THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERSversusVIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH TIWARY @ BIKASH NATH

                   [2025] 2 S.C.R. 63 : 2025 INSC 79

                 The State of Jharkhand & Others
                                v.
           Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2025)
                               17 January 2025
              [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order/
       memo dated 17.05.2023 issued by the Inspector General of
       Prisons, Ranchi, Jharkhand, making intra-State transfer of the
       respondent herein from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central
       Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka, within the State of
       Jharkhand.

                                  Headnotes†
       Prisoners Act, 1900 – s.29 – State Jail Manual, 1925 – Rule
       770(b) – The Respondent herein was convicted for offences
       u/ss.302/120-B/34, 353/34, 341/34 of the Penal Code, 1860;
       ss.25(1-A), 26/35, 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w. ss.3/4/5 of
       the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and was sentenced to
       undergo life imprisonment – Inspector General of Prisons
       by memo dated 17.05.2023 transferred him from Lok Nayak
       Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to the Central
       Jail, Dumka – Respondent filed writ petition before the High
       Court – The High Court set aside the order of transfer dated
       17.05.2023 – Correctness:
       Held: In the instant case, the Jail superintendent by letter dated
       16.05.2023 expressed apprehension of gang war/untoward incident
       in the prison, due to the presence of two notorious criminals; and
       insufficient kachpals to maintain them, which pose a challenge
       to the prison administration and hence, made intra-State transfer
       request, so as to ensure the safety of the prison – Based on
       the apprehension so raised, the Inspector General of Prisons by
       exercising his powers conferred u/s.29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900
       and the applicable rules, transferred the respondent to another jail
       within the State, for security of the prison and to ensure the life

* Author
64                                                                [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


      and safety of the respondent in the prison – The transfer so made
      was in accordance with law – There is a duty on the Inspector
      General of Prisons to ensure the safety of all the inmates in the
      prison – This measure was essential to ensure not only the safety
      of the prisoner but also to disrupt and neutralize the potential for
      gang-related violence within the prison – Such decision of shifting
      the respondent was only in the larger interest of maintaining
      security of the prison – There is a profound rational behind the
      decision and therefore, such decision does not suffer from the
      vice of arbitrariness – Thus, the transfer of the respondent to
      some other jail is not only lawful, but also necessary for his safety
      and security – The High Court erred in setting aside the order of
      transfer dated 17.05.2023 – Thus, the order of the High Court is
      set aside and the order/memo dated 17.05.2023 stands restored.
      [Paras 13, 16]
      Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 – Rule 35 –
      Prison Manual 2016 – Chapter IX – Rule 9.01 (vii) – Discussed.
      [Para 14]

      Constitution of India – Art.21 – Rights of prisoners – Reforms
      and rehabilitation of the prisoners:
      Held: The prison administration needs to be reformed for creating
      a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners
      enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21 – It is essential to
      continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison,
      compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners,
      etc. – The State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty
      but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and
      as person – His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic
      amenities should be made available to him – Discipline and order
      shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than
      is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with
      due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners – Thus,
      the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to
      be pursued diligently. [Para 17.2]

      Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 – Prison
      Manual 2016 – Direction issued:
      Held: The State of Jharkhand directed to formulate or expedite
      the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the applicable
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           65

                  The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
             Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

     provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective prison
     administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison
     authorities. [Para 18(iii)]

                             Case Law Cited
     State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and
     others [2012] 11 SCR 916 : (2012) 13 SCC 192; Kalyan Chandra
     Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 3 SCC 284; Sunil Batra v. Delhi
     Administration and Others [1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC
     494; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu
     Yadav (2005) 3 SCC 284; State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor
     Hasan Gulam Hussain, 1995 Crl.LJ 765 SC; Rama Murthy v.
     State of Karnataka (1997) 2 SCC 642; Inhuman Conditions
     in 1382 Prisons, In re [2017] 14 SCR 519 : (2017) 10 SCC
     658 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Arms Act, 1959; Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Prisoners Act,
     1900; Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023; Prisons
     Act, 1894; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
     Section 29 of Prisoners Act, 1900; Transfer to another jail;
     Intra-State transfer request; Prisons; Safety in prisons; Safety of
     prisoners; Gang-related violence; Security of prisons; Rights of
     prisoners; Reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     240 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPCR No. 318 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Ms. Pallavi Langar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Honey Khanna,
     Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Vivek Krishna Tankha, Sr. Adv., Inder Dev Singh, Vipul Tiwari,
     Anuj Agarwal, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Advs. for the Respondent.
66                                                              [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                               Digital Supreme Court Reports


