Supreme Court Upholds Prison Transfer of Gangster Vikash Tiwary for Security Reasons

The Supreme Court of India, in The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, upheld the transfer of a convict from one prison to another within the State of Jharkhand, citing security concerns and the risk of gang wars. The Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, which had quashed the transfer order, and reaffirmed the prison administration’s authority to take necessary steps for the maintenance of law and order within jails.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a writ petition filed by the respondent, Vikash Tiwary, challenging his transfer from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka. The prison authorities had ordered the transfer citing the risk of gang violence and security concerns within the jail premises.

Key Facts

Vikash Tiwary was convicted on September 22, 2020, in connection with multiple criminal cases, including murder and gang-related offenses.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment and lodged in Hazaribagh Central Jail.
The prison authorities received intelligence inputs about a potential gang war inside the prison.
On May 17, 2023, the Inspector General of Prisons, Jharkhand, ordered the transfer of Vikash Tiwary to Dumka Central Jail.
The respondent challenged the transfer order before the Jharkhand High Court, which quashed the order on August 21, 2023.
The State of Jharkhand appealed the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

State’s Arguments

The State of Jharkhand contended that:

Vikash Tiwary is a notorious gangster with a stronghold in multiple districts.
Several FIRs had been registered against him even while he was in prison.
The transfer was ordered on the recommendation of the District Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, to prevent gang-related violence.
The decision was made in accordance with Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, and Rule 770(B) of the State Jail Manual, which empower the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer prisoners for security reasons.

Respondent’s Arguments

Vikash Tiwary argued that:

His transfer was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
He had not committed any misconduct inside the prison to warrant a transfer.
The prison authorities had issued a character certificate on May 19, 2023, declaring his conduct satisfactory.
The transfer would prejudice his ability to defend himself in ongoing trials in Hazaribagh and Ramgarh.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Prison Administration’s Authority to Transfer Inmates

The Court reiterated that prison authorities have the discretion to transfer prisoners when necessary for security reasons.

“Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, and Rule 770(B) of the State Jail Manual empower the Inspector General of Prisons to order such transfers.”
“Ensuring the safety of inmates and maintaining discipline within prisons is a legitimate administrative function.”

2. Risk of Gang Violence

The Court found merit in the State’s argument that the transfer was ordered to prevent a potential gang war.

“The intelligence inputs received by the prison authorities indicate a serious threat to prison security.”
“The presence of rival gang members in the same prison increases the likelihood of violent incidents.”

3. Character Certificate Not Sufficient to Overrule Transfer

The Court dismissed the respondent’s reliance on a character certificate issued by the jail authorities.

“The issuance of a character certificate does not negate the broader security concerns necessitating the transfer.”
“The prison authorities are best placed to assess risks and take preventive measures.”

4. No Violation of Prisoner’s Rights

The Court rejected the argument that the transfer violated Vikash Tiwary’s rights as an undertrial in pending cases.

“The transfer does not affect the respondent’s ability to participate in his legal proceedings.”
“The State must ensure that he is produced before the relevant courts as required.”

Key Precedents Cited

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 3 SCC 284: Prison authorities have the discretion to transfer inmates for security reasons.
State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192: Security concerns can justify the transfer of prisoners.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494: Prisoners retain their fundamental rights, but these are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the transfer order.
The Court ruled that the prison authorities had acted within their powers to maintain security.
The State of Jharkhand was directed to ensure that Vikash Tiwary’s legal rights were not prejudiced by the transfer.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for prison administration and security:

Confirms that prison authorities have the discretion to transfer inmates for security reasons.
Sets a precedent for managing gang-related threats in prisons.
Reiterates that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or unlawful.
Clarifies that character certificates do not override legitimate security concerns.

The judgment reinforces the State’s responsibility to maintain law and order within prisons while safeguarding inmates’ legal rights.

Petitioner Name: The State of Jharkhand & Others.
Respondent Name: Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath.
Judgment By: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan.
Place Of Incident: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 17-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-state-of-jharkha-vs-vikash-tiwary-@-bika-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Mahadevan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category