Page |1

SVKMS

NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED ON;

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS A METHOD OF PUNISHMENT

IN COMPLIANCE TO PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING

SCHEME, FOR TRIMESTER V OF 2016-2017, IN THE SUBJECT OF

LAW OF CRIMES-I

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. ISHA KHURANA

SUBMITTED BY:

NIDHI MAHAJAN (A029)

SY B.B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)

 Page |2

INDEX

SrNo. Table Of Contents PgNo.

1 TABLE OF CASES 3

2 CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION 6-9

3 CHAPTER 2:LEGAL ANALYSIS

CONCEPT OF REFORMATIVE THEORY
CONCEPT OF DETERRENT THEORY 10-13
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
MISEMPLOYMENTOF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
4 CHAPTER 3: ROLE OF JUDICIARY
SUNIL BATRAS CASE 14-16
UNNI KRISHNANS CASE
5 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 17-18
 Page |3

TABLE OF CASES

SRNO CASE

1 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR

1978SC 1675

2 J. P. Unnikrishnan v. the State of Andhra

Pradesh case (A.I.R. 1993 SC 2178)

3 Zaibuddin Ansari case

 Page |4

TITLE: Solitary confinement as a method of punishment

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The legality of solitary confinement has been frequently

challenged over the past sixty years as conceptions surrounding the practice have changed. Much
of the legal discussion concerning solitary confinement has centered on whether or not it
constitutes torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

OBJECTIVES:

To study the adverse effects of solitary confinement

To make the readers aware about the relevant case laws
To understand the constitutionality of solitary confinement

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
The researcher will rely upon relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), landmark cases
and any other sources which the researcher may find relevant with topic.

a) Gaur K.D., Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co.
b) The Indian Penal Code (IPC) (1860) bare act, Universals Publication.
c) Dr. K.I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillai's Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis; Eleventh ed. (2012)

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Does solitary confinement provide the real purpose of rehabilitation?
Have the reformative theories of punishment become redundant which make
deterrent theories a better method of punishment?
 Page |5

HYPOTHESIS
The judiciary through various judgments has widened the scope of article 21 of the constitution.
It violates the basic concept of human dignity. It denies basic human rights. Solitary confinement
is more of a torture than punishment. But the present day witnesses the prisons to have become
redundant in their objective and becoming sites of breeding for hardcore criminals. This is a fact
that the penologists must look into.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
For this project, the researcher would rely on the works of others on record. Therefore, the
research method used will be secondary, which would be consisting of legal journals, newspaper
articles, commentaries, textbooks etc.
 Page |6

CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION
1
We live in general public. Our activity might be productive to us or may profit to us yet in the
meantime those extreme activities might be unfavorable to the next. In this way, to keep away
from such conflicts, the general public makes standards, principles and laws which are sponsored
by authorizations. As the authorizations are forced individuals are constrained to tail them. This
is with a specific end goal is to maintain peace and stay away from a condition of 'disorder'. In
this way, it is imperative for everybody to know the laws, the standards and tenets of the general
public. This in short this is called 'Socialization'. To wind up a mingled regular people one must
learn decorum, quirks and kindness from two social gatherings, one being the essential gathering
which is the family and the optional gathering which are school, peers and different associates.
Consequently with a specific end goal to maintain a strategic distance from aberrance one must
be mingled and after that just a single can be "restrained".
2
Every general public has its own particular manner of social control for which it outlines certain
laws furthermore says the punishments with them. These assents are only the disciplines. 'The
main thing to say in connection to the meaning of discipline is the insufficiency of definitional
hindrances expected to demonstrate that one or other of the proposed avocations of disciplines
either sensibly incorporate or legitimately prohibited by definition. Punishment has the following
components.

It involves the deprivation of certain normally recognized rights, or other measures

considered unpleasant.
It is consequence of an offence
It is applied against the creator of the offence
Its applied by an organ of the system that made the act an offence.

A Punishment is allotted by the Authority as a burden of an undesirable or offensive result upon

a group or individual, accordingly and obstacle to a specific activity or conduct that is considered
unsuitable, debilitating to some standard or potentially infringes upon the principles or laws by
which the social group is represented.

