, and that only at the
discretion of the jailer; in a stricter sense, the complete isolation of a prisoner from all human
society, and his confinement in a cell so arranged that he has no direct intercourse with or sight
of any human being, and no employment or instruction.” In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v.
State of Rajasthan2, the Supreme Court defined solitary confinement as a confinement
constituting of complete separation and isolation of the prisoners from other co-prisoners and
segregation from the outside world of the prison.
United Nations Standard Minimum3 Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners has defined
solitary confinement as a confinement for twenty-two or more hours with no human contact.
Solitary confinement has been a topic of debate since a long time due to its nature and effect
on the prisoners. Our first Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru4, in his autobiography has
expressed the pain that solitary confinement inflicts on the prisoners. He has argued how
solitary confinement slowly deteriorates the mind of the confined leading to insanity. These
issues have been raised time and again by several activists, writers but still the idea of solitary
confinement has its place in Indian Legal Justice system. The objective of the article is to
analyse how solitary confinement has evolved in India and how it violates certain constitutional
rights of the prisoners.
In recent times, the human rights jurisprudence has evolved even in the context of prison
reforms. Human rights are universal principles that are applicable to everybody, regardless of
the person being a citizen or a foreigner to a country. Human rights of the prisoner underline
the basic principle that no prisoner shall be treated with torturous and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment. Solitary confinement, prima facie, violates such rights
1
Black, H. C. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
2
Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625.
3
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2015). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org
4
Nehru, J. (1936). An Autobiography. London, UK: The Bodley Head.
2|Page
2. ARTICLE 21
According to Article 215:
“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
i. This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
ii. Article 21 provides two rights:
a. Right to life
b. Right to personal liberty
iii. The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that
the Constitution guarantees.
iv. The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental
rights.
v. The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty
except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been
provided against the State only. State here includes not just the government, but also,
government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
vi. Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not
amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be
under Article 226 or under general law.
vii. The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a
complete life of dignity and meaning.
viii. The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken
away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.
5
Constitution of India, Art. 21.
3|Page
3. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN INDIA
3.1. Origins and Early Reform Movements (Late 18th Century)
During the late 18th century, prison and social reform movements were gaining traction in
various parts of the world, particularly in Britain and the United States. These movements
influenced colonial administrators in India, who sought to introduce structured prison reforms
under British rule. Reformers believed that prisoners should not simply be punished but also
reformed, leading to the adoption of solitary confinement as a means of instilling moral and
spiritual reflection.
This idea was based on the belief that isolation would force criminals to confront their
misdeeds, repent, and ultimately become reformed individuals. The model was inspired by
penitentiaries in the West, particularly the Pennsylvania System in the United States, where
prisoners were kept in total isolation to encourage self-reflection and prevent criminal
contamination from other inmates.6
3.2. Codification under the Indian Penal Code (1860)
With the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860, solitary confinement was
formally recognized as a legal punishment in India. The IPC, drafted by Lord Macaulay, was
designed to standardize criminal law under British colonial rule and included provisions that
permitted solitary confinement for serious offenses.
Section 73 of the IPC states that: A person convicted of an offense punishable with rigorous
imprisonment may, at the discretion of the court, be subjected to solitary confinement for a
portion of the imprisonment period, subject to limitations.7
6
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon
Book
7
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 73, Act No. 45 of 1860, Government of India.
4|Page
The law was framed as a deterrent for hardened criminals, reflecting the colonial government's
view that harsh punishments were necessary to maintain law and order in India. However, there
were restrictions on its use:
• Solitary confinement could not exceed three months in total.
• If imprisonment was between one and six months, solitary confinement could not
exceed one month.
• If the sentence was between six months and a year, solitary confinement was capped
at two months.8
These provisions were intended to balance deterrence with humane treatment, but they did not
account for the long-term psychological effects of isolation.
3.3.Criticism and Psychological Impact
Initially seen as a more humane alternative to corporal punishment or execution, solitary
confinement soon drew criticism from legal and medical professionals. Prolonged isolation
was observed to cause severe psychological effects, including:
• Hallucinations and paranoia – Many prisoners developed sensory deprivation
symptoms.
• Depression and anxiety – Long periods of silence and isolation led to severe mental
distress.