                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                               Judgment

        R. Mahadevan, J.

1.      Leave granted.
2.      The present appeal is filed by the State of Jharkhand and others,
        against the final order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court of
        Jharkhand at Ranchi1 in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 318 of 2023, whereby
        the High Court quashed the order / memo dated 17.05.2023 issued
        by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ranchi, Jharkhand, making
        intra-State transfer of the respondent herein from Lok Nayak Jai
        Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka,
        within the State of Jharkhand.
3.      It is the words of Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The degree of civilization in a
        society can be judged by entering its prisons”. Prisons are considered
        as the ‘tailend’ of the criminal justice system. They have existed since
        ancient times, where anti-social elements were kept in, for deterrence
        and retribution. But, in modern days, a prison connotes a correctional
        mechanism, thereby emphasizing the reform of inmates. Prison life
        necessitates certain constraints on the freedom of inmates. Therefore,
        it is imperative on the part of the prison authorities to rehabilitate
        the prisoners into law abiding citizen, besides maintaining security
        and rule of law in the prison. With this preface, we will delve into
        the issue involved in this appeal.
4.      The short facts apropos are that by judgment dated 22.09.2020, the
        respondent was convicted in connection with a case in S.T.No.141/2016
        arising out of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.610/2015, corresponding
        to G.R.No.2325/2015 for the alleged offences under sections 302/120-
        B/34, 353/34, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections
        25(1-A), 26/35, 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, r/w Sections 3/4/5 of the
        Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and was sentenced to undergo life
        imprisonment. He was also implicated as accused in other cases in
        the Districts of Hazaribagh, Chatra, Ramgarh and Ranchi. Alleging
        that without affording any opportunity and in violation of the principles


1     Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            67

                     The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
                Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

      of natural justice, the respondent was transferred from Lok Nayak Jai
      Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to the Central Jail, Dumka,
      by memo dated 17.05.2023 of the Inspector General of Prisons, he
      moved the High Court by filing the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.318
      of 2023, to quash the same. It was also stated by the respondent
      that similar orders of transfer dated 30.10.2015 and 02.11.2015
      passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, in connection with
      Patratu P.S. Case No.309/2014 corresponding to G.R.No.5151/2014,
      were quashed by the High Court, vide order dated 08.03.2016 in
      Crl.M.P.No.2267 of 2015. After hearing both sides, the High Court
      set aside the order of transfer dated 17.05.2023 and accordingly,
      disposed of the writ petition, by order dated 21.08.2023, which is put
      to challenge before us, by the State authorities.
5.    The learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted
      that the respondent is a gangster and is known across the State
      of Jharkhand for his notoriety, having stronghold in four Districts
      namely, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Ramgarh and Chatra of the State of
      Jharkhand. As per the records, the respondent has been in prison
      as an undertrial prisoner from 04.08.2015 to 21.09.2020 and as
      convict from 22.09.2020 onwards. Despite the same, nearly 10 FIRs
      were registered against him i.e., in the years 2015 (Two FIRs), 2016
      (one FIR), 2020 (one FIR), 2021(one FIR), 2022 (Four FIRs) and
      2023 (one FIR). The respondent however did not disclose his entire
      criminal antecedents and made a false statement to this effect in
      paragraph 24 of the writ petition that ‘no new case has been instituted
      against him’. The High Court, without appreciating this fact, set aside
      the order transferring the respondent to some other jail. While so, it
      erroneously placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the State
      of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and others 2 and
      the earlier order of the High Court dated 08.03.2016 made in Crl.M.P.
      No.2267 of 2015, without taking note of the fact that the respondent
      is a convict and not an undertrial prisoner.
      5.1. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the appellants
           submitted that on the basis of the Letter of the Jail Superintendent
           dated 16.05.2023 addressed to the District Commissioner as
           well as the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, requesting