Punishments, whether lawful or divine, needs defense. Since the defense of legitimate discipline
has been given more noteworthy thought by logicians than has the avocation of awesome
discipline by scholars, the philosophical ideas and theories of punishment, (i.e. the supports) will

1
Brian Bix, Jurisprudence: Theory and context, sweet and Maxwell (2012)
2
S.M.A. Quadri, Criminology &Penology, Eastern book company(2014)
 Page |7

be utilized as a reason for considering divine discipline. Numerous Analytical scholars have
distinctive sentiment about the Punishment, some say that they have a retributive esteem; some
say that they are hindrance.

The bone of contention is that what does Jurisprudence needs to say in regards to Punishment?
With a specific end goal to answer this question it gets to be obligatory to give the meanings of
the Punishment according to various prominent Law Thinkers like Bentham, Austin and Hart.

3
Bentham is considered as the author of the Analytical deduction since he was the primary
individual to incorporate the ideas of Sovereign and his acclaimed rule of 'Laissez Faire'. Truth
be told he was the principal individual to ever energize the Codification of law. As indicated by
Bentham he trusted Punishment to be the main end of the General Prevention. Bentham's
supposition on Punishment is "All discipline is fiendishness; all discipline in itself is
malevolent". In the event that we could consider an offense which has been submitted as a
detached reality, the like of which could never repeat, discipline would be pointless. It would just
be just adding one malevolence to another. However, when we think about that as an unpunished
wrongdoing leaves the way of wrongdoing open, to an indistinguishable reprobate from well as
to each one of the individuals who may have similar thought processes and open doors for
entering upon it, we see that discipline caused on the individual turns into a wellspring of
security for all. That discipline which considered in itself seemed base and hostile to every
liberal estimation is raised to the primary rank of advantages when it is viewed not as a
demonstration of fierceness or retaliation against a liable or heartbreaking person who has
offered approach to evil slants, yet as a key yield to the basic security. Bentham encouraged and
said, "If the malevolence of discipline surpass the abhorrence of the offense, the discipline will
be unrewarding; he will have bought exception from one underhandedness to the detriment of
another".

4
The best possible point of punishment, as of whatever else, is to create pleasure and avert pain
as proposed by Bentham in his Principle of 'Laissez Faire'. Presently all discipline is in itself

3
Crimmins, James E. ,Jeremy Bentham ,Standford encyclopedia of philosophy, Mar 17, 2015

4
Hugo Adam Bedau, Bentham's Utilitarian Critique of the Death Penalty,1983.
 Page |8

pain. Thusly, for Bentham, all discipline is in itself hurt. Consequently it must be legitimized if
this specific torment is exceeded by the decrease in pain (or increment of joy) it causes. On the
off chance that individuals are discouraged by discipline from doing things which would deliver
more agony, then the discipline will be defended. If not, there is no reason for discipline or
retaliation for its own purpose. This resistance of discipline legitimizes discipline as well as
empowers on a basic level the exact figuring of how much discipline is fitting. It is that sum
whose agony is exceeded by the torments of the activities it dissuades. Consequently the
hypothesis of Jeremy Bentham is for the most part in light of 'Prevention'. Bentham through his
compositions ensured that discipline when subjected ought not be of more deplorable nature than
the wrongdoing executed by the wrong practitioner. The PLEASURE ought to outperform the
PAIN. If not then the degenerate can take it contrarily and the motivation behind discipline
would be folded.

The following Analytical scholar to be talked about is John Austin5. He was of the view that the
'law is the order of the sovereign, supported by approvals'. 6For the subject of Corporal
Punishment the words "Command" and "Sanctions" are essential. "Commands" include a
communicated wish that something be done, joined with an eagerness and capacity to force "a
malevolence" if that desire is not conformed to. The expression "Sanctions" implies
punishments/disciples. Commands can be sure or negative, and can incorporate reward or
discipline by state offices; common outcomes or the direct of one's inner voice are not, for this
situation, honest to goodness sanctions. Accordingly we can plainly observe that Austin was of
the view that the Commands of the Sovereign must be taken after in the event that they are
upheld by disciplines or critical outcomes if the said summons are not being taken after.

