A CASE COMMENT ON STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS CHALLA RAMKRISHNA

REDDY: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS

“The court has to innovate new methods and strategies to provide access to justice to
large masses of people who are denied basic human rights, to whom freedom and
liberty have no meaning.” - Justice PN Bhagwati

Abstract

Since Independence, India has witnessed a significant evolution of rights of prisoners in accordance with
a cantena of Judgments. A human's conviction does not make him non-human. He is still a human being
who deserves to be treated as such. He should be granted the same basic human rights as every other guy
on the planet. At the same time, he should not be treated as if he were a free man with all of life's
comforts. His liberty should be subject to some limitations and legal constraints. Furthermore, these
limitations must be acceptable. One of the landmark judgments in this regard is the case of State Of
Andhra Pradesh vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy. This case revolves around the sphere of entitlement of
Fundamental rights to prisoners. In addition to this, this case has dealt with every aspect of the Doctrine
of Sovereign Immunity.

Keywords: Rights of Prisoners, Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, Right to life, Article 72 of Limitations
Act, 1963

Introduction

The democratic Principles guarantee fundamental rights to every person. Have you ever thought of
fundamental rights available to prisoners? It’s been 74 years since the Independence of India, yet the
country encounters a lacuna of a proper legislation in the light of rights of prisoners. On the other hand,
this lacuna has been managed by enabling certain rights through a series of judge made laws. One such
vital case in this regard is the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs Challa Ramkrishna Reddy 1 which
reinforced the entitlement of Fundamental rights to the prisoners.

1
State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy AIR 2000 SC 2083.
Case Details

Citation : AIR 2000 SC 2083

Court : Supreme Court Of India
Bench : D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.Ahmad
Petitioner : State Of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent : Challa Ramkrishna Reddy & Ors.
Judgment : 26/04/2000

Facts of the case

At the outset, it is necessary to put forth the facts of the case in detail to set the context. The respondent
Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and his father Challa Chinnappa Reddy were remanded for judicial custody
pursuant to the Criminal Case No.18/1997 in Cell No.7 in the sub-jail of Koilkuntla. Subsequently, on
May 6th in 1977, at about 3.30 A.M, bombs were hurled into their cell by unknown people who entered
the sub-jail premises. As a result, Respondent’s father died suffering from grievous injuries whereas the
respondent escaped with few injuries. Therefore, Challa Ramakrishna Reddy filed a suit against the
State of A.P and claimed a sum of 10 lakh rupees as damage owing to the negligence on behalf of the
appellant resulting in his father’s death.

Procedural History

The suit was debated at the trial Court, which eventually got dismissed. The contentions made by the
State were relied upon two grounds,
i) The suit was barred by limitation
ii) No damages can be awarded as the state had immunity in regard with its sovereign acts.
The trial court relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain vs. State of
U.P.,2 and dismissed the suit on the ground that establishment and maintenance of prisons being a part of
the sovereign functions of the Government, a suit for damages would not lie as the State holds immunity
from being proceeded against in a court of law in this regard.
2
Kasturi lal v. State of UP , AIR 1965 SC 1039.
When the case was appealed before the High Court, the court overruled the trial court's judgment,
finding that if the Right to Life is a fundamental right protected by Art. 21, it may only be violated by
procedure established by law, and therefore the Respondent's father's death was a breach of Art. 21. It
went on to say that the concept of sovereign immunity could not be invoked to dismiss a claim of
infringement of fundamental rights. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged this judgment
in the Supreme Court under the scope of Article 132 of the Constitution3.

Issues

Before delving into the relevant provisions, let’s take a glance at the questions of law raised.
a) Whether the suit is maintainable?
b) Whether a prisoner is entitled to fundamental rights?
c) Whether the state can claim Sovereign immunity for damages under Article 300 of the Constitution?

Key Contentions

Appellant

 The Counsel contended that the suit cannot be instituted since it was barred by time according to
the Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 19634 as the period of limitation prescribed therein was one
year.
 The counsel also contended that prisons all over the Country are maintained by the State; hence,
by the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, the state argued that the suit for compensation cannot be
maintained.

Respondent

 The counsel on behalf of respondent contended that the suit was within limitation as the nature of
the suit was governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not any other provision of
the act.
 The counsel also argued that the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity cannot be claimed by the State
as it was set aside in various judgments. Additionally, the counsel added that damages regarding
custodial deaths have been awarded against the state in several cases.