2    [2012] 11 SCR 916 : (2012) 13 SCC 192
68                                                             [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                                Digital Supreme Court Reports


               the transfer of the notorious criminals namely, Vikash Tiwari
               (Respondent herein) and Aman Singh confined in Lok Nayak
               Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to any other prison,
               due to apprehension of gang war / untoward incident inside the
               jail, and insufficient Kachpals in keeping strict vigilance over
               such criminals, and also in the light of the recommendation of
               the District Commissioner, Hazaribagh, the Inspector General
               of Prisons transferred the respondent to any jail in Santhal
               Pargana, by memo dated 17.05.2023, which, according to
               the learned counsel, is a reasoned one, based on true and
               tangible inputs provided by the authorities below and it is only
               to protect the life and liberty of the respondent herein and to
               ensure security of the prison.
       5.2. That apart, it is submitted that the order of intra-State jail
            transfer passed by the Inspector General of Prisons against
            the respondent, who is a convict and serving life imprisonment,
            was in consonance with section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900
            r/w Rule 770(b) of the State Jail Manual, which empowers the
            said authority to pass the same, based on sufficient grounds.
       5.3. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
            the contention of the respondent that the said intra-State jail
            transfer poses a threat to his life, is self-defeating, as the jail
            authorities’ primary intention behind the transfer was to ensure
            his safety and security in light of the anticipated gang war
            between rival groups within the jail premises.
       5.4. With regard to the certificate dated 19.05.2023 issued by the
            Jail Superintendent about the character of the respondent, it
            is submitted that the same is not in accordance with law, but
            is a farce and misleading one.
       5.5. To justify the order of transfer passed by the Inspector General
            (Prison), the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this
            Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.3
       5.6. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order passed by
            the High Court is arbitrary and illegal and hence, the same has
            to be set aside.


3     (2005) Vol. III SCC 284
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            69

                     The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
                Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

6.    Repudiating the submissions made on the side of the appellants,
      the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that
      there was no material on record to demonstrate that the respondent
      was involved in any untoward incident inside the prison, nor the
      appellants produced any substantive evidence to fortify their claim
      for transfer. As such, the apprehension of gang war expressed by
      the appellants is unfounded.
      6.1. Inviting our attention to the certificate dated 19.05.2023 issued
           by the Jail Superintendent, Hazaribagh, to the effect that the
           character of the respondent was satisfactory, the learned counsel
           for the respondent submitted that the character certificate of an
           inmate is routinely sought for before arriving at any administrative
           or judicial decision. However, in the present case, without
           inquiring into the character of the respondent, the Inspector
           General of Prisons, Jharkhand, passed the transfer order on
           17.05.2023, which only creates suspicion that the same was
           passed without application of mind, in a pre-determined manner
           and with mala fide intention.
      6.2. It is also submitted that as a matter of routine, around 10 cases
           were registered against the respondent, while he has been in
           jail. Further, the respondent was lodged in the Central Jail,
           Palamau from 09.11.2017 till 09.09.2022. Therefore, it cannot be
           said that the cases registered against him during such period,
           are due to any influence he wields by being lodged in Central
           Jail, Hazaribagh.
      6.3. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that
           the respondent is an undertrial prisoner in the other cases
           registered against him, which are pending in the Districts of
           Hazaribagh and Ramgarh and hence, as per the judgment
           of this Court in Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra), his transfer to
           Dumka Jail which is situated distantly, is bound to prejudice
           him. Reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in
           Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others,4 in which, it was
           observed that ‘where quality of life or the liberty of a citizen is
           affected, no matter he/she is under a sentence of imprisonment
           or is facing a criminal charge in an ongoing trial. That transfer


4    [1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC 494
70                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           of an undertrial to a distant prison may adversely affect his right
           to defend himself but also isolate him from the society of his
           friends, and relations’. It is thus submitted that the respondent,
           though convicted and under confinement, does not lose his
           right to defend himself as undertrial prisoner in the other cases.
      6.4. It is also submitted that the respondent and Aman Singh
           were brought to Central Jail, Hazaribagh on 09.09.2022
           and 06.12.2022 respectively; and they had been confined at
           Hazaribagh together for more than 6 months and no untoward
           incident has taken place during that period. Furthermore, based
           on the communications of the Jail Superintendent as well as
           the District Commissioner dated 16.05.2023, the prisoner Aman
           Singh was transferred from Central Jail, Hazaribagh, and came
           to be lodged at Central Jail, Dhanbad, where he was shot dead
           on 03.12.2023 in suspicious circumstances. Hence, the life of
           the respondent is at stake and he will be executed, in case, he
           is transferred to any other prison as was done with Aman Singh.
      6.5. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
           considering all these aspects, the High Court rightly exercised
           its power of judicial review and set aside the order of intra-State
           jail transfer of the respondent, by the order impugned herein
           and therefore, the same does not call for any interference at
           the hands of this Court.
7.    We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
      materials available on record carefully and meticulously.
8.    The challenge made before the High Court was to the order dated
      17.05.2023 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, in the
      form of memo, transferring the respondent from Lok Nayak Jai
      Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh to Central Jail, Dumka,
      within the State of Jharkhand, on administrative grounds. For better
      understanding, the contents of the said memo are extracted below:
           “Vikash Tiwari, a gangster of Pandey gang, undergoing
           life imprisonment for the murder of the Sushil Srivastava
           (a leader of Srivastava Gang) is to be transferred from
           Hazaribagh Central Jail to any jail in Santhal Pargana. In
           the light of receipt of continuous complaints against Vikash
           Tiwari, and the hard stance of the Addl. D G (Operation),
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            71