7
Another idea of disciplines was given by H.L.A. Hart who was likewise one of the pioneers of
the Analytical school of law. Hart's nine expositions on Punishment and Responsibility were
composed in the year 1957-67 and it was distributed in the year 1968. Many issues were talked
about by Hart, for example, how the wrongdoer ought to be dealt with, when ought to the death
penalty be given and would it say it was defended to give offensive disciplines? Every one of
these inquiries were dealt with by Hart in his papers. Hart guards discipline as a framework

5
Matthew H. Kramer, John Austin on Punishment, September 1, 2011
6
Polycarp Ikuenobe, The province of jurisprudence determined.
7
Summers, Robert , The University of Toronto Law Journal 19, no. 4 (1969).
 Page |9

intended to diminish wrongdoing yet in the meantime to regard opportunity, particularly

flexibility to pick in the light of the lawful outcomes. For a more entire support a retributive
component, comprising in the cancellation of additions or the reproach of wrongdoing, should be
acquired.

To finish up we can state that the Analytical masterminds had faith in the Sovereign yet they
have distinctive perspectives over Concept of Punishment. Hart and Kant had faith in
RETRIBUTION, Bentham had faith in REHABILITATION, Austin had confidence in
organization of SANCTIONS keeping in mind the end goal to comply with the order of the
Sovereign. Envision every one of these announcements were made quite a while back and these
exceptionally explanations are still such a great amount of material in today's situation.
 P a g e | 10

CHAPTER 2: LEGAL ANALYSIS

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

We ought not repay injustice with injustice or to do harm to any man, no matter what we
have suffered from him- Plato

THE CONCEPT OF REFORMATIVE THEORY:

As indicated by this theory, the purpose of punishment ought to be the change of the criminal,
through the technique for individualization. It depends on the humanistic rule that regardless of
the possibility that a guilty party carries out a wrongdoing, he doesn't stop to be a person. He
may have carried out a wrongdoing under conditions which may never happen again. In this
manner an exertion ought to be made to change him amid the time of his imprisonment. The
purpose of punishment ought to be to realize the ethical change of the guilty party. He should be
instructed and showed some workmanship or industry amid the time of his detainment with the
goal that he might have the capacity to begin his life again after his discharge from prison. While
granting punishment the judge ought to ponder the character and age of the guilty party, his
initial reproducing, his instruction and environment, the conditions under which he submitted the
offense, the protest with which he conferred the offense and different elements. The question of
doing as such is to familiarize the judge with the correct way of the conditions so he may give a
punishment which suits the conditions. The reformative theory says that punish the sin and not
the sinner.

The backers of this theory fought that by a thoughtful, careful, and adoring treatment of the
guilty parties, a progressive change might be realized in their characters. Indeed, even the
remorseless solidified detainees can be improved and changed over into accommodating
companions by great words and mellow proposals. Serious punishment can simply degrade them.
Man dependably kicks against pricks. Whipping will make him shy away. Risk will bring about
resistance. Jail hellfire may make the soul of insubordination of God and man. Hanging a
criminal is simply an affirmation of the way that individuals have neglected to change the failing
native. Beatings like whipping and pillory devastate all the finest conclusions and delicacy in
man. Mellow detainment with probation is the main method of punishment affirmed by the
promoters of reformative theory.
 P a g e | 11

The reformative theory is also called rehabilitative sentencing. The reason for punishment is to
"change the guilty party as a man, so he may turn into a typical well behaved individual from the
group by and by. Here the accentuation is put not on the wrongdoing itself, the mischief brought
on or the prevention impact which discipline may have, however on the individual and the
identity of the guilty party."

