Hearing a petition filed by a prisoner facing a transfer between prisons while pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) degree, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that the prisoner’s rights must be considered alongside issues of security.
“The court must balance the security concerns projected by the authorities with the legitimate rights of the prisoner to education, rehabilitation, family visitation, and access to legal assistance,” a bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said on September 9, directing that the prisoner be transferred back to the Bengaluru Central Prison. The order was made available this week.
The case pertains to a petition filed by prisoner Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh, an accused in the alleged ISIS conspiracy case in Shivamogga, who opposed his transfer in August from the central prison in Bengaluru to Belagavi. He argued that since entering judicial custody in 2023, he had maintained good conduct while pursuing a BCom degree through distance education at Indira Gandhi National Open University, and that the transfer would disrupt his education and rehabilitation.
On the other hand, the state counsel argued that Sheikh’s transfer was based on security considerations through a requisition made by the chief superintendent at Bengaluru Central Prison.
The bench noted that this requisition was followed by an order from a sessions judge, stemming from a report by the superintendent of police at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) branch office in Bengaluru. The court also observed that the prisoner was never given a copy of the requisition or the opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
The bench stated, “The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge merely records the phrase ‘security reasons’ as the ground for transfer. It neither discloses the nature of such a security threat nor demonstrates an application of judicial mind to the materials placed by the prison authorities. Such a cryptic recital falls short of the standards required when fundamental rights under Article 21 are at stake.”
The NIA had also moved the court, arguing that it should have been made a party to the proceedings and the appeal should have been made before a division bench under the relevant provision of the NIA Act. The court did not agree and pointed out that the present matter did not pertain to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but the Prisons Act and Karnataka Prison Rules.