                  The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
             Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

           the DC, Hazaribagh and the SP Hazaribagh, on yesterday,
           made a recommendation to the IG Prison, Jharkhand,
           Ranchi for the transfer of. Vikash Tiwary from Hazaribagh
           Central Jail.”
     It is thus apparent from the above that such transfer was made by
     the Inspector General of Prisons, entirely on the recommendation
     of the District Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police,
     Hazaribagh, based on the letter dated 16.05.2023 addressed by
     the Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
     Hazaribagh.
9.   Notably, the communication dated 16.05.2023 sent by the Jail
     Superintendent explicitly stated that notorious criminals viz.,
     respondent herein and Aman Singh have been confined in the same
     prison, as a result of which, there is threat of gang war / untoward
     incident in the prison; due to shortage of kachpals, it is difficult to
     exercise strict vigilance over the criminals; in the event of gang war,
     the Jail administration may face extreme difficulties in controlling them;
     and hence, the said notorious criminals may be transferred to any
     other prison, on administrative grounds, so that the security of the
     prison remained unaffected. The District Commissioner also, in his
     letter dated 16.05.2023, referred to the said communication of the
     Jail Superintendent and requested the Inspector General of Prisons,
     to take necessary action for transfer of the said accused persons
     to any other prison, on administrative grounds. On consideration
     of these two communications, the Inspector General of Prisons
     passed the said transfer order on 17.5.2023, which was assailed
     by the respondent before the High Court. Thus, the reason for such
     transfer was that the confinement of two notorious criminals in the
     same prison raised a gang war threat, and the shortage of kachpals
     would hinder control over the criminals and pose a challenge for
     the jail administration and hence, transfer was sought for effective
     maintenance of the prison.
10. However, by the order impugned herein, the High Court set aside
    the transfer order so made by the Inspector General of Prisons,
    stating that the prayer of the respondent not to shift him to any
    other jail was earlier allowed by the High Court vide order dated
    08.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.2267 of 2015; and the certificate issued by
    the Superintendent of Hazaribagh jail dated 19.05.2023 disclosed
72                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      no adverse remarks against the respondent and his character as
      satisfactory; and further placing reliance on the decision of this Court
      in Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra).
11. Specifically, it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants
    that the order of transfer passed by the Inspector General (Prison)
    was in terms of Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 r/w Rule
    770(B) of the State Jail Manual. For easy understanding, the said
    provisions are extracted below:
           “29. Removal of prisoners - (1) The State Government
           may, by general or special order, provide for the removal
           of any prisoner confined in a prison –
           (a) under sentence of death, or
           (b) under, or in lieu of, a sentence of imprisonment or
           transportation, or
           (c) in default of payment of a fine, or
           (d) in default of giving security for keeping the peace or
           for maintaining good behaviour, to any other prison in
           the State.
           (2) Subject to the orders, and under the control of the State
           Government, the Inspector General of prisons may, in like
           manner provide for the removal of any prisoner confined
           as aforesaid in a prison in the State to any other prison
           in the State.”
      By Act 30 of 2000, the State of Jharkhand was brought into existence
      on 15.11.2000 by carving out certain southern districts of Bihar. The
      State of Jharkhand has adopted many Acts and Rules applicable to
      the State of Bihar. The Jail Manual, 1925 as applicable to the State
      of Bihar has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Rule 770 (b)
      of the said rules as applicable to the present case, reads as under:
           “Rule 770(B) - Long-term prisoners on admission to
           District Jails, who are certified fit to travel by the Medical
           Officers may be transferred to the affiliated Central Jails,
           irrespective of their age.
           Nothing in this rule contained, shall be deemed in any way
           to interfere with the power of the Inspector General for
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           73