THE CONCEPT OF DETERRENT THEORY:

One of the primitive strategies for punishments have trust in the way that if extreme disciplines
were delivered on the wrongdoer would hinder him shape rehashing that wrongdoing. The
individuals who carry out a wrongdoing, it is expected, determine a mental fulfillment or a
sentiment satisfaction in the demonstration. To kill this slant of the brain, discipline delivers
meet quantum of anguish on the guilty party with the goal that it is no more drawn out appealing
for him to complete such committal of violations. Delight and agony are two physical emotions
or impression that nature has given to humanity, to empower him to do certain things or to stop
from specific things, or to fix wrong things already done by him. It resembles giving both a
capable motor and a similarly capable brake in the vehicle. Induced by taste and great hunger,
which are sentiments of delight a man over-eats. Ravenousness and surfeit make him stout and
he begins enduring illness. This causes torment. He counsels a specialist and from that point he
begins eating less carbs . Subsequently the individual before eating similarly would reconsider
and may not in the slightest degree take that sustenance. In social life discipline presents the
component of "pain" to revise the abundance activity of a man did by the drive (joy) of his brain.
We as a whole like especially to seize openings, however loathe when we confront dangers. Yet,
truly agony, danger or difficulties really reinforces and cleans a man thus an association.

8
The deterrent principle has been prominent throughout history in systems of punishment. The
English practice of drawing and quartering represents one of the most ingenious devices for
edification of the potential criminal. The hangings at the crossroad were intended to achieve the
same end, though in a somewhat less spectacular manner. In Colonial America the use of the
pillory and stocks served to remind those of evil inclination that the course of lawlessness had its

8
John C. Ball, Deterrence Concept in Criminology and Law,(1955)
 P a g e | 12

disadvantages. In sum, it may be said that the deterrence concept has been evident through the
ages in Western thought concerning crime and punishment.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

Solitary confinement is the worst kind of practice; there are many real stories that have been
affected by solitary confinement. Indian Supreme Court Judgment says that Solitary confinement
is an isolation of the prisoner from co-prisoners and complete segregation form the society; it is
an extreme measure to be invoked in exceptional cases only9. Misusing of the solitary
confinement against convict degrading the fundamental right of prisoner and it is against the
spirit of Indian Constitution. Being in solitary confinement the most of the prisoner may be
stressful experience with potential harmful health effects. The prisoner separated from the other
inmates, who lead to mental and physical pain and suffering 10.

MISEMPLOYING THE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT:

The question is implementation of solitary confinement is essential? The main purpose of using
solitary confinement is to reform the prisoner and it is also used as additional measure for
protection of prisoner. It is rarely exercised in cases like hardened criminals in severe crimes.
The question is that imposing the solitary punishment leads to the violation of article 21 and 19?
Absolutely practicing the solitary confinement is violation of article 21 and article 19. The article
gives us Protection of life and personal liberty in those cases restricting the person who is either
prisoner has to enjoy the complete rights that are established by constitution by article right to
life. 11In the Unni Krishnan & others V. State of Andhra Pradesh & others case as per Supreme
Court right against solitary confinement is one of the rights that falls under article 21 of the
constitution 12 Another important question is that whether solitary confinement is Maltreating by
Prison authorities? In my sense I will agree with it one of cases related it is zabiuddin ansari
case, the suspect Zabiuddin ansari who is suspected for planning and coordinating of the 2008
Mumbai attacks, he has been protest against the prolonged solitary confinement in trial

9
K.D Gaur, Indian penal code, Universal Law Publishing, ed. 5(2015).
10
Shalev, S. , A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement,(2008).
11
J. P. Unnikrishnan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh case (A.I.R. 1993 SC 2178)
12
VageshwariDeshwal, Taxmans Criminal Law and other concepts of Substantive Criminal Law , (2007)
 P a g e | 13

detention. The Maharashtra government said that it is necessary to ensure zabiuddinS safety. But
solitary confinement is only the way to protect and safeguard prisoners? It cannot leave to whim
and caprice of prison authorities 13. Is solitary punishment is degrading the dignity of humans? It
said with that because everyone has right to live his life with all the freedoms which are lawful.
The law must be right, just and fair not arbitrary or fanciful or oppressive. One of most important
case about solitary confinement is Sunil Batra case keeping the prisoner in the solitary rooms for
longer period is regarded as barbaric and would amount to violation of fundamental rights14. In
the medical sense is solitary confinement is a best practice to impose on prisoners? Undoubtedly
no because it will cause many metal illness problems and Solitary confinement is a shortcut to
the socio psychological death of prisoners. It has severe, adverse and irreversible psychological
impact. In 2011, lawyer and human activist JUAN E MENDEZ said that prisoners who spend
more than 15 days in solitary confinement may be prone to irreversible psychological damage15.
The deprive person who is in that practice, therefore have been some exceptions imposed on
them. According to section 73 and 74 of I.P.C, 1860.

