Transfer of Prisoners within and across Indian Prisons: Constitutional Parameters, Statutory Framework, and Judicial Trends

Transfer of Prisoners within and across Indian Prisons: Constitutional Parameters, Statutory Framework, and Judicial Trends

1. Introduction

The physical relocation of a prisoner from one place of detention to another—whether intra-state or inter-state—implicates an intricate matrix of administrative discretion, constitutional guarantees, statutory mandates, and penological objectives. While prison authorities regard transfer as an essential tool for security management and prison administration, the judiciary increasingly interrogates such decisions through the lenses of human dignity, fair-trial rights, proportionality, and rehabilitative penology. This article critically analyses the Indian law governing transfer to another prison, weaving together constitutional jurisprudence, the governing statutory framework, and a growing body of case law from the Supreme Court and several High Courts.

2. Statutory Framework

2.1 Prisons Act, 1894 and Prisoners Act, 1900

Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 authorises the State Government, and under its control the Inspector General of Prisons (IGP), to “remove any prisoner confined in a prison to any other prison within the State”[1]. The provision does not explicitly differentiate between convicts and under-trials, but prison manuals usually extend its application to both categories. Complementing this, State jail manuals, such as the Rajasthan Prisons Rules 1951 (Rules 153–166) and the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983 (Rules 568–573), specify permissible grounds—health, overcrowding, security, humanitarian concerns, vocation, and disciplinary exigencies.

2.2 Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950

Inter-state movement is governed by Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, which permits removal only of persons: (a) under sentence of death; (b) under, or in lieu of, a sentence of imprisonment or transportation; (c) in default of fine; or (d) in default of security for keeping the peace[2]. Notably, the provision is silent on under-trial prisoners, a lacuna acknowledged by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jail Superintendent (Ropar)[3]. Consequently, under-trial transfers beyond State boundaries depend on inherent constitutional powers or extraordinary jurisdiction (Arts. 32, 226, 142).

2.3 Model Prison Manual (2016) and International Norms

The Union Home Ministry’s Model Prison Manual encourages allocation of prisoners “as far as possible” close to their home districts to facilitate family contact, echoing Rule 59 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules). Rule 43(3) further prohibits disciplinary sanctions that “include the prohibition of family contact.” These soft-law instruments, though non-binding, inform constitutional interpretation under Articles 14 and 21 (Sunil Batra II[4]).

3. Constitutional Overlay

Any transfer order must satisfy the fourfold constitutional scrutiny of (i) legality, (ii) legitimate purpose, (iii) procedural fairness, and (iv) proportionality.

  • Article 21: guarantees life and personal liberty with dignity. A transfer that unduly severs family contact, hampers legal consultation, or endangers safety may infringe this right (T. Susanth Prathan[5]).
  • Article 14: prohibits arbitrary State action; similarly situated prisoners must be treated alike unless a rational basis exists.
  • Article 19(1)(d): though curtailed in custody, the residual freedom of movement implies a right against capricious relocation far from courts or family (V. Radhakrishnan[6]).

4. Judicial Approaches to Prison Transfers

4.1 Administrative Nature and Limited Judicial Intervention

The Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Vikash Tiwary affirmed that “transfer of a convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision” and courts may interfere only if the order is arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to law[7]. This principle is consistently echoed in High Court jurisprudence (Mr. S. Arumugam[8]; Lakshmi[9]).

4.2 Transfer to Secure a Fair Trial

The fulcrum of Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar was the accused’s intimidating clout in Siwan district. Invoking Articles 21 and 142, the Court transferred the history-sheeter M. Shahabuddin to Tihar Jail, holding that fair-trial rights of victims and witnesses outweigh the accused’s preference for proximity[10]. The decision also sanctioned video-conferencing to balance logistical and security concerns—an innovation now embedded in trial practice.

4.3 Security Management and Prison Discipline

High-profile gang rivalry, smuggling of cell-phones, and jailhouse violence often trigger transfers. The Madras High Court in Nagammal v. State of Puducherry upheld relocation prompted by an attempted jail killing, emphasising the State’s duty to maintain order[11]. Likewise, Shyokaran v. State of Rajasthan validated the Rajasthan IGP’s prerogative under Rules 153–166 to move prisoners to alleviate overcrowding and deploy convict-officers.