                  The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
             Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

           sufficient reason, in his discretion, by general or special
           order to direct that any class or class of prisoners shall
           be confined in or transferred to any jail or class of jails”.
     Thus, Section 29 makes it clear that removal of any prisoner in
     a prison to any other prison within the State is at the instance of
     the State Government, in cases where the prisoner is confined in
     circumstances mentioned by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1); and
     subject to the order and under the control of the State Government,
     the Inspector General of Prisons is empowered to remove any
     prisoner confined as aforesaid in a prison to any other prison in
     the State. The said provision does not speak about an undertrial
     prisoner. That apart, Rule 770(B) empowers the Inspector General
     to shift/transfer a prisoner from one jail to another jail on sufficient
     grounds. The first limb of Section 29 empowers the State government
     to issue general or specific order to remove the prisoner under any
     of the circumstances in clause (1) of Sub-section (1). Sub-section
     (2) of Section 29 confers similar powers to the Inspector General
     of Prisons to order for such transfer, however subject to orders and
     under the control of the State government. In the instant case, no
     adverse order or proceeding of the State government is brought to
     our knowledge. The substantive right flows from the Section and
     Rules as applicable, enables the Inspector General of Prisons, on
     discretion to transfer a prisoner from one prison to another or from
     one class to another. The only caution, we may add, is that such
     discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Admittedly, the respondent
     herein is a life convict and undergoing sentence in the Central Jail,
     Hazaribagh, pursuant to the judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed
     in S.T.No.141/2016 arising out of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case
     No.610/2015, corresponding to G.R.No.2325/2015. In view of the
     said provisions of law, the order of transfer passed by the Inspector
     General of Prisons citing administrative grounds, was in accordance
     with law.
12. It is interesting to note that the High Court, while setting aside the
    transfer order, referred to the decision of this Court in Saeed Sohail
    Sheikh (supra), wherein, the petitioners therein were undertrial
    prisoners; and the order of the High Court passed earlier on
    08.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.2267 of 2015 filed by the respondent, who
    was at that time, in prison as an undertrial prisoner. As indicated
    above, the respondent is now a life convict and undergoing sentence
74                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh. Therefore, the aforesaid orders are
      not applicable to the present circumstances of the case. In fact, in
      Saeed Sohail Sheikh (supra), it was clearly stated by this Court
      that Sub-section (2) no doubt empowers the Inspector General of
      Prisons to direct a transfer, but what is important is that any such
      transfer is of a prisoner who is confined in circumstances mentioned
      in sub-section (1) of Section 29. That is evident from the use of
      words any prisoner confined as aforesaid in a prison. The expression
      leaves no manner of doubt that a transfer under sub-section (2) is
      also permissible only if it relates to prisoners who were confined in
      circumstances indicated in sub-section (1) of section 29’. As such,
      reference made to the said decision seems to be misplaced.
13. To justify the order passed by the High Court, the learned counsel
    for the respondent heavily placed reliance on the character certificate
    issued by the Jail Superintendent on 19.05.2023. Indisputably,
    the power of giving character certificate is entrusted to the Jail
    Superintendent as he is the authority, who closely watches the
    activities of the inmates for a considerable amount of time. However,
    as noticed earlier, the Jail superintendent by letter dated 16.05.2023
    expressed apprehension of gang war / untoward incident in the
    prison, due to the presence of two notorious criminals; and insufficient
    kachpals to maintain them, which pose a challenge to the prison
    administration and hence, made intra-State transfer request, so as
    to ensure the safety of the prison. The notorious prisoner Aman
    Singh came to be lodged in the said Jail on 22.10.2022. Based on
    the apprehension so raised, the Inspector General of Prisons by
    exercising his powers conferred under section 29 of the Prisoners
    Act, 1900 and the applicable rules, transferred the respondent to
    another jail within the State, for security of the prison and to ensure
    the life and safety of the respondent in the prison. It is also to be noted
    that before the issuance of the character certificate, the Inspector
    General of Prisons passed the order of transfer of the respondent
    to some other jail, in the light of the recommendation of the District
    Commissioner, based on the earlier letter dated 16.05.2023 sent by
    the Jail Superintendent. We have already held that the transfer so
    made was in accordance with law. That apart, the fact remains that
    while he has been in prison from 04.08.2015 to 19.05.2023, multiple
    FIRs got registered against the respondent. Even the said certificate
    has not denied the threat of gang war within the prison. Therefore,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                              75