13
Amnesty International Report, URGENT ACTION: Health of solitary confinement prisoner, Zabiuddin Ansari, at
risk, 29th sept (2015).
14
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978SC 1675
15
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code-As Amended By The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Lexis Nexis; Third
edition (1 December 2013)
 P a g e | 14

CHAPTER 3: ROLE OF JUDICIARY

Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment in which an inmate is isolated from any human
contact, with the exception of members of prison staff. In India, maximum period of solitary
confinement is 3 months and it shall not exceed 14 days at a time. Relevant provisions of solitary
confinement are sections 73 and 74 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Solitary confinement falls under the category of deterrent theory of punishment as discussed
above. The Indian judiciary through various judgments has widened the scope of article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. It is said that solitary confinement as a punishment violates the basic
concept of human dignity. It denies basic human rights. Solitary confinement is considered more
of as a torture rather than a punishment. It is considered as unconstitutional.

With the following cases we will try understand what role the judiciary plays in the case of
solitary confinement. The previous decade has seen an expanding cognizance about the allure of
jail changes. It is presently being perceived that a reformative logic and a rehabilitative
procedure must frame a piece of jail equity.

THE SUNIL BATRA CASE

Awareness about prisoners rights was created among the people by the above mentioned
decisions. But no substantial reform had been made by the Central Government or the State
Governments except the appointment of some Prison Reform Committees. In spite of this, the
Supreme Court has taken initiative in order to humanise jail administration to some extent. The
two Sunil Batra cases are significant decisions to this direction.

16
The petition in Sunil Batra (I) was filed by two inmates confined in the Tihar Jail challenging
the legal validity of Section 30[62] and 56[63] of the Prisons Act. Sunil Batra, a convict under
sentence of death challenged his solitary confinement. Charles Sobhraj, a French national and
then an under trial prisoner challenged the action of the Superintendent of Jail putting him in bar

16
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978SC 1675
 P a g e | 15

fetters for an unusually long period commencing from the date of incarceration. Such a gruesome
and hair raising picture was painted out that at some stage of the hearing, Chief Justice M. H,
Beg, V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. and P. S. Kailasam, J. who were the judges hearing the case visited
the Central Jail, Tihar.

17In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the isolation of a detainee, who was granted the
capital sentence for having submitted the offense of murder under Section 30(2) of the Prisons
Act, 1894, was held awful as it was forced not as a result of the infringement of the jail discipline
but on the ground that the detainee was one under sentence of death. Desai, J., brought up that
the conviction of a man for a wrongdoing did not diminish him to a non-individual defenseless
against significant disciplines forced by the correctional facility powers without recognition of
procedural shields. It was also held that bar-fetters, to a very considerable amount, imposed
under Section 56 of the Prisons Act , 1894, curtail if not wholly deprive, locomotion which is
one of the facets of personal liberty and such action can only be justified in the circumstances
relatable to the character of the prisoner and his safe custody. In any case, detainees have no
Fundamental Right to escape from legitimate care, and henceforth, the nearness of armed men
causes no impedance with the Right to Personal Liberty. So likewise, detainees can't gripe of the
establishment of the live-wire component with which they are probably going to come in contact
just in the event that they endeavor to escape from the jail. Likewise, the disavowal of luxuries or
their poor support doesnt really constitute an infringement on the Right to Personal Liberty. In
the event that a detainee requests that he ought to be expelled to a ward with more unwinding
and despises keeping convict cooks or having superintendents as jailmates in his cell, the
Superintendent of the jail may legitimately turn down such demands in perspective of the
detainee's record and potential.

