Skip to main content

Prisoners Have A Fundamental Right to Trade, and Profession

An imprisoned developer wanted to sell property to the willing buyers by executing a
registered sale deed. Several prayers were made before the jail authority regarding
the same but it did not yield any result. The prisoner’s wife then approached the
Calcutta High Court.

On hearing the matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi maintained – “Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an
essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of
India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner.
Hence, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the husband of the petitioner shall not
disentitle him from executing sale deeds to convey flats in favour of intending
purchasers in accordance with law.”
The judge further interpreted prison as being the temporary home of the inmate-
“When a prisoner is incarcerated in a correctional home, it is to be deemed that the
prisoner is temporarily residing in the said correctional home. In view of such fact the
residence of the prisoner for the purpose of the proviso to the aforesaid Section shall
be construed to be in the precincts of the correctional home. Hence, if the registering
authority is approached on behalf of the prisoner for registering a document which he
is otherwise entitled to execute, it shall ordinarily be the duty of the said authority to
hold a commission inside the precincts of the correctional home for effecting
presentation of the instrument for registration in terms of Section 31 of the said Act.”
Can a developer transfer immovable property by executing a registered sale deed
while being in prison, was answered in the affirmative by the Calcutta High Court.
However, to register sale deed the person is expected to go to the Registrar’s office
under whose jurisdiction the property is situated. But for the incarcerated, mobility is
restricted. Thus the High Court ordered that in such cases the registration can be
carried out inside the prison premises.
Section 31 of the Registration Act entails that under special conditions the Registrar
can go to the residence of the person’s house to register sale deeds. The High Court
read ‘prison’ as ‘temporary residence’ of prisoner, and held that registration can be
carried out within prison premises.
Such interpretation simplifies the process of registration of documents for a prisoner.
Previously the prisoner was required to be released under special bail provision in case of under trial prisoner, or be released temporarily under parole in case of a
convicted prisoner, to facilitate travel to the Registrar’s Office to get the required
documents registered. However, both bail and parole are subject to discretion of the
concerned judge or the prison authority respectively. Thus the process of registration
of document is subject to uncertainty which jeopardises the prisoners’ fundamental
right to trade and profession as enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
The judgement provides a legal framework to hold commission for registration within
the prison premises. It also acknowledges that holding a commission inside prison
isn’t a new practice. As par section 78 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act,
1992 such commissions are held when prisoners cannot be taken to court for witness
examination. The Act permits the commission to examine prisoners as witnesses
inside the correctional home.
Justice Bagchi, through the said order expanded the scope of the commission and set
a precedent to be followed for any other similar case within a time frame of 30 days,
to prevent delay in the course of registration.
The judgement thus upholds and reasserts the prisoners right to trade and profession
as enshrined under Article 19(i) (g) of the Constitution of India.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a