Holding

The right to interview prisoners under Articles 19 and 21 is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions; permission and special authority are required for interviews and tape‑recording.

Summary

Freelance journalist Sheela Barse was initially permitted by the Inspector‑General of Prisons to interview female inmates in Maharashtra jails, but the permission was withdrawn when she began tape‑recording the interviews. She filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming a constitutional right to know about jail administration under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 and arguing that the press has a special duty to inform the public. The State contended that the permission violated the Maharashtra Prison Manual and Visitors of Prisons Rules, 1962, and that the Constitution did not confer such a right on journalists. The Supreme Court held that while Articles 19 and 21 guarantee a right to information, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions; interviews with prisoners must be regulated, and tape‑recording requires special permission. The Court directed that the petitioner may re‑apply for permission in accordance with the guidelines laid down, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

The extent of the right to information and freedom of speech under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution as it applies to journalists interviewing prisoners.
Whether the withdrawal of permission to interview and tape‑record prisoners is justified under the Maharashtra Prison Manual and Visitors of Prisons Rules, 1962.
Whether reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the press's access to prisoners and the conditions under which tape‑recording is permissible.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 21
Maharashtra Visitors of Prisons Ruless. 1962

Subjects

Freedom of speechRight to informationPrisoners' rightsPress freedomReasonable restrictionsArticle 19Article 21Tape recordingPrison administrationJudicial review

Judgment

A SHEELA BARSE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SEPTEMBER 18, 1987

B [RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]

Permission to journalists to interview prisoners and tape-record 'r
the interviews, guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21-Benefits
thereoffor all the citizens.

c Sheela Barse, a free lance journalist, sought permission to
interview the female prisoners in the Maharashtra State ,Jails. The
permission was granted by the Inspector-General of Prisons. As, how-
ever, the journalist started tape-recording her interviews with the pris-
oners, the permission to interview was withdrawn. Feeling ag"rieved by
the cancellation of the permission, the journalist moved this Court in its
D writ jurisdiction on the ground that a citizen has a right to know under
Articles 19(l)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, if the Government is
administering the jails in accordance with law, and that the Press has a
special responsibility to collect information on public issues to educate
the people. The permission in question was cancelled, as stated by the
Inspector-General of Prisons in his counter-affidavit to the Writ Peti-
E tion, on the ground inter alia that the permission bad been granted to
the petitioner in contravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual and
the rules made thereunder, which govern the interviews with the pris-
oners; the petitioner, an amateur free lance journalist not employed by
any responsible newspaper, was not covered by the said rules. The
respondent also contended that the Articles of the Constitution referred
F to by the petitioner were not attracted to the case.

Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court,

HELD: The term 'life' in Article 21 covers the living <"Onditions of
the prisoners, prevailing in the jails. The prisoners are also entitled to
G the benefit of the guarantees provided in the Article subject to reason·
able restrictions. It is necessary that public gaze should be permitted on
the prisoners, and the pressmen as friends of the society and public-
spirited citizens should have access to information about, and interviews
with, the prisoners. But such access has to be controlled and regulated.
The petitioner is not entitled to uncontrolled interviews. The factual
H information collected as a result of the interviews should usually be
210
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (MISRA, J.J 211

cross-checked with the authorities, so that a wrong picture or a situation A
~ may not be published. Disclosure of correct information is necessary,
but tJ1ere is to be no dissemination of wrong information. Persons, who
get permission to interview have to abide by reasonable restrictions. As
for tape-recording the interviews, there may be cases where such tape-
recording is necessary, hut tape-recording is to be subject to special
permission of the appropriate authority. There may be some individu- B
als or class of persons in the prisons with whom interviews may not be
permitted for reasons indicated by this Court in Prabha Dutt v. Union
of India & Ors., (1982] 1 S.C.R. 1184. The interviews cannot be forced
upon anyone and willingness of the prisoners to be interviewed is always
to be insisted upon. There may also be certain othe1· cases, where, for
good' reasons, permission to interview the prisoners may be withheld, C
which situations can be considered as and when they arise. [21SC;
217F; 218B, E-H; 219A-B)
The petitioner can make a fresh application for permission to
interview the prisoners, which is to be dealt with in accordance with the
guidelines laid down hereinabove. [219B) D
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1184;
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1979) 1 S.C.R. 392 and Francis
Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors.,
(1981] 1 S.C.C. 608, referred to.

f/ ORIGINALJURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1053of 1982. E

, (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Soleman Khurshid and K.K. Luthra for the Petitioner.

( S.B. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the F
1
""\,Respondent.