                    The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
               Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

     the certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent, at the later date, i.e.,
     on 19.05.2023 appears to be contradictory and cannot be trustworthy,
     and the reliance placed on the same cannot be accepted by us.
14. In connection with the issue involved herein, we may additionally
    refer to the Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons and Correctional
    Services Act, 2023. Chapter IX of the Prison Manual 2016, under
    Rule 9.01 provides for list of grounds, under which a transfer can
    be made and it is on case-to-case basis. It is significant to note that
    the ‘ground of security’ has been mentioned in Rule 9.01(vii). That
    apart, Rule 35 of the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act,
    2023 deals with safe custody and security of prisoners, wherein,
    it was explicitly pointed out that the officer-in-charge of the prison
    shall be responsible to undertake effective measures for ensuring
    safe custody and security of prisoners; and the Head of Prisons &
    Correctional Services shall be empowered to transfer a prisoner to
    any other prison in the State/UT, as may be prescribed under the
    rules. Moreover, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias
    Pappu Yadav,5 it was pointed out that a convict or an undertrial who
    disobeys the law of the land, cannot contend that it is not permissible
    to transfer him from one jail to another, because the Jail Manual
    does not provide for it. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
            “23. Therefore, in our opinion, a convict or an undertrial
            who disobeys the law of the land, cannot contend that it
            is not permissible to transfer him from one jail to another
            because the Jail Manual does not provide for it. If the factual
            situation requires the transfer of a prisoner from one prison
            to another; be he a convict or an undertrial. Courts are not
            to be a helpless bystander when the rule of law is being
            challenged with impunity. The arms of law are long enough
            to remedy the situation even by transferring a prisoner
            from one prison to another, that is by assuming that the
            concerned Jail Manual does not provide such a transfer.
            In our opinion, the argument of the learned counsel, as
            noted above, undermines the authority and majesty of
            law. The facts narrated hereinabove clearly show that
            the respondent has time and again flouted the law even


5   (2005) 3 SCC 284
76                                                                 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


              while he was in custody and sometimes even when he
              was on bail. We must note herein with all seriousness that
              the authorities manning the Beur jail and the concerned
              doctors of the Patna Medical College Hospital, for their
              own reasons, either willingly or otherwise, have enabled
              the respondent to flout the law. In this process, we think
              the concerned authorities, especially the authorities at the
              Beur Central Jail, Patna, are not in a position to control the
              illegal activities of the respondent. Therefore, it is imperative
              that the respondent be transferred outside Bihar.”
       Thus, it is vivid that if the situation necessitates transfer of the prisoner
       from one jail to another, it can be done by the authority concerned.
15. Furthermore, this Court in Geerinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, has
    categorically held that “the place of detention is a matter for the
    administrative choice of the detaining authority and a court would
    be justified in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation
    of any specific provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary
    considerations and mala fides”. In State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed
    Noor Hasan Gulam Hussain,6 it was held that classification of the
    prisoners and their placement in different prisons by the prison
    administration is a relevant policy decision. The discretion and power
    to interfere by the courts in such matters does exist yet it should be
    used very sparingly. Similarly, this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
    (supra), has held that the Right of a prisoner under Article 21 of the
    Constitution to be lodged in a jail and general prohibition against his
    transfer to a distantly located jail in the State or out of the State is
    not absolute. It is also subject to the amenability of the prisoner to
    the maintenance of jail discipline. The relevant passage of the said
    decision reads as under:
              “21. The fundamental right of an undertrial prisoner
              under Article 21 of the Constitution is not absolute. His
              right of visitations as also other rights are provided in the
              Jail Manual. The Respondent as an undertrial prisoner
              was bound to maintain the internal discipline of the jail.
              Such a fundamental right is circumscribed by the prison
              manual and other relevant statutes imposing reasonable


6     1995 Crl.LJ 765 SC
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          77