3
Article 132, Constitution of India,(Aug. 15,2021, 10:00 AM) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/783690/
4
Article 71, The Limitations Act,1963 (Aug. 15, 2021,10:00 AM) https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1963-36.pdf
Provisions on discussion

Article 72 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Articles 72 and 113, respectively, are relevant in a variety of scenarios. The claim must be for
compensation regarding performing or omitting to execute an act in accordance with any statute in place
at the time in order is covered by Article 72. “The performance or omission must be those which are
honestly thought to be authorised by legislation," said Mahajan J. In Secretary of State v. Lodna Colliery
Co. Ltd.,5 Courtney Terrell C.J. voiced the same viewpoint. The Delhi High Court held in Jailal vs. The
Punjab State & Anr.6 that Article 72 protection could be claimed only when the act was done under the
colour of statutory duty, but that if the person acted with full knowledge that it was not done under the
authority of law, he could not claim the benefit of the shorter period of limitation prescribed under this
Article. The time when the cause of action initially arose has to be calculated for the purposes of Article
113. This interpretation of the entry contradicted the legislative objective. Wherever it was intended
under the design of the Limitation Act that the period of limitation be computed from the earliest in time
occurrence of an event, it had been indicated. The lawmakers had purposefully drafted Article 113 to be
as broad as possible.

Article 21 of the Constitution - Right to life

“No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with a procedure
established by law,” according to Article 21. As a result, article 21 protects two rights: the right to life
and the right to personal liberty. This right has been called the "heart of fundamental rights" by the
Supreme Court. Article 21 “embodies a fundamental value of utmost significance in a democratic
society,” according to Justice Bhagwati.

Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 19787: In this case, the Supreme Court overturned its decision in A.K. Gopalan
case8 by interpreting Article 21 more broadly. It was decided that a person's right to life and personal
liberty can be taken away by law if the method established by the law is reasonable, fair, and just.

5
Secretary of State v. Lodna Colliery Co. Ltd., ILR 15 Pat 510: (AIR 1936 Pat 513).
6
Jailal vs. The Punjab State & Anr., AIR 1967 Delhi 118.
7
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 = 1978 (2) SCR 621 = AIR 1978 SC 597.
8
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
Article 300 of the Constitution – Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

Art. 300 of the Constitution specify the State's power and liability in civil proceedings brought by and
against it. Article 300 specifies when the Government of India and/or the Government of any State may
sue or be sued, and that this occurs subject to any provision of an Act of the Parliament/legislature of
that State enacted under the authority bestowed on it by the Constitution.

Doctrine of Sovereign immunity is a common-law theory that has its roots in court rulings. The doctrine
has been justified in the past on the grounds that the King could do no wrong, that diverting funds
needed for other governmental purposes could bankrupt the state and slow its growth, and that the state
could perform its duties more efficiently and effectively if it were not threatened with a flood of tort
liability lawsuits. Its origin can be traced back to Peacock C.J.'s decision in P. and O. Navigation
Company v. Secretary of State for India9, in which the terms "Sovereign" and "Non-sovereign" were
used in deciding the East India Company's liability for torts committed by its servants.

The Apex Court took a different perspective in Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. 10, causing the matter to
become muddled. The Supreme Court applied the rule established in the P.S.O. Steam Navigation case,
distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign duties of the state, and concluded that misuse of
police authority is a sovereign act, and so the state is not responsible.

Judicial Reasoning

a) Whether the suit is maintainable?

The deceased and respondent who believed they were in danger, reported the incident to the authorities
and demanded that enough police guards be posted at the jail, but their requests were ignored. Even after
the respondent’s father made an explicit request for more measures, the failure not just to offer
additional safeguards, but also to perform even basic guard duty, can only be described as gross
negligence. It is an omission to carry out the statutory obligation imposed on them by Madras Prisons
Rules 48, thereby resulting in the failure to take reasonable care.

9
P. and O. Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India, 5 Bom HCR App. 1.
10
Kasturi lal v. State of UP ,AIR 1965 SC 1039.
Furthermore, because the act was entirely mala fide, there was no basis to use the provisions of Article
72 to deny the respondents' claim, because the protection of a shorter limitation period, as envisioned by
that Article, is available exclusively in the case of bona fide activities. In the facts of this case, the High
Court was justified in not using Article 72 and instead invoking Article 113 (the residuary Article) to
determine that the claim was within limitation. The same was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

b) Whether a prisoner is entitled to fundamental rights?

One of the most fundamental human rights is the right to life. Art. 21 guarantee it to everyone, and no
one, not even the government, has the power to violate it. A prisoner, whether convicted, on trial, or
detained, does not cease to be a human.  Even when convicted, he holds all of his fundamental rights,
including the right to life granted by the Constitution.

Their right to movement has been restricted as a result of their conviction or engagement in criminal
activity. As stated in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), a person's personal liberty taken away
must be in line with the procedure established by law. Hence, a person's personal liberty is taken away
only in accordance with the procedure established by law.