• Cognitive decline – Prisoners often exhibited memory loss and impaired reasoning
abilities.9
Reports from colonial prison records and reformers like James Fitzjames Stephen, a British
jurist, highlighted these adverse effects, raising concerns about whether solitary confinement
truly served a rehabilitative purpose.10
8
Ibid.
9
Haney, C. (2018). The psychological effects of solitary confinement: A systematic critique. Crime
and Justice, 47(1), 365-416.
10
Stephen, J. F. (1883). A history of the criminal law of England. Macmillan.
5|Page
3.4.Reforms and Gradual Reduction of Solitary Confinement
By the early 20th century, as modern psychological studies on solitary confinement emerged,
many nations began revising their prison policies. In India, committees like the Indian Jails
Committee of 1919-1920 reviewed the penal system and recommended reducing the use of
solitary confinement, emphasizing reform over punishment.11
Post-independence, India retained much of the IPC but significantly reduced the reliance on
solitary confinement. Landmark cases in the Indian judiciary, such as Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration (1978), further highlighted the inhumane conditions of solitary confinement
and led to stricter oversight and judicial intervention in prison management.12
3.5.Contemporary Legal and Human Rights Perspectives
Today, solitary confinement in India is largely restricted to exceptional cases, such as for high-
risk prisoners or disciplinary reasons. International human rights organizations, including the
United Nations, have condemned its excessive use. The Supreme Court of India has ruled
in several cases that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment, often violating Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and
Personal Liberty).13
The shift from punitive measures to rehabilitative corrections has led to modern prison reforms
emphasizing vocational training, mental health support, and reintegration programs for
prisoners. However, concerns remain about the use of solitary confinement in certain cases,
particularly for death row inmates and undertrials in high-security facilities.14
11
Indian Jails Committee (1919-1920). Report of the Indian Jails Committee. Government of India
Press.
12
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675.
13
Supreme Court of India. (1978). Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration. AIR 1978 SC 1675.
14
United Nations. (2015). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
6|Page
4. DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS INSIDE THE SOLITARY CELLS
4.1. Overview of Prison Conditions
The Lawyers Collective Society in Bombay was permitted by the court’s order to visit the
prison cells and report on the living conditions. They recorded:
“The lock-up is a bare room with no piece of furniture at all. It is almost always a very poorly
ventilated room. There is never a fan in the cell. The lock-up is also poorly lit, usually by just
one bulb for the whole room, which is never switched off. There is normally no commode, just
a pot in a corner which is cleaned out occasionally. The water supply is unpredictable and
intermittent at best. The stench is unbearable, and flies abound.”
4.2.RTI Findings on Solitary Confinement Conditions
An RTI (Right to Information) request filed to gather details about the conditions inside solitary
confinement cells revealed several distressing facts:
1) Cells are covered with metal and an unbreakable glass sheath.
2) The light bulb inside the cell remains switched on 24/7, preventing prisoners from
distinguishing between day and night.
3) There are no windows, and air supply is extremely limited.
4) A small trapdoor is used to pass food to the prisoner, ensuring complete isolation.
a. 3.2 Violations of UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(SMR)
b. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(the Nelson Mandela Rules) outline certain standards that solitary confinement
fails to meet:
Rule 14(A):
“The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light
and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is
artificial ventilation.”
Rule 43(1)(C):
“Placement of a prisoner in a dark or constantly lit cell.”
4.2. Health Impacts of Solitary Confinement
4.2.1 Psychological Effects
Solitary confinement is a transgression against the natural instincts of humans. Since primordial
times, humans have had an inclination toward social interactions. The complete isolation
7|Page
imposed by solitary cells disrupts this fundamental aspect of human nature, leading to severe
psychological deterioration.
A report from Halle Prison, Germany (1854), observed:
“Prolonged absolute isolation has a very injurious effect on the body and mind and seems to
predispose to hallucinations” and should, therefore, be immediately terminated.
This condition, often referred to as "Prison Psychosis," results in extreme emotional distress
and mental health complications.
4.3.Psychological Symptoms of Solitary Confinement
A study by Harvard psychologist Stuart Grassian, who has researched the impact of solitary
confinement for over two decades, reported a prisoner’s experience as follows:
“The cell walls start wavering everything in the cell starts moving; you feel that you are losing
your vision.”
The negative psychological effects can be categorized as:
Cognitive and Emotional Impairments
Physiological Effects
Permanent Effects of Solitary Confinement
8|Page
5. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT UNDER THE INDIAN LAWS
5.1. Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 73: Solitary Confinement
Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Code the Court has power
to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the
offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment
to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following
scale, that is to say--
i. A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six
months.
ii. A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months
and shall not exceed one year.
iii. A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
Section 74: Limit of Solitary Confinement
In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed
fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods; and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months,
the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole
imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods.
5.2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita:
Section 11. Solitary Confinement
Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Sanhita the Court has
power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the
offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment
to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following
scale, namely
i. A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six
months.
9|Page
ii. A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months
and shall not exceed one year
iii. A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
Section 12: Limit of solitary confinement
In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed
fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods; and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months,
the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole
imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods.
5.3. Prisoner’s Act 1894:
Section 29: Solitary Confinement
No cell shall be used for solitary confinement unless it is furnished with the means of enabling
the prisoner to communicate at any time with an officer of the prison, and immediately on his
arrival in the prison after sentence, be every prisoner so confined in a cell for more than
twenty-four hours, whether as a punishment or otherwise, shall be visited at least once a day
by the Medical Officer or Medical Subordinate.
Section 30: Prisoners under Sentence of Death
Clause (1) states that every prisoner under sentence of death shall, immediately on his arrival
in the prison after sentence, be searched by, or by order of, the Jailor and all articles shall be
taken from him which the Jailor deems it dangerous or inexpedient to leave in his possession.
Clause (2) states that every such prisoner shall be confined in a cell apart from all other
prisoners, and shall be placed by day and by night under the charge of a guard
10 | P a g e
6.SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHEME OF INDIA
6.1. Introduction
Solitary confinement is a blot on the constitutional ethos of India, as it transgresses the
fundamental right to life and dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This practice not only subjects prisoners to severe physical suffering but also inflicts mental
agony, violating the very essence of human dignity. Judicial pronouncements have consistently
recognized that prisoners retain their fundamental rights, and solitary confinement is an
unconstitutional and inhuman practice that contradicts both domestic and international
legal principles.
The Supreme Court, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), interpreted the right
to life to mean not just mere animal existence but a life with dignity. This principle extends
to prisoners, reaffirming that a convict does not cease to be a human being and continues to
enjoy constitutional protections.
6.2. Judicial Recognition of Mental Torture as a Violation of Article 21
Judicial Interpretation of Solitary Confinement in India
The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in addressing the constitutional validity and
human rights implications of solitary confinement. Various landmark judgments have
reaffirmed that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights, and any form of inhuman or
degrading punishment violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
The Supreme Court strongly condemned solitary confinement, ruling that:
Solitary confinement leads to severe mental and emotional degradation.
It is cruel, inhuman, and violative of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer stated that prisoners retain their fundamental rights, and the judicial
process cannot be locked out of prison gates.
11 | P a g e
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)
The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 is not just about mere existence but includes
human dignity.
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang (1983)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that prisoners do not lose their constitutional rights upon
incarceration.
It ruled that the right to dignity applies even within the prison system, ensuring humane
treatment of prisoners.
The Death Penalty and Solitary Confinement: Tihar Jail Case (1987)
The Court ruled that prolonged solitary confinement is cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment.
It held that, in some cases, such treatment could amount to psychological torture.
Psychological Torture as a Violation of Article 21
i. In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), the Supreme Court acknowledged
psychological torture, coercion, and prolonged interrogations as violations of Article 21
ii. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi (1981), the Court ruled that
any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is unconstitutional, even if
sanctioned by law.
iii. The Uttarakhand High Court, in State of Uttarakhand v. Mehtab, abolished
solitary confinement, recognizing its arbitrary and psychologically destructive nature.
6.3. Solitary Confinement Violates Human Rights and Judicial Principles
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer strongly condemned solitary confinement, stating:
• “Confinement in prison does not mean that fundamental rights are suspended.”
• “Civilized consciousness is hostile to torture, and solitary confinement is inhuman and
irrational.”
12 | P a g e
6.4. International Human Rights Standards
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948: Article 5 prohibits “torture
or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966: Articles 7 and
10 reinforce that prisoners must be treated with dignity.
