"Criminals should be treated as patients in hospitals, and jails should be hospitals admitting
such patients for treatment and cure. The outlook of the jail staff should be that of physicians in a hospital.
The prisoners should feel that the officials are their friends".-- Mahatma Gandhi

Abstract:
The prisoners' rights were not considered in India during the British rule and during the time of the freedom struggle, the situation of prisoners was worst.

which played a crucial role in initiating the process of identifying certain rights for prisoners. After independence, the Constitution of India conferred several fundamental rights upon citizens.

Even the prisoners have human rights because a man on becoming a prisoner, whether convicted or under trial, does not cease to be a human being. He can't be deprived of those aspects of life that constitute human dignity.

For a prisoner, all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality though restricted by the fact of imprisonment. Through this article, we will discuss the rights of prisoners.

Introduction:
A prison is a place in which individuals are confined and deprived of freedom to a certain extent. Prison is an integral part of the criminal justice system of the country. Prisons may be exclusively for adults, children, females, convicted prisoners, under trial, etc. Prisoners are human beings and are to be entitled to human rights and constitutional rights except those that are to be necessarily denied (right to movement).

The State is under a Constitutional obligation to protect their rights, particularly their right to live with dignity. The accused, under-trials, suspects, or convicts do not cease to be human beings. Hence their rights are to be protected and respected. The fundamental rights, which are available to the prisoners are not defined in the Indian Constitution, The Judiciary however the process of Judicial Activism has expanded the scope of various freedoms guaranteed to prisoners by expanding the horizons of Article 21 and also taking into consideration the relevant provisions of International Covenants formulated for monitoring and supervising the prisoners

Rights of prisoners:

Under The Indian Constitution:

"Imprisonment does not mean farewell to fundamental rights as laid down under Part-III of the Constitution". Justice Krishna Iyer (Sunil Batra Judgment 1978)

The Constitution of India does not expressly provide the provisions related to the prisoner's rights but in the case of T.V. Vatheeswaran V. State of Tamil Nadu 1983it was held , the Articles 14,19 and 21 are available to the prisoners as to freemen. Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. Thus contemplated that like should be treated alike, and also provided the concept of reasonable classification and is a very useful guide for the prison authorities to determine various categories of prisoners and their classifications with the object of reformation.

Article 19 guarantees six freedoms to citizens of India. Among these freedoms, certain freedoms are freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) freedom to become a member of an association under Article 19 (1)(g) cannot be enjoyed by the prisoners because of the nature of these freedoms.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India says, No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. providing the right to life and the principle of liberty, it is clear that it is available not only for free people but also to prisoners.

Right to Free Legal Aid
Though no such right is defined by the Constitution of India, the legal executives often display kindness towards detainees who cannot afford it or simply connect with the legal counsellor voluntarily. Free Legal Aid is included by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39 A. Although it is the most significant and direct Article of the Constitution, which discusses Free Legal aid, this Article is not exactly enforceable by Courts. Still, these guidelines are central to administering appropriate legislation.

Article 37 directs the State to apply these standards. Article 38 prescribes advancing Government assistance of individuals by ensuring and securing a social order wherein equity, social, monetary, and political, will illuminate all the establishments and national legislation. The Parliament passed the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 under which legitimate Aid is provided, while different State Governments have set up lawful advisory boards and plans for Free Legal Aid and unforeseen issues to give effect to the Constitutional command of Article 39-A. Under the Indian Human Rights law, legal Aid is of great importance, and is not only accessible in criminal cases but is additionally offered in standard, income, and regulatory matters.

As exemplified in the case of Madhav Rao Hosket V State of Maharashtra, a three adjudicators seat of the Supreme Court perusing Articles 21 & 39-A of Constitution of India, alongside Article 142 and Section 304 of Code of Criminal Procedure, together with pronounced that the Government was under obligation to offer legitimate types of assistance to the charged. If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional/statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal, for want of legal assistance, it is implicit in the Court under Art. 142 read with Articles 21, 39-A, to assign counsel for such individual for doing complete justice. This is a necessary incident of the right of appeal conferred by the Code and allowed by Article 136

The inference is inevitable, this is States duty and not the Governments charity. Equally affirmative is the implication that while legal services must be free to the beneficiary the lawyer himself has to be reasonably remunerated for his services. Surely, the profession has a public commitment to the people but mere philanthropy of its members yields short mileage in the long run. Their services, especially when they are on behalf of the State, must be paid for.

