-By Aditi Behura
Introduction
Solitary confinement is a penal form of confinement in which a prisoner is isolated from fellow prisoners and is under rigorous surveillance. It has been established that such confinement is torturous, and has an adverse impact on the holistic well-being (physical and mental health) of the prisoner. Convicts are placed in solitary confinement for several different reasons. When prisoners are placed in solitary confinement as a form of punishment for what is considered to be extreme behavior such as violence against fellow inmates, they are usually made to stay there for a fixed period of time as a disciplinary measure. There are certain situations wherein solitary confinement is administratively imposed by prison officials targeting certain individuals or groups, who are kept there for an indefinite period of time. Solitary confinement is also used to house protective custody prisoners when it is believed that there is a risk to their safety if they are placed in a shared space in the prison system.
Solitary Confinement in the Indian Legal Context
The provision for solitary confinement can be found under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 29 of the Prisons Act. Under the Indian Penal Code, the court when sentencing an offender to rigorous imprisonment has the power to order the offender to be kept in solitary confinement for a period not exceeding 3 months in toto. A convict can be placed in solitary confinement under the Prisons Act under two circumstances- firstly, in order to discipline them and secondly, if they are facing capital punishment. In this context it is important to note that the phrase ‘sentenced to death’ has been interpreted to mean that a final executable death sentence has been passed against a person. This means that if a person is placed in solitary confinement prior to their mercy petition being rejected, then the same shall be violative of Article 21. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, it was highlighted that it is not permissible for prison authorities to place prisoners in solitary confinement, as such an approach would contravene the Prisons Act. It is only the courts which can order for the convicts to be placed in solitary confinement. Therefore, under the current scenario, convicts have a right against solitary confinement when such confinement is not in consonance with the provisions of the Prisons Act.
It has been established that the right to life under Article 21 means more than mere animal existence; it entails a right to live with human dignity. Therefore, it can be said that the right to life is undermined and deprived by every act which violates one’s human dignity. The same holds for prisoners; it is not permissible to violate their fundamental rights due to their culpability and confinement, and their human dignity must be upheld under all circumstances. In the case of Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration, it was held that the fundamental rights of those who are legally confined cannot be dispossessed by prisons. In Sunil Batra, the court highlighted that the effect of solitary confinement on persons is dehumanizing and degrading, as it inflicts physical and mental harm on those who are subjected to it. It was further observed that the curtailment of the right to move, mingle and be in the company of other prisoners violates Article 21 unless it is backed by law. The cognizance of every individual’s dignity, including a person facing criminal charge has also been promoted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Through an RTI query filed seeking information regarding the state of solitary cells, it was learnt that each solitary confinement cell is covered with layers of metal and unbreakable glass sheath. A light, which can be operated only through a switch placed outside the cell, is turned on permanently so that the prisoner cannot distinguish between day and night. The air supply in the cell is limited, and the cell is devoid of any windows. The food is supplied to the prisoner through a small trapdoor. In this context, it is important to note that such treatment is in violation of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). For instance, Rule 14 requires that the windows of the cell shall be large enough to allow fresh air into the cell as well as allow the prisoner to read or work by natural light.
Overcorrection Leading to Relapse
A study conducted by Dr. Stuart Grassian has revealed that individuals placed in solitary confinement experience symptoms such as hallucination, hypersensitivity, anxiety and fantasies which include torturing the prison guards. The psychological effects of solitary confinement are capable of causing lingering after effects even when such persons are reintegrated into the society. The effect of solitary confinement includes mental illnesses and negative feelings such as anger, which creates a vicious cycle by triggering behavior which leads to more time spent in solitary confinement as punishment, which in turn induces more anger in the prisoner. According to the defiance theory put forth by Mears and Bales, when prisoners are placed in solitary confinement, they feel mistreated, which affects their faith in the legitimacy of prison systems. It was highlighted that despite solitary confinement being an extremely severe sanction, it does not have much deterrent effect, but actually increases recidivism. This is because solitary confinement does not allow prisoners to form social bonds and removes positive stimuli from the environment of the prisoners.
According to Rule 4 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the underlying purpose behind imposing a sentence of imprisonment or other similar measures resulting in the deprivation of rights of a person is to reduce recidivism and ensure that the person is reintegrated into the society in a manner which promotes law-abiding behavior. To facilitate this goal, the competent authorities are required to offer programmes, activities and services such as education, vocational training and work. Other factors which are known to decrease recidivism include maintaining family ties during imprisonment and assistance in reacclimatizing with the society after release. However, when prisoners are placed in solitary confinement, they lose access to such programmes and services which have been proved to reduce recidivism, implying that solitary confinement is not compatible with the aforementioned factors, and hence, also with the reduction of recidivism. Many researchers such as Thornicroft and Karremans et al. have highlighted that meaningful social interactions can positively impact a prisoner’s physical and mental health, whereas social isolation can deteriorate their overall well-being. Further, solitary confinement entails extremely stringent security and surveillance procedures, which tend to generate dehumanizing and degrading conditions for the prisoner.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In its 42nd Report, the Law Commission recommended the abolition of solitary confinement and its omission from the Indian Penal Code as a punishment, considering it to be in contravention of modern thinking. A prisoner should be isolated only for their safety and protection; solitary confinement should not be used as a punitive method against prisoners. In this context, it is important to note that while the negative consequences of solitary confinement are suffered by protective custody prisoners as well, their circumstances are different from those who have been involuntarily placed in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is believed to afford a certain level of physical protection to protective custody prisoners, and hence, may be preferred by them. Further, such confinement entails some degree of actual or perceived control by the prisoners over their retention. Even in scenarios of solitary confinement for protection, prisoners need to be separated from a certain person or group, and not the entire prison community. Therefore, solitary confinement in its absolute sense need not be imposed even if it is in the interest of the prisoner for their protection. Further, in a situation wherein solitary confinement is believed to be absolutely necessary for protecting the prisoner, they should be given opportunities to work, study and engage in other programmes and activities which would facilitate functional behavior.
Research on the dangers of solitary confinement is serving as a foundation for many movements among human rights organizations and mental health professionals calling for the restriction, if not complete abolition, of the practice of placing prisoners in isolation. To reiterate, this practice should not be invoked unless believed to be absolutely necessary as a ‘last resort’, and for a limited period of time as deemed to be necessary to achieve legitimate penological goals.
[The author is a third-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student at National Law University, Delhi.]
The Criminal Law Blog 