• United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson
Mandela Rules, 2015): These rules declare prolonged solitary confinement (beyond
15 days) as a form of torture.
6.5. Unconstitutionality of Solitary Confinement
Supreme Court's View in Francis Coralie Mullin
The Court declared that no law can authorize inhuman treatment, and such provisions would
be unconstitutional. Thus, solitary confinement, even if permitted by law, cannot stand the test
of reasonability.
Solitary confinement is not just an issue of prison discipline but a fundamental human rights
violation. It is an assault on human dignity and contrary to India’s constitutional and
international obligations. Courts have consistently emphasized that prisoners retain their basic
rights, and the abolition of solitary confinement is necessary to uphold the principles of justice
and humanity.
The State cannot justify solitary confinement on grounds of national security, as individual
dignity remains supreme. The Latin maxims:
i. Salus populi est suprema lex (The welfare of the people is the supreme law)
ii. Salus reipublicae suprema lex (The welfare of the State is the supreme law)
must exist in harmony, ensuring that state security does not come at the cost of fundamental
rights. Thus, the abolition of solitary confinement is imperative for upholding India's
constitutional and human rights framework.
13 | P a g e
7. RECOMMENDATIONS OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS REGARDING SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT:
7.1. Law Commission 42nd Report (1971)
i. Recommended the abolition of solitary confinement as it is regressive and violates
international human rights standards.
ii. Stated that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provide for
solitary confinement, should be omitted.
iii. Emphasized that solitary confinement is out of tune with modern thinking and should
not be imposed by any criminal court.
7.2. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002)
i. Recommended the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment as an extension of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
ii. Suggested adding Article 21(2) to explicitly prohibit such practices.
iii. Indirectly implied the abolition of solitary confinement as it constitutes torture and
inhuman treatment.
iv. The recommendation was later acknowledged in the 273rd Law Commission Report
(2017).
7.3. National Human Rights Commission Report, Volume I (2013)
i. Referred to the Sunil Batra case, which emphasized the rights of prisoners.
ii. Asserted that prisoners have the right to human dignity, communication with the
outside world, and fulfillment of basic needs.
iii. Recognized that solitary confinement violates all these fundamental rights.
7.4. Law Commission 273rd Report (2017)
i. Recommended ratifying the Convention Against Torture and implementing the
Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017.
ii. Stressed that any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by public servants
violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
iii. Acknowledged international conventions supporting the abolition of solitary
confinement.
14 | P a g e
8. CONCLUSION
“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged
by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.” -Nelson Mandela While imprisonment
involves severing certain liberties to add a punitive and deterrent approach in the interest of
public justice and justice to the victims, certain principles of humanity can never be neglected
under any circumstances. Life of a prisoner would never be similar inside the prison as that in
a free world but even then, his personhood cannot be stripped away. Law shall always strive
for achieving a balance between the public interest and the interest of the prisoner. While too
much liberty to the prisoner in the name of human rights can never be justified; but certain
reasonable limitations must be imposed on the quantum of punishment awarded. The solitary
confinement casts a dark shadow on humanity and hence, under no circumstances must it be
permitted. Instead, an alternative measure that complies with the human rights must be adopted
to keep the civilisation intact and to prevent it from degrading into barbarism.
15 | P a g e
References
1. Black, H. C. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
2. Constitution of India, Art. 21.
3. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
Pantheon Books.
4. Haney, C. (2018). The psychological effects of solitary confinement: A systematic critique.
Crime and Justice, 47(1), 365-416.
5. Indian Jails Committee (1919-1920). Report of the Indian Jails Committee. Government of
India Press.
6. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 73, Act No. 45 of 1860, Government of India.
7. Nehru, J. (1936). An Autobiography. London, UK: The Bodley Head.
8. Stephen, J. F. (1883). A History the of Criminal Law of England. Macmillan.
CASE LAW
1. Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1981 SC 625)
2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) (AIR 1978 SC 1675)
3. Charles Sobraj v. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) (AIR 1978 SC
1514)
4. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980) (AIR 1980 SC 1579)
5. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) ((1993) 1 SCC 645)
6. D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) (AIR 1974 SC 2092)
16 | P a g e
