A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal challenges the High Court’s quashing of the Inspector General of Prisons’ intra-State transfer memo dated 17.05.2023, which moved Vikash Tiwary (a life-convict) from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh to Central Jail, Dumka. The prison authorities relied on a contemporaneous letter of the Jail Superintendent dated 16.05.2023 and a recommendation of the District Commissioner, citing imminent risk of gang war / untoward incident arising from co-confinement of two notorious inmates and shortage of kachpals to maintain vigilance.

The High Court set the transfer aside after noting a character certificate dated 19.05.2023 and precedents guarding undertrial rights against prejudicial distant transfers. The Supreme Court, allowing the State’s appeal, held that the Inspector General of Prisons acted under Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and applicable jail rules (Rule 770(b) of the adopted Jail Manual), and that administrative transfers to preserve security and life of inmates are permissible where reasoned, non-arbitrary grounds exist. The Court emphasized that transfer powers must not be exercised arbitrarily but observed that security concerns, shortages of supervisory staff, and multiple FIRs registered against the inmate supply a rational basis for transfer.

The judgment also underscores the continuing constitutional obligation to protect prisoner dignity under Article 21, the need for prison reforms, and directs Jharkhand to adopt a Jail Manual conforming to the 2016 Model Prison Manual.

Keywords: Section 29 Prisoners Act, intra-State transfer, prison security, gang-related violence, Article 21, Jail Manual, Rule 770(b), administrative discretion.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal turns on the permissible ambit of administrative discretion to transfer a prisoner within State prisons and the proper scope of judicial review of such transfers. The Inspector General of Prisons issued the transfer memo on 17.05.2023 relying upon a Jail Superintendent’s communication of 16.05.2023 and the District Commissioner’s recommendation. The prison authorities feared a gang-war scenario arising from co-detention of two high-profile inmates and pointed to inadequate kachpal (custodial staff) strength to maintain effective control.

The respondent, originally convicted on 22.09.2020 for multiple serious offences and serving life imprisonment, challenged the memo by writ in the Jharkhand High Court which quashed the transfer on 21.08.2023, taking into account a subsequently issued character certificate dated 19.05.2023 and earlier judicial orders favoring non-prejudicial detention of persons facing other pending trials. The State moved the Supreme Court against that setting-aside. The Supreme Court was required to reconcile the administrative imperative of prison security and inmate safety with prisoners’ Article 21 interests and established precedents limiting arbitrary dislocation of accused or prisoners to distant jails, while ensuring transfer powers are not exercised capriciously.

The Court also considered statutory/regulatory architecture Prisoners Act, 1900, the adopted Jail Manual (1925/State), Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023—in assessing legality and reasonableness of the transfer.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Vikash Tiwary was convicted on 22.09.2020 in S.T. No.141/2016 (G.R. No.2325/2015) for serious offences including murder and arms/explosive charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had extensive criminal antecedents with multiple FIRs registered between 2015 and 2023. On 16.05.2023 the Jail Superintendent of Hazaribagh communicated to the District Commissioner and SP that Vikash and another notorious inmate Aman Singh were lodged together, generating a tangible threat of gang conflict inside the Central Jail and highlighting inadequate custodial staff (kachpals). The District Commissioner recommended transfer; the Inspector General of Prisons issued the transfer memo on 17.05.2023 directing movement to any jail in Santhal Pargana (resulting in relocation to Dumka).

The respondent filed a writ petition; the High Court quashed the transfer, noting a character certificate dated 19.05.2023 describing respondent’s conduct as satisfactory and relying upon precedents protecting undertrials and the right to defend in pending cases. The State appealed. Subsequent events of concern included the transfer and later suspicious death of Aman Singh after relocation, which the respondent relied upon to assert transfer heightened risk to his life. The Supreme Court examined the administrative record, statutory powers under Section 29 and Rule 770(b), prior judicial authorities, and prison policy instruments to decide whether transfer was lawful or arbitrary.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether an Inspector General of Prisons may lawfully order intra-State transfer of a convicted prisoner under Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and Rule 770(b) on administrative grounds of prison security?
ii. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the transfer order by placing reliance on subsequent character certification and precedents applicable to undertrials?
iii. What is the permissible scope of judicial review of administrative transfers of prisoners, particularly when Article 21 and right to defend in pending trials are invoked?
iv. What safeguards and standards must prison authorities adhere to when making transfers to ensure non-arbitrariness and protection of prisoners’ fundamental rights?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The State contended that Vikash is a notorious gangster with strong influence across multiple districts; several FIRs had been registered during his incarceration, demonstrating ongoing security risk. The Jail Superintendent’s detailed letter of 16.05.2023 and the District Commissioner’s recommendation provided tangible operational grounds. The Inspector General acted under statutory power in Section 29 and Rule 770(b), exercising administrative discretion to protect prison security and the respondent’s life. The transfer order was reasoned, non-arbitrary, and aimed at preventing gang-related violence; reliance by the High Court on character certification dated 19.05.2023 ignored the contemporaneous intelligence and structural custodial weaknesses. The State invoked Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan to show courts should not be helpless where prison administration requires transfers for maintenance of discipline.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondent urged that there was no concrete material of in-prison misconduct or specific incidents justifying transfer and that the post-transfer character certificate (19.05.2023) showed satisfactory conduct. He argued earlier High Court orders protecting him when an undertrial and authority in Saeed Sohail Sheikh invoked concerns that distant transfer prejudices his ability to defend in pending matters. The respondent pointed to the suspicious death of Aman Singh after transfer as evidence of heightened danger in transfers and contended that the memo was passed without adequate application of mind and in a manner exposing him to grave risk.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 29, Prisoners Act, 1900 — removal/transfer powers of State Government and Inspector General of Prisons.
ii. Rule 770(b), State Jail Manual (adopted) — empowers Inspector General to direct transfers for sufficient reason.
iii. Prison Manual 2016, Rule 9.01(vii) — lists security as a ground for transfer.
iv. Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, Rule 35 — mandates safe custody and empowers Head of Prisons to transfer for security.
v. Article 21, Constitution of India — protection of life and dignity of prisoners and standards of treatment.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and restored the transfer memo dated 17.05.2023. The Court analyzed the statutory framework, highlighting that Section 29(2) empowers the Inspector General to provide for removal of prisoners within the State, subject to State orders, and that Rule 770(b) further preserves discretionary power for transfers on sufficient reason. The Court found the Jail Superintendent’s letter dated 16.05.2023, corroborated by the District Commissioner’s recommendation, constituted contemporary and tangible administrative inputs identifying a credible threat of gang conflict and insufficient custodial manpower circumstances that make transfer a proportionate and necessary administrative response.

