Conviction, in Indian judicial system imposes restraints only on personal liberty, but not on right to life. Discuss the above statement with respect to custodial treatment meted out to disabled persons in prisons.
Refer – The Hindu
IAS Parliament 6 years
KEY POINTS
· In India, it is a settled law that prisoners may be deprived of personal liberty according to procedure established by law.
· But, it does not mean that, it includes derogation of their right to dignity.
· Components constituting right to dignified life may be different for different persons. It is different for disabled persons too.
· It also raises a question that, if handcuffing is an extraordinary and excessive restraint on an ordinary prisoner, what constitutes excessive restraint beyond the writ of law for a person with disabilities?
· Placing disabled persons in solitary confinement with no support in prisons violates their right to life, bodily integrity and autonomy under Article 21.
· Depriving their right to life is punishment far in excess of the sentence awarded by the court.
· Right to privacy judgment asserts privacy as an integral part of the right to human dignity and is comprehended within the protection of life as well.
· Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2013, respects for inherent dignity, individual autonomy, independence of persons and accessibility.
· In conditions of custody, disabled persons must be protected from any hindrance to the exercise of bodily integrity and autonomy with dignity — this lies at the core of their right to privacy.
· Therefore, it is necessary for every court to develop a sensibility towards and understanding of what constitutes human dignity and protection of life for persons located differently in the social order.
Adhi 6 years
The judicial system of the country is the greatest Light for all the citizens, authority etc., Courts being the last resort for the citizen's justice the recent incident of a professors conviction in Nagpur jail brings light on the disabled person's status in the prison,which narrates us about the gap remains in our judicial system which is to be filled.
Judiciary restraints person's liberty as the person is found guilty is welcomed whereas the person health should also to be considered after conviction as this is also a basic FR given by our constitution as "Right to life" which is a gap have to be addressed.
Once the conviction is given, the person is who is under the custody
have to be taken care if he/she is supposed to be an disabled person is also a duty of the prison.
The care should be given depending upon the percentage of disablement like the cases against mentally disabled person has been handled entirely different but which is not a case for physically disbled person.
Still the punishment given for the crime he done, it is mandatory to take care of the health as he has his FR for right to life.This is the thought of our constitution makers ,if not they would have given all kinds of crimes a single status of giving death sentence. The constitution makers found that their future generations of justice would intellectually solve the issues with different views and get the best out of it.
Now this is in the hands of our judiciary to seperately deal this issue by giving proper treatment for disabled person after conviction by regulations.