As a result, a prisoner's Fundamental Rights, which include basic human rights, remain intact, and those
rights cannot be negated by relying on the outdated and antiquated defence of immunity in respect of
sovereign acts.

c) Whether the state can claim Sovereign immunity for damages under Article 300 of the
Constitution?

The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity has been discussed and debated in quite a number of cases. It was
said in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P. 11 that no legal or political system can place the State
above the law since it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be dispossessed of his property unjustly owing
to the negligence done by the State officers. 

Kasturi Lal's case, which affirmed the theory, has faded into insignificance and no longer has any
binding validity in this judicial procedure. The Supreme Court has previously granted compensation to
individuals who have suffered personal injuries at the hands of government officials, including police
officers and workers, in a series of cases. Furthermore, these judgments in Nilabti Behera vs. State of
11
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P., AIR 1994 SC 2663 = (1994) 6 SCC 205.
Orissa12, In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grower13, and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal(1997) 14,
would reaffirm that the law has made strides in terms of Fundamental Rights and human rights.

Hence, the State cannot claim immunity except for functions such as administration of justice,
preservation of law and order, and suppression of crime, which are among the basic and inalienable
powers of a constitutional government.

Judgment

The Supreme Court denied the appeal, ruling that the notion of the King being incapable of damage and
the Crown being immune from tort liability does not apply to the Indian legal system since power in
India is held by the people, who elect their representatives to administer the government. The Supreme
Court held that, because statutory provisions cannot override constitutional requirements, sovereign
immunity, which is a legislative justification, cannot be used in cases involving violations of basic
rights. The procedural component of this was that aggrieved people can effectively file their petitions in
trial courts for tortious actions done by the government, eliminating the requirement to go to the High
Court or Supreme Court under Articles 226 or 32.

Critical Analysis

In India, there have been no significant improvements addressing the fundamental concerns of jail
management. The basic rights granted to the nation's citizens are not absolute in nature, and limits on
their enjoyment have been placed in various ways. When a person is imprisoned, his position as a free
Indian citizen change as does the nature of the rights granted to him by the Indian Constitution. The
right granted by article 21 is the most significant of these rights. Article 21 of the Indian constitution is
the most widely interpreted; in the case of Kharak Singh v. The State of UP 15, the Supreme Court of
India adopted an interpretation of Article 21 and enlarged Field J.'s definition of "life."

Although it is unfortunate that the rights of prisoners have yet to be defined in a nation as populous and
large as India, the judiciary has not forgotten about inmates and has recognised that inmates have a
broad list of rights that prison officials must respect in the absence of law. Article 21 of the Indian
constitution, which incorporates the idea of personal liberty and been broadly construed by the Supreme
12
Nilabti Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 = 1993 (2) SCR 581 = AIR 1993 SC 1960.
13
Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grower, (1995) Supp. (4) SCC 450 = JT 1992 (6) SC 271 = 1992 (3) Scale 34.
14
D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 = AIR 1997 SC 610.
15
Kharak Singh v. The State of UP , AIR 1963 SC 1295.
Court of India, has been a key focus of dispute in the area of prisoners' rights. A guilty person's personal
liberty is fundamental, and it may only be taken away in compliance with the legal system, and
deprivation of it must be based on the most severe considerations relevant to the society's well-being.

The most significant component considered by the court with regard to article 21 is fairness and
reasonableness, and as a result of Maneka case’s ruling, it has been established that everyone within a
jail is entitled to their fundamental rights, subject to specific legal limits.

The Judgment observed by the Supreme Court in this case is highly appropriate in the light of human
rights. However, while the court found that Kasturi Lal's case had faded into insignificance and was no
longer of binding importance, it did not examine situations in which no basic rights were infringed but
other legal rights were. The question is whether sovereign immunity may be properly asserted in
contravention of such statutory rights. If the necessity to overturn the Kasturi Lal case arises, this matter
can only be determined by a Constitutional bench of seven or more judges.

Conclusion

Article 21 represents a person's right to enjoy his or her rights provided by the Indian constitution, which
is a larger notion than any basic right granted to Indian citizens and foreigners. It has been widely
interpreted in India's and other democratic countries' judiciaries. Article 21 distinguishes a prisoner from
a position like to that of an animal by ensuring a dignified existence even if the individual in question
has committed a serious crime. The constitution's goal was to constantly promote human dignity and
equality among the nation's citizens, and this goal has been critically realized and implicated by
numerous decisions issued by India's court. The effects of these decisions have contributed to convicts
having a better living style and treatment, but there is still a long way to go because the prison
authority’s implementation of these rights has to be enhanced, and inmates have yet to be recognised as
human beings. Without a doubt, this case has stamped its mark in the evolution of Rights for the
prisoners and has upheld the purpose of human rights.