The Court rejected reliance on the subsequent 19.05.2023 character certificate as inconsistent with earlier material and not negating the security imperatives contemporaneously recorded. The Court distinguished precedents like State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh on the factual matrix (there the prisoners were undertrials and particular concern was prejudice to defense), emphasizing that a convicted prisoner’s transfer for security reasons under valid statutory powers is a different scenario. The judgment reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference: administrative placement decisions warrant deference unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of law.

The Court balanced competing claims by directing protection of the respondent’s life and fundamental rights in the new location and mandating Jharkhand to adopt a Jail Manual aligned with the 2016 Model Prison Manual to ensure systemic safeguards and uniformity. The appeal was allowed, transfer restored, and directions issued for prison reform and protection of inmate rights.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that the Inspector General of Prisons, exercising powers under Section 29(2) Prisoners Act, 1900 and relevant jail rules, may lawfully order intra-State transfers of prisoners where contemporaneous, reasonable, and non-arbitrary administrative grounds (such as imminent threat to security or life and inadequate custodial resources) exist. Judicial review of such administrative transfers is deferential and confined to detecting arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory norms; presence of security-based, documented recommendations from jail authorities and district administration supplies a rational nexus to uphold a transfer even when a later character certificate exists. Transfer aimed at safeguarding the prisoner and prison order does not, per se, violate Article 21 if adequate protections and reasons are recorded.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed broadly that prison administration requires overhaul, referred to the value of the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, and called for formulation and strict compliance of a State Jail Manual. The Court remarked on judicial experience that prisons are an index of civilization and stressed humane treatment, dignity of prisoners, need for periodic inspection, independent oversight, and reforms to prevent dehumanizing conditions while maintaining discipline. It also warned courts should be cautious and sparing in interfering with prison administrative decisions unless demonstrable illegality or arbitrariness is shown.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court gave practical directions: ensure protection of the respondent’s life and basic legal rights at the receiving prison; the State of Jharkhand to expedite formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the 2016 Model Prison Manual provisions; ensure strict compliance by prison authorities with the Model Manual and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023; and that transfers be accompanied by recorded reasons, contemporaneous inputs from jail superintendents and district authorities, and adequate safeguards for rights of prisoners, with judicial oversight limited to preventing arbitrariness. Records justifying transfers must be preserved so courts can meaningfully review the decision-making.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision affirms administrative primacy in prison placement decisions while preserving judicial supervisory power against arbitrariness. It properly situates Section 29 and Rule 770(b) as valid sources for intra-State transfers where security demands it and confirms that a later friendly character certificate cannot nullify contemporaneous operational intelligence. The Court’s insistence on procedural reason-recording and alignment with Model Manuals is salutary: it binds the exercise of discretion to transparency and reviewability.

The judgment balances prisoner dignity under Article 21 with the custodial duty to prevent in-prison violence and maintain order. Practically, States must now ensure transfers are recorded in a way that demonstrates necessity and proportionality, and that receiving prisons are directed to protect transferred prisoners’ rights. Adoption and strict implementation of a modern Jail Manual, as directed, will reduce ad hocity, provide uniform standards, and lessen litigation over transfers by embedding clear criteria, safeguards, and oversight mechanisms into prison administration.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 63 : 2025 INSC 79.

2. State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh & Ors., [2012] 11 SCR 916 : (2012) 13 SCC 192.

3. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, (2005) 3 SCC 284.

4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC 494.

5. Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642.

6. Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, [2017] 14 SCR 519 : (2017) 10 SCC 658.

7. State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Noor Hasan Gulam Hussain, 1995 Crl.LJ 765 SC.

8. Geerinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (referenced in judgment).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Prisoners Act, 1900 (esp. Section 29).

2. Prisons Act, 1894 (contextual reference).

3. Model Prison Manual, 2016.

4. Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 (esp. Rule 35).

5. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offences cited in original conviction).

6. Arms Act, 1959; Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

7. Constitution of India, Article 21.