L.R. Singh for the Intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioner is a Bombay-based free
lance journalist who had sought permission to interview women pris-
i oners in the Maharashtra jails and on 6.5.1982, the Inspector-General
of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female
pr!soners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail, the Yerawada Central
Jail at Pune and the Kolhapur District Jail. When the petitioner started H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A tape-recording her interviews with the prisoners at the Bombay Cent-
ral Jail, she was advised instead to keep notes only of interviews.
When the petitioner raised objection on this score, the Inspector-
General of Prisons orally indicated that he had changed his mind.
Later, the petitioner was informed that grant of permission to have
interview was a matter of discretion of the Inspector-General and such
B interviews are ordinarily allowed to research scholars only. Petitioner
has made grievance over the withdrawal of the permission and has
pleaded that it is the citizen's right to know if Government is
administering the jails in accordance with law. Petitioner's letter was
treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Return has been made to the rule nisi and the Inspector-General
c of Prisons in his affidavit has pleaded that the petitioner is a free lance
journalist and is not employed by any responsible newspaper. The
permission issued in favour of the petitioner was under administrative
misunderstanding and mistaken belief and was in contravention of the
Maharashtra Prison Manual. When this fact was discovered the per-
D mission was withdrawn. It has been pleaded that interview with pris-
oners is governed by the rules made in the Maharashtra Prison Manual
and the petitioner does not satisfy the prescription therein so as to
justify grant of permission for having interviews with prisoners. The
Inspector-General wrote a letter to the petitioner on 31st May, 1982,
explaining therein that normally the prison authorities do not allow
E interviews with the prisoners unless the person seeking interview is a
research scholar studying for Ph. D. or intends to visit the prison as a
part of his field work of curriculum prescribed for post graduate course
etc. The letter further indicated that there was no rules for permitting
interviews except to the relatives and legal advisers for facilitating
defence of prisoners. The Inspector-General further indicated in his
F letter that there was no inherent right of journalists to elicit informa-
tion from prisoners.

The counter affidavit further indicated that the State Govern-
ment has prescribed a set of rules known as the Maharashtra Visitors
of Prisons Rules, 1962. A Board of Visitors is constituted for every jail
G and the Board consists of both ex-officio visitors and non-official
visitors appointed by the State Government. The members of the Board
are expected to inspect the barracks, cell wards, work sheds and other
buildings; ascertain or make enquiries about the health, cleanliness, -k
security of prisoners and examine registers of convicted and under trial
prisoners, punishment books, other records relating to prisoners,
H attend to representations, objections etc. made by prisoners, make
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MISRA, J.] 213

entries in the visitors' book abou their visits. It was finally indicated in A
the counter affidavit that the petitioner was an amateur journalist and
had published 'certain articles in the newspapers and magazines with-
out realising the impact thereof; many of such allegations and the
so-called hearsay stories said to have been collected from the under
trials were one-sided and nothing but exaggeration of facts. Such arti-
cles written by her were defamatory, irresponsible and no mature B
journalist would have published such rec~less articles.
y We have heard Mr. Salman Khurshid Ahmed for the petitioner
and Mr. Bhasme for the State of Maharashtra and have considered the
written submissions filed on behalf of both in furtherance of their
submissions. c
r
...
I( According to the petitioner and her counsel Articles 19(1)(a) and
21 guarantee to every citizen reasonable access to information about
the institutions that formulate, enact, implement and enforce the laws
of the land. Every citizen has a right to receive such information
through public institutions including the media as it is physically im- D
possible for every citizen to be informed about all issues of public
importance individually and personally. As a journalist, the petitioner
has a right to collect and disseminate information to citizens. The press
has a special responsibility in educating citizens at large on every
public issue, The conditions prevailing in the Indian prisons where
both under trial persons and convicted prisoners are housed is directly E

r connected with Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the obligation of
Society to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained in the jails
and humane conditions -prevail therein. In a participatory democracy
as ours unless access is provided to the citizens and the media in
particular it would not be feasible to improve the conditions of the jails
/ and maintain the quality of the environment in which a section of the F
'\,population is housed segregated from the rest of community.

On behalf of the State it has been contended that neither of the
Articles is attracted to a matter of this type. The rules made by the
Government are intended to safeguard the interests of the prisoners.
The Board contemplated under the Rules consists of several public G
officers both executive and judicial, Apart from that there is a body of
non-official visitors as provided in Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Rules.
Detailed provisions have been made ;n the Rules as to the duties of the
-1 visitors and the manner in which the visitors have to perform the same.
It has been further contended that the idea of segregating the prisoners
from the community is to keep the prisoners under strict control and H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) I S.C.R.