Naturally, the State concerned must pay a reasonable sum that the court may fix when assigning counsel to the prisoner. Of Course, the court may judge the situation and consider from all angles whether the ends of justice must make available legal aid in the particular case.

Right to Speedy Trial
A speedy trial is an essential feature of a fair trial; Justice hurried is Justice worried. Thus there is a need to strike balance between the right of the accused to have a speedy trial and the right of the prosecution to a fair opportunity to establish the guilt of the accused. The concept of a right to speedy trial flows from Article 21.

The Speedy Trial of offences is one of the essential targets of the criminal equity framework. When the Court takes the comprehension of the allegation, then the prosecution must be directed speedily to rebuff the one who is liable and to exonerate the guiltless.

The right to a Speedy Trial is provided under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the arrangements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were followed in their letter and soul, at that point, there would be no doubt of any complaint. However, these laws are not appropriately executed. It is essential that the Constitutional assurance of speedy trial ought to be adequately reflected in the arrangements of the Code.

Initially, the right to Speedy Trial was first discussed in the landmark document of English Law, the Magna Carta. In the leading landmark case Hussainara Khatoon V State of Bihar, 1980, it was held that Speedy Trial is an essential ingredient of right to life and liberty under Article 21 and it is the constitutional duty of the State to set up a procedure to ensure Speedy Trial.

A. R. Antulay V. R. S. Nayak & Anr. throws light on the right to a speedy trial as is recognized in India. It is now well accepted that the right to a speedy trial is inherent and flows from Article 21, which declares that no person should be deprived of his/her life and liberty except by procedure by law.

The Supreme Court set suggestions that will be implemented in ensuring the Human Rights of detainees. The Supreme Court then concluded that the privilege of speedy trial spilling out of Article 21 applies to charges at any stage such as examination, request, trial, modification, and retrial.

Right Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Human rights are part and parcel of Human Dignity. The Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments has taken serious note of the inhuman treatment of prisoners and issued appropriate directions to the prison and police authorities for safeguarding the rights of the prisoners and the persons in lock-up. The treatment of human beings which offends human dignity imposes avoidable torture and reduces the man to the level of a beast would certainly be arbitrary and can be questioned under Article 14.

In Raghubir Singh & Ors V State of Bihar, AIR 1987, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish over police torture upholding the life sentence awarded to a police officer responsible for the death of a suspect due to torture in the police lock-up. In Kishore Singh V State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that the use of the third-degree method by police violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Right to Fair Trial
The golden rule that runs through the web of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Presumption of innocence is a human right recognized as such under Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights 1966. Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, also provides that any person charged with penal offences has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law in a public trial in which they have all the guarantees necessary for defence.

Even before these declarations, this principle was part of the common law of England as observed by Viscount Sankey in Woolington V Director of Public Prosecutions. The right to Fair Trial is one of the fundamental guarantees of human rights and the Rule of Law, aimed at ensuring the administration of justice.

It would not be an exaggeration if state that a Fair Trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity that is governed by the Rule of Law. Denial of a Fair Trial is a crucifixion of Human Rights. It is ingrained in the concept of due process of law.

While emphasizing the principle of Fair Trial. it is obligatory on the part of the Courts to see whether in an individual case or cases, because of non-compliance of a certain provision, reversion of Judgment of conviction is inevitable or it is dependent on arriving at an indubitable conclusion that substantial injustice has occurred. The seminal issue is whether protection given to the accused under the law has been jeopardized as a consequence of which there has been a failure of justice or causation of any prejudice. Once prejudice is caused to the accused during trial, it occasions in a Failure of Justice.

Right to Live with Human Dignity:
The right of a person to live with dignity is protected by the Constitution of India. This right is also given to the prisoners as their mere conviction does not render them inhuman. This right forms a significant part of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Courts have enlarged the scope of Article 21 to include this right.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court propounded a new dimension of Article 21 wherein it stated that the right to life does not confine itself to mere physical existence but also includes the right to live with human dignity.

