The Karnataka High Court has ruled that undertrial prisoners do not lose their civil rights to manage or transfer property while in custody, declaring that administrative inconvenience cannot be used as a reason to deny these statutory protections.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the ruling, directing a local sub-registrar to conduct a property registration inside the Central Prison at Dharwad. The order benefits Basavaraj Shankrappa Avvannavar, an undertrial prisoner who has been held there since February 2025 on charges of murdering his mother-in-law and attempting to kill his wife.
Under the court’s directive, the sub-registrar must visit the prison facility to secure Avvannavar’s signatures and conduct the necessary statutory examinations under the Registration Act of 1908, while adhering to prison security measures and regulations.
Legal Protections For Confined Individuals
Avvannavar had petitioned the High Court to require the prison superintendent to allow the registration process to take place inside the jail. His legal counsel, Sanket Shankarappa Ambali, argued that being detained awaiting trial does not strip a citizen of their proprietary rights.
The court agreed, noting that physical inability to attend a registration office does not invalidate a person’s legal right to handle their assets. Justice Magadum emphasized that facing criminal prosecution and being held in custody does not equate to “civil death.” He stated that pending trials do not strip individuals of their ownership of movable or immovable assets, nor do they end their civil liberties, beyond standard restrictions required to maintain prison security and order.
The judge added that an undertrial prisoner possesses the same property rights as any ordinary citizen, including the legal ability to sell or transfer assets. These rights, the court noted, cannot be made meaningless simply because of confinement.
Failure In Administrative Communication
The court’s decision followed an admission by prison authorities that they had failed to act on a prior inquiry. Although the jurisdictional sub-registrar had previously sent a letter asking to facilitate the registration, jail officials admitted the request was mistakenly never presented to the appropriate decision-making authority.
Justice Magadum ruled that because the sub-registrar was prepared to travel to the prison, jail administration was legally required to cooperate and provide access, subject to necessary safety protocols. The court concluded that administrative difficulties cannot override statutory rights established by Parliament.