                  The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
             Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

           restrictions on such right. The provisions of the Bihar Jail
           Manual or other relevant statutes having not been declared
           unconstitutional, the Respondent was bound to abide by
           such statutory rules.”
     Hence, it is lucid that transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to
     another is purely an administrative decision and hence, the same
     cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary and
     contrary to law.
16. Thus, the overall analysis would abundantly demonstrate that subject
    to the orders of the State Government, the Inspector General of Prisons
    shall exercise control and superintendence of all prisons situated in
    the State, in accordance with the above stated provisions. Further,
    the prison authorities are charged with the duties of maintenance
    of discipline and peace within a prison. At the same time, there can
    be no manner of doubt that the transfer of prisoners from one jail
    to another is not a matter of routine and must be approached with
    circumspection. In the present case, the reason given for transfer
    was the existence of imminent possibility of a gang war and due to
    insufficient kachpals, the prison authorities would find it difficult to
    effectively manage such a situation, if it arises. In this exceptional
    circumstance, the Inspector General of Prisons passed the order
    transferring the respondent to another jail. There is a duty on the
    Inspector General of Prisons to ensure the safety of all the inmates
    in the prison. This measure was essential to ensure not only the
    safety of the prisoner but also to disrupt and neutralize the potential
    for gang-related violence within the prison. Such decision of shifting
    the respondent was only in the larger interest of maintaining security
    of the prison. There is a profound rational behind the decision and
    therefore, such decision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.
    Thus, we are of the opinion that transfer of the respondent to some
    other jail is not only lawful, but also necessary for his safety and
    security. However, the High Court erred in setting aside the same,
    by the order impugned herein, which is liable to be set aside.
17. At this juncture, it may not be out of sight to point out that the Indian
    Prison System has been under the close scrutiny of judiciary / District
    Magistrates, who have been given a responsibility to closely monitor
    the administration and management of prisons under their jurisdiction
    and to inspect them periodically. Since ‘Prisons’ is a State subject
    under Entry 4 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
78                                                              [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of India, the management and administration of the same comes
       within the purview of the State Governments. They are governed by
       the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison Manuals / Rules / Regulations
       framed by the respective State Governments from time to time. The
       Model Prison Manual provides guidance to the State Governments to
       maintain uniformity in the prison administration throughout the country.
       17.1. This Court has repeatedly recommended an overhaul of prison
             administration by suggesting reforms in treatment of prisoners
             and management of prisons. The dehumanized existence of
             prisoners was reprimanded by Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil
             Batra v. Delhi Administration,7 and he called for an overhaul
             of Prison Manuals in compliance with constitutional ideals
             and human rights. He further emphasised on the need for
             an independent oversight mechanism for operationalizing
             prisoners’ rights and safeguards. Subsequently, after the
             direction of this Court to examine the framing of new All India
             Jail Manual in Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka,8 the Model
             Prison Manual came into existence in the year 2003 and the
             same was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, only in
             the year 2016, pursuant to the direction of this Court in yet
             another decision in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re.9
             The Model Prison Manual and the system that it envisages,
             has to be understood as an outcome of the repeated clarion
             calls and demands to safeguard prisoners’ rights and prison
             reforms.
       17.2. The prison administration needs to be reformed for creating a
             better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners
             enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21. It is essential
             to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in
             the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights
             of the prisoners, etc. The State recognizes that a prisoner
             loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be
             treated as a human being and as person. His human dignity
             shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made
             available to him. Discipline and order shall be maintained


7     1980 AIR 1579
8     (1997) 2 SCC 642
9     [2017] 14 SCR 519 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            79

                     The State of Jharkhand & Others v.
                Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath

               with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary
               for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due
               regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners. Thus,
               the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has
               to be pursued diligently.
     17.3. As far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, there is no clear-
           cut picture regarding prison administration and the facilities
           available to the prisoners in the prisons. In Court on its own
           motion v. State of Jharkhand, WP(PIL) Nos. 6125/2017 etc.
           cases, which are pending, vide order dated 13.01.2023, the
           Jharkhand High Court was apprised regarding the drafting of
           a Jharkhand Jail Manual based on the Model Prison Manual,
           2016. The current status of the same however remains unclear.
           Hence, we deem it necessary to issue appropriate directions
           to the Government of Jharkhand for implementing effective
           prison administration and to protect the interests of prisoners.
18. In the upshot,
     (i) The order of the High Court dated 21.08.2023 stands set aside
     and the order / memo dated 17.05.2023 of the Inspector General
     of Prisons stands restored.
     (ii) The authorities shall ensure that the respondent’s life, basic and
     fundamental rights to the extent available in accordance with law,
     are protected.
     (iii) The State of Jharkhand shall, if not already done, formulate
     or expedite the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the
     applicable provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective
     prison administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison
     authorities.
19. This appeal stands allowed and disposed of, in the above terms.
    Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
    of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan