Around 2/3rd of the prisoners who are deteriorating inside the Indian jails are undertrials. The undertrials are the ones who are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty, so this paper talks about protecting their fundamental human rights. There are basically different categories of prisoners which are discussed in the further part of the paper. As the human rights finds its place in the Indian Constitution under the umbrella of Fundamental rights (Part III) ,the approach of Indian Judiciary has been signified in protecting the main and foremost rights of the prisoners.

It is considered to be the most basic providing right in any democratic nation. Article 21 is the backbone of the Fundamental Rights in India and so does this emphasis on the concept of Right of the prisoners to their life and Personal Liberty. The women and the Children are always the most vulnerable group of the Prisoners whose rights are far more difficult to protect than other inmates. In this context also, the Judiciary has made the remarkable impression through their strong worded judgments. The Rights of Prisoners under International law have been put in this paper to manifest the thought of weighing up it with the Indian laws.

Statement of the Problem:
This research is deep rooted in understanding the rights of the Undertrial Prisoners revolving around recognizing their rights under the Fundamental rights of the Constitution of India, 1950., its judicial interpretation, perspective and development, the role played by the higher judiciary in providing protection and creating an environment of upholding the principle of rule of law.

Introduction
Under-trial prisoners constitute a significant majority of the prison population (65.7%). The 2,45,244 individuals who are incarcerated pending trial are all considered innocent by the law. A society that claims to be just and equitable cannot defend taking away the freedom of 2,45,244 "innocent" people.

"The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defense. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family."

A successful criminal justice system must unavoidably guarantee that those who are accused get a fair trial for the crimes they are allegedly guilty of. Therein lie the historical foundations of putting people behind bars who are charged with crimes. The police can detain someone for up to 24 hours, depending on the seriousness of the offence; beyond that, the court must approve any additional detention. Everyone has the right to be released on bail, with a few notable exceptions.

Every country's judiciary has a commitment and a constitutional role to defend citizens' human rights. This function is allocated to the superior judiciary, meaning the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, under the mandate of the Indian Constitution. When it comes to human rights protection, the Supreme Court of India is one of the most active tribunals. It is well regarded for its credibility and independence.

The idea of the separation of powers, according to which the government is divided into three branches-executive, legislative, and judicial-is the foundation of the independent judicial system. The effectiveness of the court in preserving the rule of law and human rights is largely dependent on this division and the independence that follows. Every society must have prisons for those who break the law because it has a legal system in place to safeguard its law-abiding citizens. However, this does not imply that the inmates have no rights. There are rights for the convicts as well.

The Supreme Court of India has established human rights jurisprudence for the preservation and protection of prisoners' rights to uphold their dignity by interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the right to equality and equal protection under the law, and any breach of this right is subject to its provisions.

Furthermore, the issue of mistreatment of prisoners is addressed, particularly by the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) and the Prison Act of 1894. Any abuse of power by the police against a prisoner not only catches the interest of the legislation but also the judiciary. In the recent past, the Indian judiciary-especially the Supreme Court-has been extremely watchful for abuses of the convicted and undertrials inmates's human rights.

The Supreme Court and the High Courts have expressed their opinions about the appalling conditions that exist inside of prisons, which violate the rights of inmates. The rights of prisoners are becoming a key concern on the reform agenda for prisons. The last three to four decades have seen an increase in awareness of the need for prison reforms.

The purpose of keeping undertrials in custody is to ensure fair hearing so that they are not in a position to influence the witnesses. The primary reason of the number of inmates awaiting trial, however, and the fundamental human rights concern is the delay in case proceedings.

The National Human Rights Commission's early investigation has revealed the horrifying magnitude of the issue brought about by the pressure of a sizable number of detainees awaiting trial in Indian jails and the excessively long trial duration. These individuals wind up serving far longer prison terms than they would have if they had been found guilty of the identical crimes.

The majority of undertrial inmates are impoverished and ignorant of their legal rights; additionally, the administrative system is now corrupted, making it impossible for this segment of the populace to exercise their constitutional rights.

"Crime is the outcome of a deceased mind and jail must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care." - Mahatma Gandhi.

Who is a Prisoner?
Prisoner has been defined in the Model Prison Manual 2016 as any person confined in a prison under the order of a competent authority.

The term "Prison" and the" jail" are used interchangeably in India. Both the convicts and undertrials are termed as "prisoners".

Categories of Prisoners:

1. Criminal Prisoners (Sec 3(2) of the Prison Act, 1894).
2. Convicted Criminal Prisoner (Sec 3(3) of the Prison Act, 1894).
3. Civil Prisoner (Sec 3(4) of the Prison Act, 1894).
4. Convict (Model Prison Manual 2016).
5. Under-trials Prisoner - a person who has been committed to judicial custody pending investigation or trial by the competent authority (Model Prison Manual 2016).

Human Rights of the Undertrial Prisoners: A Judicial Approach
The Indian Supreme Court has recently exercised extreme caution to prevent violations of the prisoner's human rights. "No person shall be deprived of his life and Personal Liberty except according to procedure established by law," states Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Indian judiciary has functioned as a mechanism for offering effective redress against human rights breaches because to its proactive approach and activism. A multitude of rights have been defined and recognized by the courts by liberally and comprehensively interpreting the phrase "life and personal liberty."

1. Right against inhuman treatment of prisoners including undertrial prisoners:
   Human dignity is inextricably linked to human rights. The Supreme Court of India has issued relevant directives to jail and police officials to protect the rights of prisoners and those under police custody after taking serious notice of the inhumane treatment of prisoners in a number of cases.
   
   The Supreme Court interpreted Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution to include the prohibition against torture. The court made the observation that it would be arbitrary and subject to Article 14 inquiry to treat a person in a way that violates their human dignity, subjects them to unnecessary torture, and dehumanizes them.
   
   In the Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence given to a police officer who killed a suspect in a police lock-up as a result of torture, expressing its sorrow about police abuse. The Supreme Court ruled in Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan that police use of the third degree procedure violates Article 21.
    
2. Right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 7 of UDHR):
   Article 14 provides equal protection under the law and equality of citizens before the law. Within the borders of India, no one's right to equality or equal legal protection may be taken away by the state.
   
   These expressions reflect equality of status. Both citizens and non-citizens derive benefits from such a right. Article 14 is incorporated into both procedural and substantive legislation.
   
   However, those who are awaiting trial should be identified differently from those who have been found guilty and should be housed apart. Juvenile offenders should likewise be treated differently from adult offenders.
   
   The law's formation or the Executive's authority to establish special courts with the application of specific criminal proceedings have been questioned on multiple occasions. In Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal; This case explains a situation in which the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was constructed by the Apex court, permitted Special Courts as reasonable. Because discretion was solely used in the capacity reflected in the Act's policy as indicated by the majority bench, the Government's discretionary command over matters intended for referral to a special tribunal did not violate Article 14.
   
   Financial and Economic status: Article 14 endows to every person the equality before law and the equal protection of the laws. Article 15 further enlists the five grounds on which no person shall be discriminated against.
   
   The wealthy and powerful now often receive bail while others remain incarcerated. It can be concluded that undertrials are primarily imprisoned due to their poverty and that there is widespread discrimination against citizens with less financial security.
   
   Decisions regarding custody or release should not be influenced to the detriment of the person accused of an offence by factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, social status, or financial situation. The issue of the inability of even one of the undertrial to avail the provision of bail due to economic disadvantage must be addressed. It gives rise to the presumption that a wealthy man's freedom is more significant than the freedom of the general public. Why should being impoverished increase the likelihood of going to jail? It appears that the system is blatantly biased and unjust.
   
   Under Articles 14, 19, and 21, Justice Iyer J. meticulously outlined how the protection of human dignity is a component of a constitutional culture. "….Dehumanise him and to violate his very personhood, using the mask of dangerousness and security… There cannot be a quasi-caste system among prisoners in the egalitarian context of Article 14".
   
   Criminal Procedure Code Section 436 and 436A:
   When the Cr.P.C. was revised in 2005, Section 436A was added. According to this section, an undertrial prisoner who has served half of the maximum sentence that might be imposed in the event of a conviction may be released on their own personal bond. According to Section 436, an undertrial arrested for minor offences is deemed to be impoverished if, after his bail order has been granted, he remains behind bars for more than a week.
   
   In such cases, the trial court should release the defendant on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond, which is a written agreement signed by the defendant pledging to appear in court on future dates and not to commit crimes while out.
   
   As a result, the Supreme Court has mandated the release of as many eligible undertrial inmates as possible and directed the NALSA and High Courts to closely oversee the issue. The stance on the longest time of detention permitted was made clear by the amendment. Even though most undertrials have been charged with less serious offences and are therefore eligible for release on bond under procedural sections, the court system has not given cases under Sections 436 and 436A enough attention, which has resulted in an increase in the number of undertrial prisoners-a situation that is worse than a crisis that has stagnated.
    
3. Right to Legal Aid:
   Even though the Indian Constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to legal aid, the courts have showed compassion for impoverished inmates who are unable to afford the legal representation of their choice due to their financial situation. Article 10 of UDHR states that "everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing….." Free legal aid was added to the list of Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39A of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The Constitution's most significant and straightforward article on free legal aid is this one. A three-judge Supreme Court bench (V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ) in Madhav Hayawadan Rao Hosket v. State of Maharashtra declared, after reading Articles 21 and 39-A, Article 142, and Section 304 of the Cr.P.C., that the Government had an obligation to provide the accused with legal services.
    
4. Right to Health and Hygiene:
   The MuIIa Committee addressed this topic in Chapters 6 and 7 of its Report, which illustrates the appalling state of hygienic conditions in which the majority of jails are situated. Additionally, the majority of them lack adequate facilities for treating convicts. Chapter 29 contains the committee's recommendations in this respect. There are two reasons why society has a responsibility to the health of inmates. First off, inmates do not have the same access to medical professionals as free persons. Such access is restricted by their incarceration; there are few, if any, specialists, no second opinions, and no preferred physician. Second, compared to free persons, prisoners are subjected to greater health risks due to the conditions of their confinement. As a result, prisoners have two disadvantages.
    
5. Narco Analysis/Polygraph/Brain Mapping:
   The Supreme Court ruled in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) stated that brain mapping, narcoanalysis, and polygraph testing are unconstitutional and violate human rights. This decision will impede the progress of investigations and provide an opportunity for numerous accused offenders to avoid conviction, which is highly unfriendly to several investigative authorities.

However, the supreme court went on to state that an individual can only be put through these tests if they give their consent. The results of the tests may only be utilized to enhance the investigation; they will not be accepted as evidence in court. Technological advancements along with advances in neurology have led to the rise of narcoanalysis, polygraph testing, and brain mapping as preferred methods by investigative agencies worldwide to extract the truth from the accused.

However, gradually, those who had been put through these tests and human rights organizations began to voice their disapproval. They were labelled as atrocity to human mind and breach of right to privacy of an individual.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India projects as the backbone of the Human Rights structure in India
Public Torture, Handcuffing and Prison Administration: Torture is when a public official purposefully causes extreme physical or mental suffering in order to achieve a particular goal. In addition to physical abuse, torture can also include psychological and emotional abuse intended to instill fear in the victim so they would comply with police requests. It is not permissible for an undertrial defendant accused of a crime punishable by more than three years in jail to be handcuffed each time they are transferred from the courtroom to the prison.

In Khatri v. State of Bihar, the police blinded 80 suspected criminals by sticking needles in their eyes and dousing them in acid, demonstrating the harshest kind of prison abuse. The court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration had previously issued a writ instructing the authorities that the detainees must be provided with proper medical and health facilities and cannot be physically mistreated by jail staff. It will also go against Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

If there is proof that there is no other option for exercising control save handcuffing, then handcuffing will not violate Article 21. Handcuffs must be the last resort because the idea violates both Article 14 and Article 21, which both regard the use of handcuffs as irrational and arbitrary.

In order to care for women and children, particularly those who have not been found guilty of a crime, the government has been ordered by the court to establish welfare and rescue facilities.

Legal Aid: Legal aid simply means that an accused person who has been sentenced by a court, tribunal, or other authority (capable of passing such a sentence) and who is entitled to an appeal against the verdict may apply for legal aid; additionally, if the accused person is impoverished, the State is required to provide him with legal counsel.

Article 39A provides for free legal aid to those who cannot afford it on their own. The court has also underlined that, should the accused be unable to retain legal representation, it is the legal duty of the judge the accused has been brought before to notify him of the availability of legal aid services. There cannot be any judgment passed without audi alterem partem, otherwise the judgment passed will not be just.

First and foremost, there is the issue of providing a treatment to everyone equally. In Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, it was stated by the court that there lies a very big loophole in administering the justice to the people as greater number of people lives in the rural who are usually unaware of their rights, which further deteriorate due to the prevalent corruption in the courts. The second concerns the calibre of the lawyer that the State is required to furnish. An uneven playing field may result from the State providing an advocate with less experience compared to the opposing party, which can afford to hire someone with more experience.

Quality Life: In one of the landmark judgment of the Supreme court, Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the scope of Article 21 was expanded in order to provide the quality and decent civilized life to everyone. This was claimed to cover the essential human rights of having access to food, water, a respectable environment, education, healthcare.

The state of Indian prisons is appalling; of the 2,200 detainees, two-thirds are awaiting trial and are housed in 650-person cells. A prisoner's right to liberty or life may be violated by placing him in a solitary cell, denying him access to a necessary amenity, or in sometimes a more horrifying scenario-by sending him to a far-off prison where his access to friends, family, and other people may be restricted. In the majority of Indian prisons, basic necessities including food, drink, space, restful sleep, and shelter are not guaranteed. A small-time thief may develop into a seasoned criminal as a result of the demanding environment.

The judiciary at number of cases spoke about the fundamental duties of the prison authorities to provide the undertrials with a decent and humane living, but this gross negligence continues to happen and violates the fundamental right of prisoners till they are behind bars. The most disagreed perspectives is that when an undertrials are subjected to the violation of their basic human rights and might be possible that in future they would come out to be absolutely innocent.

Right to Speedy trial: Not providing speedy justice was held to be 'a crying shame on the judiciary which keeps men in jails for years without a trial'. When a person is accused a petty crimes, they are forced to put up behind the jails for their trials, and spends years in jail as there is nobody there to bail them out which clearly indicates the violation of right to get speedy trials and being denied justice.

There are large piles of cases in the courts which renders the poor being suffered in the jails and waits for the trials. Timely delivering the justice imparts the feeling of faith in judiciary among the masses and there is a very famous saying "justice delayed is justice denied."

Judiciary in India and Prison
The Human rights in India are provided in the form of Fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution in Part III. Although there are no explicit rules on jail administration in the Constitution, chapter III's declaration of rights provides the fundamental guidelines that the criminal justice system will follow.

The three pillars of human rights are the right to equality and equal protection under the law, the right to life and personal liberty, and fundamental freedoms. The majority of human rights originate from and culminate in this triangle.

India's courts have been instrumental in establishing the rule of law. The hallmark of judicial activism has been the insistence on "fairness" in every facet of the State's power exercise. The Indian higher judiciary has also not left the rights of prisoners untouched.

Women Prisoners and Children: As the impact of being convicted or undertrials is seen higher on the women, women make up the most vulnerable group of convicts. They are most affected by the stigma associated with being incarcerated for a crime, the absence of social support, and the psychological strain of being away from their families and kids. Since many of them have experienced violence and abuse in the past, it can be challenging for them to comprehend and put up with the highly hostile and controlling prison atmosphere.

In the case of Sheela Barse, a journalist named Sheela Barse wrote a letter bringing into notice the attention of Apex Court on the issue of plight of women prisoners subject to the custodial violence in the police lockup. Concerns about the safety and security of female inmates were raised and the protection against the inhumane treatment and police torture was also emphasized.

The Apex Court emphasized how urgently appropriate procedures for giving convicts legal aid are needed. It also outlined the obligations of lawyers and went on to establish some rules pertaining to female inmates. According to these instructions, ladies in each area would have their own lockups with the women's constabulary. The States were also asked by the court to make sure that female police officers must conduct or be present during the questioning of the female suspect.

In Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children's Aid Society, The rights of children who were abandoned or orphaned and imprisoned, as well as those who were physically and intellectually challenged, were at stake. The court stated that a nation's ability to prosper in the future is intimately tied to its ability to raise its children. A child is a resource for the country.

The Court noted that jail is not the appropriate location to raise children and that it can leave a lasting psychological scar that could have a negative impact on the child's overall development. The State must make sure that children are not impacted by this kind of exposure, according to the Court, and the only way to prevent this is to make sure they are kept in safe remand homes or observation houses that are designated just for children.

Another important case concerning children's development is R D Upadhyay v. State of A.P. & Others; This case dealt with concerns pertaining to the rights of children incarcerated not for any criminal offence but rather because their mothers are detained as undertrials or convict inmates.

Rights of the Prisoners in International law
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates in Article 10 that every individual who is deprived of their freedom must be treated with humanity and dignity. The article stipulates that accused juvenile inmates must be kept apart from adult prisoners and must be brought before trial as soon as possible. It also requires that prisoners in pre-trial detention be kept apart from those who have already been found guilty of a crime. Additionally, it is mandated that the primary goals of prisons be rehabilitation and reform rather than punishment.

The article guarantees those deprived of their liberty the same circumstances as those provided for free persons, which is a complement to article 7 of the Covenant, which forbids torture and other cruel, inhumane, or humiliating treatment.

India is the signatory to ICCPR means, we have an obligation to ensure these rights to the Undertrial Prisoners.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of Prisoners came into force in 1955. Although the UN's standards are not legally binding, they nevertheless provide guidance on international and local law for anyone detained in any capacity. They are widely accepted as sound principles for management and practices for custodial facilities.