A cut off from the community. If unguided and uncontrolled right of visit
is provided to citizens it would be difficult to maintain discipline and +-
!he very purpose of keeping the delinquents in prison would be
frustrated.

In the case of Prabha Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., [1982) 1
B SCR 1184 this Court was considering the claim of a journalist to in-
terview two condemned prisoners awarding execution. The learned
Chief Justice said:

"Before considering the merits of the application, we
would like to observe that the constitutional right to free-
dom of speech and expression conferred by Article
c 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of ~
the press, is not an absolute right, nor indeed does it confer ~
any right on the press to have an unrestricted access to !k
means of information. The press is entitled to exercise its
freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter
D which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which .
does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, public order, decency and morality.
But in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is
not the right to express any particular view or opinion but
the right to means of information through the medium of
E an interview of the two prisoners who are sentenced to ·~
death. No such right can be claimed by the press unless in
the first instan~, the person sought to be interviewed is
willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free press does
not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to
supply there is under section 161 (2) of the Criminal Proce·
F dure Code. No data bas been made available to us on the \
basis of which it would be possible for us to say that the two ;.-
prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed .... ,
"
Dealing with the matter further learned Chief Justice stated:
G
"Rule 549 (4) of the Manual for the Superintendence and
Management of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides
that every prisoner under a sentence of death shall be
allowed such interviews and other communications with his
relatives, friends and legal advisers as the Superintendent
H thinks reasonable. Journalists or newspapermen are not
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MISRA, J.) 215

expressly referred to in clause (4) but that does not mean A
that they can always and without good reasons be denied
the opportunity to interview a condemned prisoner. If in
any given case, there are weighty reasons for doing so,
which we expect will always be recorded in writing, the
interview may appropriately be refused. But no such con-
sideration has been pressed upon us and therefore we do B
not see any reason why newspapermen who can broadly,
and we suppose without great fear of contradiction, be
termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an

- r
interview under clause (4) of the Rule 549."

That Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citi-
zens to freedom of speech and expression is not the point in issue; but
C

j
the enlarged meaning given to the provisions of Article 21 by this
Court would, however, is relevant. The meaning given to the term
'life' will cover the living condition prevailing in jails.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1979] 1 SCR 392 a D
Constitution Bench of this Court was examining the effect 0f Article
21 in regard to a condemned prisoner. The Court observed thus:

"Judges, eveo within a prison setting, are the real, though
restricted, ombudsmen empowered to prescribe and pre-
scribe, humanize and citizens and life-style within the E
careers. The operation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 may be
pared down for a prisoner but not puffed out altogether.
For example, public addresses by prisoners may be put
down but talking to fellow prisoners cannot. Vows of
silence or .taboos on writing poetry or drawing cartoons are
violative of Article 19. So also, locomation may be limited F
by the needs of imprisonment but binding hand and foot,
\ with hoops of steel, every man or woman sentenC<Od for a
'
term is doing violence to Part III ....... "

The Constitution Bench quoted with approval from Munn v.
Ilino's, (1877] 94, U.S. 113, to emphasise the quality of lif.e covered by G
Article 21. The same Constitution Bench judgment further siates:

" ........ so, when human rights are hashed behind bars,
constitutional justice impeaches such law. In this sense,
courts which sign citizens into prisons have an onerous duty·
to ensure that, during detention and subject to the H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988) l S.C.R.

A Constitution, freedom from torture belongs to the detenu."

In Francis Coralie Mu/in v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi &
Ors., [1981] lSCC608thisCourtpointedoutthat:

" ...... A prisoner or detenu is not stripped of his funda-
B mental or other legal rights, save those which are inconsis-
tent with his incarceration and if the constitutional validity
of any such law is challenged, the court would have to

-
decide whether the procedure laid down by such law for
depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair
and just ........ "
c It was also.pointed out in this case that 'life' included the right to live
with human dignity. In A.K. Roy etc. v. Union of India & Anr., (1982]
2 SCR 272 the word was found:

" . . . . . . . . . . . to include the necessity of right such as
D nutrition, clothing. shelter over the head, facilities for
reading. writing, interviews with members of the family
and friends, subject, of course, to present regulation, if any
"

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the observations of this ~.
E Court in the case of S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[ 1982] 2 SCR 365 at page 598, where it was said:

