A Article 37 makes it clear that their

A man whether under trial or convicted prisoner is
having all fundamental rights like human being residing in society except some
restrictions imposed by his incarceration. India is a secular country. The
concept of the administration of justice in India had been influenced for
centuries by different age-old religious beliefs. For instance, under the Hindu
jurisprudence, the administration of criminal justice was carried out in
accordance with the socio-religious doctrines coming from Vedic revelations
like the Srutis, Smritis, Puranas, Nibandh and Granthas. The judicial functions were conducted by the village
assemblies (assemblies of seniors and leaders of villages), or the Kings
themselves. The Hindu doctrine of criminal justice administration paid little
or no attention on the right of the accused. Another instance comes from the
Muslim concept of the administration of justice, based on the scriptures and
principles of the Quoran. The Muslim philosophy of administration of justice
looked upon the accused as a sinner; consequently, the sinner had to be
subjected to social deprivation (Mehraj-Ud-Din,
1985).1

 

The
modern version of human rights jurisprudence may be said to have taken birth in
India at the time of British rule. When the British ruled India, resistance to
foreign rule manifested itself in the form of demand for fundamental freedoms
and the civil and political rights of the people. The doctrine behind
punishment for a crime has been changed a lot by the evolution of new human
rights jurisprudence. The concept of reformation has become the watchword for
prison administration. Human rights jurisprudence advocates that no crime
should be punished in a cruel, degrading or in an inhuman manner.2
The punishment amounting to cruel, degrading or inhuman should be treated as an
offence by itself. Judicially non enforceable rights in Part IV of the
Constitution are chiefly those of economic and social character. However,
Article 37 makes it clear that their judicial non enforceability does not
weaken the duty of the State to apply them in making laws, since they are
nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the county. Additionally, the
innovative jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has now read into Article 21 (the
right to life and personal liberty) many of these principles and made them
enforceable.