Registration, personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, food, exercise and sport, medical services, discipline and punishment, instruments of restraint, information to and complaints by prisoners, contact with the outside world, books, religion, retentions of prisoners' property, notification of death, illness, transfer, removal of prisoners, institutional personnel, and facility inspection are all covered by the document that lays out standards for those in custody.

The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment entered into force on 1 March 2002. The Convention establishes the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Committee). The agreement defines "any place within its jurisdiction where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority" as "any place of detention," which the Committee is allowed to examine.

The Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 30 March 2007. The Convention's goal is to "promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity."Article 13 of the Convention relates to access to justice for persons with disability.

It provides that in order to "ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff."

Conclusion and Suggestions:
The judiciary has made the number of judgments through which they recognized the human rights of the prisoners but the loophole exists in following the directions given by the judiciary to uphold the rights of the prisoners. Undertrial Review Mechanism must be set up by the govt. for the effective implementation of the provisions of bail of under Cr.P.C.

The directions given by the judiciary for the Prison administration must be followed up in every irrespective of their own personal manuals. There are also a number of Foreign nationals undertrials in Indian jails who continue to suffer for years as there is a delay in issuing the 'No Objection' certificate by the State Government.

Every individual is entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, and not even the State may infringe upon that right. Their fundamental rights are not taken away from them simply because they are incarcerated. He is still allowed to exercise all of his fundamental rights even while he is being held in jail.

Nonetheless, the reality remains that in order for the police and prison administration to take seriously the rights of prisoners, they must receive the necessary training and orientation. When it comes to developing nations, it is important to remember that they have to respect prisoners' human rights and democracy.

The Indian Constitution established a democratic welfare state that grants everyone the same opportunities for personal development and national advancement, free from any form of discrimination. One of the main goals of the Constitution is to provide jails with the necessary infrastructure so that inmates can receive timely and effective legal assistance, be informed of their rights, including the important Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and know what resources are available to them to defend those rights.

Bibliography
Books Referred:

• Indian Constitutional Law by Dr. M.P. Jain (8th edition, 2018).
• Mentally III Undertrial Prisoners- A Human Rights Perspective by Dr. Anju Vali (2022).
• Right to Speedy Justice for Undertrial Prisoners by Jagmohan Singh.
• Supreme Court on Human Rights and Civil Rights and Political social Individual and economic rights by Surendra Malik and Sudeep Malik (2019).
• Human Rights by Dr. H.O. Aggarwal (12th edition, 2010).

Articles Referred:

1. Dr. Rahul Tripathi, "Protection of Human Rights of Prisoners under Indian Constitution: An Overview" IJMSSR, VI, Dec 2017.
2. Viyomesh Budholia, "The Rights of Undertrial: A Critical study" IJRAR, V, Issue 2, June 2018.
3. Swati Kumari Mawandiya & Neeraj Kumar Gupta, "Rights of Prisoners and role of higher judiciary in Humanizing Indian Prisons" Revista Internacional de Historia Politica e Culture Juridica, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 15, April 2023.
4. Varalakshmi S., "Rights of Undertrial Prisoners" JETIR, Vol VI, Issue 2, February 2019.
5. Ayushi Priyadarshani & Madhurika Durge, "Undertrial Prisoners in India" NLIU Law Review, Vol. VI., Issue 3.
6. Dr. K. Eswar Reddy, "The Role of Judiciary in Protecting the Prisoner's Rights" IOSR-JHSS, Vol. 23, Issue 5, May 2018.
7. Dr. Minal H. Upadhyay, "Role of Judiciary in Protecting the human Rights of Prisoners" International Journal of Research in Humanities & Social Sciences, Vol. II, Issue 8, November 2014.
8. Adv. Sanjay Saraf, "Exploring Prisoners in India- Rights, Conditions and the Quest for Justice", IJRSR, June 2023.

Statutes Referred:

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR) 1966.
2. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955.
3. European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 2002.
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR) 1948.

Constitution:

• The Constitution of India.

Cases Referred:

1. 1987 AIR 149.
2. AIR 1954 IR 1954 Raj 264.
3. AIR 1954 SC 660.
4. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1535.
5. Madhav Hayawadan Rao Hosket v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 SCR (1) 192.
6. AIR 2010 SC (1974).
7. Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 117.
8. Prem Shanker v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535.
9. AIR 1981 SC 928.
10. AIR 1980 SC 1579.
11. Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991.
12. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
13. P Bharti v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2007) 1 MLJ 345.
14. Kadra Pahidya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939.
15. V Vasanthakumar v. HC Bhatia, (2016) 7 SCC 686.
16. Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children's Aid Society, 1987 AIR 656.
17. R D Upadhyay v. State of A.P. & Others, AIR 2006 SC 1946.