4.4 Humanitarian and Rehabilitative Grounds

Conversely, courts occasionally direct transfer towards the prisoner’s home State or district on humanitarian considerations where administrative reluctance appears unreasonable. In Sarvath Jahan v. DG Prisons the Madras High Court ordered a three-month temporary transfer to facilitate a terminally-ill mother’s visits[12]. Rule 568(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Rules expressly lists “humanitarian grounds, in the interest of rehabilitation” as a valid basis. The spirit echoes R.D. Upadhyay, where the Supreme Court prioritised children’s welfare over rigid incarceration protocols[13].

4.5 Proportionality as the Emerging Litmus

In V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court invoked the proportionality doctrine: a transfer order must (i) pursue a legitimate objective; (ii) impair the prisoner’s residual rights as little as possible; and (iii) maintain a fair balance between individual hardship and public interest[6]. This analytical template, borrowing from comparative constitutional law, is gaining traction in Indian prison jurisprudence.

5. Due-Process Safeguards

Although neither the Prisoners Act 1900 nor the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1950 mandates a pre-decisional hearing, courts have read procedural fairness into Article 21. Suggested safeguards include:

  • Prior intimation and an opportunity to make written representations, except in emergent security situations.
  • Recording of reasons in the transfer order to facilitate judicial review.
  • Medical certification of fitness for travel (as required by many State manuals, e.g., Rajasthan Rule 154).
  • Provision for periodic review, especially for long-distance inter-state transfers affecting family contact and legal access.

6. Persistent Challenges

  1. Legislative Lacuna for Under-trials: Absence of an explicit statutory route for their inter-state movement creates ad-hoc reliance on extraordinary writ jurisdiction, potentially leading to inconsistent standards.
  2. Transparency Deficit: Many transfer orders lack publicly available reasons, fuelling allegations of vindictiveness.
  3. Family Contact v. Security: Striking a constitutionally acceptable balance remains fact-sensitive and often litigated.
  4. Inadequate Oversight Mechanisms: Prison Visitors’ Boards and judicial inspection, envisaged in Sunil Batra II, are sporadically implemented.

7. Recommendations

  • Enact uniform Prisoner Transfer Rules under Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, crystallising grounds, procedure, and safeguards.
  • Extend Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act to under-trials by legislative amendment, with requisite caveats for production in court through electronic means.
  • Mandate a speaking order embodying proportionality analysis and, wherever feasible, a brief pre-transfer hearing.
  • Incorporate digital communication facilities to mitigate hardship caused by geographical distance, thereby aligning with Mandela Rule 58.
  • Institutionalise periodic judicial audits of transfers, leveraging the powers recognised in Sunil Batra II.

8. Conclusion

The jurisprudence on prison transfers in India reveals an evolving harmony between administrative exigency and constitutional compassion. While the executive retains primary responsibility for prison discipline and security, its discretion is cabined by Article 21 and illuminated by international human-rights norms. The trajectory from Sunil Batra II through Asha Ranjan to Vikash Tiwary and V. Radhakrishnan demonstrates a judicial insistence on reasoned decision-making, fairness, and proportionality. Legislative refinement and robust oversight can further ensure that the power to transfer, indispensable to prison administration, is exercised as an instrument of justice rather than oppression.

Footnotes

  1. Prisoners Act, 1900, s. 29.
  2. Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, s. 3.
  3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Ors., (2021) SCC —.
  4. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488.
  5. T. Susanth Prathan v. ADGP (Prisons), 2016 SCC OnLine Mad —.
  6. V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad —.
  7. State of Jharkhand v. Vikash Tiwary, (2025) SCC —.
  8. Mr. S. Arumugam v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 13389.
  9. Lakshmi v. Director General of Police, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad —.
  10. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
  11. Nagammal v. State of Puducherry, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3944.
  12. Sarvath Jahan v. DG of Prisons, Madras HC, W.P. No. 32676/2022.
  13. R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 3 SCC CR 704.