18
Justice Krishna Iyer while speaking for majority in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration made it constitutionally clear that when a person gets arrested, he steps into the
prison cell with his fundamental rights intact and not in devoid of them, he also made it amply
clear that Article 21 is to be interpreted in the widest possible sense because fundamental rights
form the spirit of the Constitution and Article 14, 19 and 21 are the spirit of the fundamental

17
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978SC 1675
18
ibid
 P a g e | 16

rights- over and onto which all other fundamental rights rest. Thus, it is an important right
safeguarding the right to life of prisoners.

19
The Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III .These rights are
guaranteed by the constitution. One of these rights is provided under article 21 which reads as
follows:-

20
Article 21. Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

In the case 21Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P It was observed in Unni Krishnans case that Article
21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing
that the life includes the education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to
life.The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right
to rehabilitation after release, right to livelihood by legal means and decent environment. The
expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Unni
Krishnan v. State of A.P. and the Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered
under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements such as the right to go abroad; the right
to privacy; the right against solitary confinement; the right against hand cuffing; the right against
delayed execution; the right to shelter; the right against custodial death; the right against public
hanging and Medical assistance. In this case the Supreme Court held that article 21 which is right
to life & personal liberty also includes the right against solitary confinement22.

It is true that Art.21 is worded in negative terms but it is now well settled that Art.21, has both
negative and affirmative dimension. Positive rights are very well conferred under article Art.21
of the constitution.

19
Dr. J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency; ed. 51 (2014)
20
ibid
21
J. P. Unnikrishnan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh case (A.I.R. 1993 SC 2178)
22
Vidhan Maheshwari, Article 21 of The Constitution of India - The Expanding Horizons, 26th sept (2010)
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm
 P a g e | 17

CHAPTER 4:CONCLUSION

We can see from the above contentions that the Indian Judiciary and the Indian Constitution are
not in the favor of solitary confinement. It is said that it is unconstitutional. It is said to deprive a
human of his basic rights. It is said to strip of a person from his dignity. But the question for
contention is that are the reformative theories of punishment effective in the present context
Some views on this are represented by Levrant, who thinks that the acceptance of restorative
justice is based more on humanistic sentiments rather than restorative justices effectiveness.
In many cases, at times it doesn't work easily, on the grounds that an in-your-face criminal can't
be improved. On the off chance that we acknowledge it then crooks will rehash a similar sort of
offense. That is the reason; rather than striving for the transformation of his criminal personality
he ought to be rebuffed. Subsequently, one might say that the Reformative hypothesis will be
more powerful on the off chance that it is planned to supplement typical discipline, as opposed to
supplant it altogether. Hardened and professional offenders hardly respond favorably to
reformative ideology because they are incorrigible offenders with whom crime is not so much a
bad habit but it is an ineradicable instinct in them. For such offenders, deterrent punishment is
perhaps the only alternative. Even if criminals are treated as patients some of the hardened
criminals are incurably bad. If prisons are turned into comfortable place, the prison might turn
into dwelling place, at least for poor people. Even with the application of the theory crime rate is
ever increasing. Salmond says that the application of the purely reformative theory leads to
astonishing and inadmissible results. So now bone of contention is that does solitary confinement
provide its real purpose of rehabilitation? As it is said that instead of reforming the prisoner it
causes them mental distress which leaves them with no time or opportunity for reformation. But
the thing that we need to understand here is that in India the maximum period of solitary
confinement is 3 months and not more than 14 days at a stretch. It should be understood that the
reason that a prisoner lands up in the solitary confinement is due to his misconduct in the jail or
the gravity of offence committed by him. He needs harsh punishment to create the deterrent
effect. With the evolving society the crime rates are also ever increasing there needs to be
amendments and harsher punishments to create the deterrent effect in the society. The example
of the change in the judiciary system we can see that after the infamous Delhi gang rape case in
after which a bill was passed in the rajya sabha in which The bill allows for juveniles 16 years or
 P a g e | 18

older to be tried as adults for heinous offences like rape and murder. Heinous offences are those
which are punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.

But the present day witnesses the prisons too have become redundant in their objective and are
becoming sites of breeding for hardcore criminals. This is a fact that the penologists must look
into. So the researcher would like to conclude by saying that solitary confinement as a method of
punishment is fair. Punishments like these are important in a society to create deterrent effect.