Introduction:
In the case, Egwin Kingsley v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others [WP 1034 of 2025], the Madras High Court addressed allegations of ill-treatment faced by foreign prisoners in Indian jails, particularly Puzhal Central Prison. The petitioner, Egwin Kingsley, a Nigerian national lodged in Puzhal Prison, filed a writ petition seeking better prison facilities. He alleged mistreatment by prison authorities, denial of basic amenities like breakfast, improper medical care, and solitary confinement of co-prisoners without justification. Kingsley also requested telephone facilities for prisoners and called for an overall improvement in conditions to align with international standards. The Court emphasized the need to treat prisoners, including foreign nationals, by the prison manual and international norms, recognizing that the reputation of India was at stake in such cases.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that foreign prisoners were being subjected to discriminatory treatment in violation of the Indian Constitution and international treaties. Specific complaints included denial of breakfast, inadequate medical facilities, and unjustified solitary confinement, which led to mental and physical distress. It was also argued that such treatment tarnished India’s global image and violated the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). The petitioner urged the Court to direct the prison authorities to provide foreign prisoners with facilities in line with the prison manual, ensure humane treatment, and implement mechanisms to inform the families of foreign detainees about their arrest and case details.
On behalf of the respondents, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan acknowledged the importance of addressing the concerns but emphasized the need to balance the rights of prisoners with national security. He argued that while facilities like medical care and food could be improved, unrestricted video conferencing or telecommunication facilities could pose security risks. Sundaresan sought additional time to gather instructions from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant departments to frame policies ensuring fair treatment for foreign prisoners while safeguarding national interests. He assured the Court that practical measures could be introduced to address grievances without creating other issues.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madras High Court underscored the importance of treating foreign prisoners in compliance with the prison manual and international treaties to uphold India’s image as a fair and just nation. The bench noted that prisoners, irrespective of their nationality, are entitled to basic human rights and dignity. Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman highlighted that the treatment of foreign prisoners in India reflects how Indian nationals are likely to be treated abroad. The Court remarked that ensuring humane treatment was not just a legal obligation but also a matter of international reciprocity.
The Court expressed concern over allegations of solitary confinement and lack of breakfast for foreign prisoners, noting that such treatment contravened established prison regulations. It directed the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison to immediately investigate the claims and take corrective action to ensure compliance with the prison manual. The Court also sought a detailed report on the measures in place for foreign prisoners, including medical care, food, and communication facilities.
Addressing the petitioner’s plea for telephone and video conferencing facilities, the Court agreed with the respondents that unrestricted access could pose security risks. However, it suggested that video conferencing could be facilitated within the prison premises under strict supervision to mitigate security concerns. The bench acknowledged the submission by Sundaresan that systemic improvements were needed and allowed two weeks for the Ministry of Home Affairs to submit its recommendations. The Court reiterated the need for a standardized framework to inform the families of foreign prisoners about their arrest and legal proceedings.
The case was adjourned for two weeks, with instructions to the prison authorities and the Union Ministry to submit comprehensive responses. The Court emphasized that any framework should prioritize the welfare of prisoners while addressing legitimate security concerns, ensuring a balance between humanitarian considerations and administrative efficiency.