Francis Coralie Mullin V. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., while expanding the aforementioned concept, the Supreme Court held that the word life includes everything that it goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of the life such as adequate nutrition /food, clothing and shelter over one's head, education, ability and opportunity of expressing oneself in diverse forms, moving freely, mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.

Pandit Parmanand V. Union of India expanded the concept of life and ruled that the word life is not just limited up to the period of death but even after that. Therefore, when a person was executed with the death penalty but the dead body was not lowered even after half an hour, even though the doctor had already given the death certificate, the Supreme Court held that it amounted to a violation of the Right to life (Article 21).

It can be concluded that the Right to live continues even after death and includes in its ambit the right to proper handling of the dead body or the right to a decent burial.

Right to Meet Acquaintance and Consult Lawyer:

The Prisoners' rights have been recognized not only to protect them from physical discomfort but also to save them from mental torture. The right to have an interview with the members of one's family and friends is part of the Personal (Article 21).

• Individuals must meet for information, consult lawyers, and their legal representatives, the act done by them directly affects the convict's case.
• Visiting friends and family members gives them mental stability to survive in such a worst condition where people are unknown to each other.

In Francis Coralie Mullin V The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors, the Supreme Court held that prisoners can have interviews with family members, friends, and lawyers without any severe restrictions.

Protection From Torture:

Solitary Confinement, according to Black's Law Dictionary, in a general sense, means the separate confinement of a prisoner, with only occasional access to any person, and only at the discretion of the Jail authorities. In the stricter sense, it means the complete isolation of prisoners from all human society. In Sunil Batra V Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, it was held that solitary confinement could be imposed only in exceptional cases where a convict was of such dangerous character that he must be segregated from other prisoners. Solitary confinement has a degrading effect on prisoners. The constant and unrelieved isolation of prisoners represents the most destructive abnormal environment. The results of long solitary confinement are disastrous to the physical and mental health of those who are subjected to it.

• The Supreme Court has also firmly objected to applying bar shackles to the prisoners.
• The Court saw that always keeping a prisoner in shackles day and night diminished the detainee from an individual to a creature.
• Such treatment was so inhuman and abnormal that the utilization of bar chains was against the soul of the Constitution of India.

Right to Reasonable Wages:

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights V Union of India, whenever during imprisonment, prisoners are made to work in the prison, they must be paid at a reasonable rate. The wage rate should not be below the minimum wage. In Mohammad Giasuddin V State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court directed the State to take into account this factor while finalizing the rules for payment of wages to prisoners, as well as to give retrospective effect to wage policy. In the matter of Re: Prison Reforms Enhancement ... V Unknown, the Kerala High Court held that labor taken from the prisoners, which has not been properly remunerated, was forced labor and hence violates Article 23.

Prisoners' Rights under the Prisons Act, 1894:

The Prisons Act of 1894 is the first legislation regarding prison regulation in India. This act mainly focuses on the reformation of prisoners in connection with their rights. The following sections of the Prisons Act of 1894 are related to the reformation of prisoners:

• Accommodation and sanitary conditions for prisoners: Section 4
• Provision for shelter and safe custody of the excess number of prisoners who cannot be safely kept in prison: Section 7
• Provisions relating to the examination of prisoners by the qualified medical officer: Section 24 (2)
• Provisions relating to separation of female/male prisoners, civil/criminal prisoners, and convicted/under-trial prisoners: Section 27
• Provisions relating to the treatment of under-trials, civil prisoners, parole, and temporary release of prisoners: Sections 31 & 35

In 2016, the Parliament passed the Prisons (Amendment) Bill, 2016, to amend the Prisons Act, 1894, to provide protection and welfare to the prisoners.

Conclusion:
Mahatma Gandhi said, "Hate the sin and not the sinner" the persons behind the bars cannot be forced to live an undignified life, because life is not merely animal existence. It is guaranteed to every person under Article 21 and even the State has no authority to violate that Right without just, fair and reasonable cause. A person cannot be deprived of their fundamental right and continues to enjoy all his Fundamental Rights, even when lodged in jail.

Thus prisoners still retain their constitutional rights even being convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty by the procedure established by law. However, several steps have been taken to improve the conditions of prisons, but more is required to be done. The Central Government, NGO, and prison administration should take adequate steps for effective centralization of prisons and a uniform jail manual should be drafted through out the country and uniform standards should be maintained by all the States.