Asaram Bapu is 85. He has been hogging the limelight ever since the 1970s. As a self-proclaimed godman, he has many devotees who admire and worship him. A special court in Jodhpur convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the alleged rape of a minor girl. Both the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court had granted him interim bail for limited periods on previous occasions. Of late, while refusing to grant further interim bail, the Supreme Court, considering his age and ailments, ordered that he can avail himself of the assistance of a trained full-time caregiver in prison.
Asaram is a controversial person, facing many allegations against him. Yet he is rich and influential. Several political bigwigs still have close associations with him. When the Supreme Court granted him a full-time caregiver, many might have thought about the veteran Stan Swamy, who died while in judicial custody, and G N Saibaba, who died soon after his release from prison. Many would also recall the plight of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who continue to languish in prisons without even a trial, with their bail pleas being stringently opposed by the State and rejected by courts.
Let it be clear: A legal system that permits an 85-year-old person to have round-the-clock assistance in jail is not necessarily bad. It could even be ideal and an epitome of an advanced democracy that respects human rights. But a system that denies the same benefit to other similarly placed persons is not good at all. The situation is all the more disturbing when political prisoners, who are prisoners of conscience, are continuously mistreated by the State.
Stan Swamy, the Jesuit priest, was 84 and suffering from Parkinson’s disease. At Taloja Central Jail, he had to beg not only for a straw but also for timely treatment for his ailment at a hospital of his choice. As we know, he died in another hospital in Mumbai, following the State’s refusal to heed his legitimate request.
G N Saibaba was put in an ‘anda cell’ and subjected to solitary confinement. This happened despite the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra (1978) that solitary confinement is generally impermissible even for death convicts. Saibaba suffered 90 percent disability and was in a wheelchair. He was denied timely treatment for a long time.
Swamy’s and Saibaba’s predicaments are often cited, but many others have suffered in prison. In a 2024 paper, Bhavya Dore and Sukhada Tatke exposed the incredibly inhuman treatment, including denial of medical care, extended to political prisoners booked under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, going beyond the Swamy-Saibaba tragedies. It says the prison authorities denied even a mosquito net to people accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, including Anand Teltumbde, Vernon Gonsalves, Gautam Navlakha and Sagar Gorkhe. Law teacher and activist Sudha Baradwaj and English teacher Shoma Sen were lodged along the Phansi yard in Yerwada jail, says the paper. It also talks about Pandu Narote, who died due to swine flu while in Nagpur Central Jail, allegedly due to the denial of timely treatment. He was only 35 and was convicted along with Saibaba. Dore and Tatke tell us about Surendra Gadling, a lawyer and human rights activist who had diabetes, hypertension, syncope, lumbar and cervical spondylitis, and was denied Ayurvedic treatment in prison, which forced him to move the court. They also narrate that censored books were allotted to Sudha Baradwaj, and Gautam Navlakha was denied “access to sun and fresh air for an hour every day,” for which he had to move the court.
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic The House of the Dead explains the agonies and miseries that one undergoes while incarcerated. Indian prisons are overcrowded and under-equipped. They are emblematic of an unequal society and a dispensation rooted in exploitation, class bias and ideological prejudices. The inhuman treatment of prisoners in subhuman conditions continues to be the hallmark of our jails. Political prisoners do not get the privilege that Asaram gets. The unequal treatment of prisoners makes a further case for closer judicial scrutiny and remedial action.
Treating political opponents as if they are criminals and therefore dangerous to society has been a conventional method adopted by the State to discredit and eradicate the ideological challenges to the regime. This universal truth has been demonstrated throughout history. This behaviour of the State, well explained by philosopher Michel Foucault in his works, might also explain why the Indian State is worried about Saibaba and not Asaram.
Unlike prisoners involved in political cases, thousands of ordinary prisoners are equally entitled to a dignified life, subject to constitutionally justifiable prison conditions. What is exposed in the media is only the tip of the iceberg, given India’s prison population.
The Supreme Court has, in Sukanya Shantha (2024), examined the caste bias and caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The court found that different states in India were operating prison manuals that perpetuate caste-based segregation and even untouchability. The court also noted that some manuals label certain tribes as habitual offenders.
In Suhas Chakma (2026), the top court emphasised the need to make prisons more humane and to explore the possibility of more open correctional institutions to mitigate overcrowding in Indian prisons. The judgement by a bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is a sincere effort to humanise the system—a rare judicial gesture.
Prisons come under the State List, as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, state governments are supposed to work towards improving India’s prison environment. In the Suhas Chakma and Sathyan Naravoor (2025) cases, the Supreme Court has constituted a high-powered committee for prison reforms headed by Justice S Ravindra Bhat. This will also have to address the plight of people with disabilities. The committee should also look into facilities in Indian prisons. It is ideal to have a permanent committee for prison reforms in India that oversees how inmates are mistreated in jails. Prisoners need a grievance redress mechanism in which non-governmental organisations and human rights activists can play a proactive role. Justice Byron Raymond wrote that there is no iron curtain drawn between the prisons and the constitution. It needs constant judicial courage and executive will to materialise this idea on the ground.
Kaleeswaram Raj | Lawyer, Supreme Court of India
(Views are personal)
(kaleeswaramraj@gmail.com)