"Now it is obvious from the Constitution that we have 4
adopted a democratic form of Government. Where a soci-
ety has chosen to accept democracy as its credal faitb, it is
F elementary that the citizens ought to know what their '
government is cioing. The citizens have a right to decide by ).
whom and by what rules they shall be governed and they·
are entitled to call on those wlio govern on their behalf to
account for their conduct. No democratic government can
survive without accountability and the basic postulate of
G accountability is that the people should have information
about the functioning of the government. It is only if
people know how government is functioning that they can
fulfil the role which democracy assigns to them and make ..)..
democracy a really effective participatory democracy.
"Knowledge said James Madison, 'will for ever govern
H ignorance and a people who mean to be their own gover-
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (MISRA, J.J 217

nors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A
A popular government without popular information on the
means of obtaining it, is but a prologue to a force or
tragedy or perhaps both'. The citizens' right to know the
facts, the true facts, about the administration of the
country is thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And
that is why the demand for openness in the government is B
increasingly growingin different parts of the world."
-y· "The demand for openness in the government is
based principally on two reasons. It is now widely acct:pted
:;; that democracy does not consist merely in people exercis-
ing their franchise once in five years to choose their rulers,
and once the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and not
c
' taking any interest in the government. Today it is common
"-
J ground that democracy has a more positive content and its
orchestration has to be continuous and pervasive. This
means inter alia that people should not only cast intelligent
and rational votes but should also exercise sound judgment D
on the conduct of the government and the merits of public
policies, so that democracy does not remain merely a
sporadic exercise in coting but becomes a continuous pro·
cess of government-an attitude and habit of mind. But
this important role people can fulfil in a democracy only if
it is an open government where there is a full access to E
+ information in regard to the functioning of the govern·
ment."

We endorse these observations as a correct statement of the
position. We also reiterate the views expressed in several decisions of
this Court that "life" in Article 21 has the extended meaning given to F
)
the word and those citizens who are detained in prisons either as
under-trials or as convicts are also entitled to the benefit of the

' "" guarantees subject to reasonable restrictions.

Judicial notice should be taken of the position that on account of
intervention of courts there has been a substantial improvement in the G
conditions prevailing in jails. The provisions of jail manuals have
undergone change; the authorities connected with the jail administra-
tion have changed their approach to administration and method of
+ control there has been a new awakening both in citizens in general and
the people detained in jail. Indisputably intervention of the courts has
been possible on account of petitions and protests lodged from jails; H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

A news items published in the Press. We may not be taken to mean that
the rules prescribed for administration of prisons are of no value at all.
Yet, until the appropriate attitude grows in the administrative estab-
lishment the provisions in the several manuals applicable to the jails in
the country would not provide adequate safeguard for implementation
of the standards indicated in judicial decisions. It is, therefore, neces-
B sary that public gaze should be directed to the matter and the press-
men as friends of the society and public spirited citizens should have
access not only to information but also interviews. Prison adminis-
trators have the human tendency of attempting to cover up their lapses
and so shun disclosure thereof. As an instance, we would like to refer
to incidents in the Tihar Jail located at the country's capital under the
C very nose of the responsible administrators. -
In such a situation we are of the view that public access should be
permitted. We have already pointed out that the citizen does not have
any right either under Article 19(1)(a) or 21 to enter into the jails for
collection of information but in order that the guarantee of the funda-
D mental right under Article 21 may be available to the citizens detained
in the jails, it becomes necessary to permit citizen's access to informa-
tion as also interviews with prisoners. Interviews become necessary as
otherwise the correct information may not be collected but such access
has got to be controlled and regulated.

E We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the petitioner's claim
that she was entitled to uncontrolled interview. We agree with the
submission of Mr. Bhasme for the respondent that as and when factual
'
information is collected as a result of interview the same should usually
be cross-checked with the authorities so that a wrong picture of the
situation may not be publised. While disclosure of correct information
F is necessary, it is equally important that there should be no dissemina-
tion of wrong information. We assume that those who receive permis-
sion to have interviews will agtee to abide by reasonable restrictions.
Most of the manuals provide restrictions which are reasonable. As and
when reasonableness of restrictions is disputed it would be a matter for
examination and we hope and trust that such occasions would be in-
G deed rare. We see reason in the stand adopted by Mr. Bhasme relating
to the objections of his client about tape-recording by interviewers.
There may be cases where such tape-recording is necessary but we
would like to make it clear that tape-recording should be subject to
special permission of the appropriate authority. There may be some
individuals or class of persons in prison with whom interviews may not
H be permitted for the reasons indicated by this Court in the case of
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MISRA, J.) 219

Prabha Dutt (supra). We may reiterate that interviews cannot be A
forced and willingness of the prisoners to be interviewed would always
be insisted upon. There may be certain other cases where for good
reason permission may also be withheld. These are situations which
can be considered as and when they arise.
B
The petitioner is free to make an application to the prescribed
authority for the requisite permission and as and when such applica·
tion is made, keeping the guidelines indicated above, such request may
be dealt with. There will be no order for costs.

S.L. Petition disposed of.
c

-