KISHOR SINGH RAVINDER DEV ETC. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 995

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. PATHAK

Case summary

21, with its profound concern for life and limb, will become dysfunctional unless the agencies of· the law in the police and prison establishments have sympathy for the humanist creed of t,hat Article....

Judgment text

KISHOR SINGH RAVINDER DEV ETC. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN November 4, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER & R . S. PATHAK, JJ. ] Prisons A ct, 1894-Section 46-Keeping of Prisoners in solitary confinement and putting bar fetters for loitering and insolent behaviour-Validity of Natural Justice-Prison authorities, if should give an opportunity of being heard before imposing punishment 011 prisoners. One of the petitioners, in a telegram to one of the Judges of this Court complained of insufferable, illegal solitary confinement. He also complained that he was kept in iron fetters alongwith the other two \)etitioners. By an order of this Court, the petitioners were directed to be set free from solitary confinement and brought before the Court. When the prisoners were brought before the Court they alleged that, while in transit, violence had been used by the escort police on the person of one of the petitioners resulting in deep wounds on his person.

The Superintendent of Prisons who was present in the Court was directed to take special care of the prisoner after giving him proper medical treatment. Allowing the petition HELD: 1. Article 21 would become dysfunctional unless the agencies of the law in the police and prison establishments have sympathy for the humanist creed of that Article. The State must re-educate the police and inculcate a respect for the human person. If any of the escort were found to have ·misconducted themselves they should be given condign punishment. {999G, D , E] 2. By keeping the prisoners in separate solitary rooms for long periods ranging . fr6m 8 to 11 months, putting cross·bar fetters for several days on the flimsy grounds of loitering in the prison, behaving insolently and in an uncivilised manner the prison authorities have acted in utter disregard of the mandate of this Court in Sunil Batra. [lOOOD·E] 3.

The Jail Superintendent's version that he had given a hearin~ to the prisoners before punishing them cannot be believed. Neither section 46 of the Prisons Act nor Rule 79 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules can be read in the absolutist expansionism, the Prison Authorities would like them to be read. . That would virtually mean that prisoners are not persons to be dealt with at the mercy of the prison echelons. Articles 14, 19 and 21 operate within the prisons in the manner explained in Sunil Batra (1). A separate Cell is not different from solitary confinement. [lOOIB, 1002G·H] (i) If special restrictions of a punitive or harsh character have beeu imposed for convincing security reasons, it is necessary to comply with natural justice ~s indicated in ·sunil Batra. il'here must be an appeal from a prison authority to ·a judicial organ when such treatment ia meted out.

[1003A] • (ii) Section 46 of the Prisons Act and Rules 1(0 and 79 of the Rajastban Prison Rules are valid subject to the directions given,by this. Court in Rakesh Kaushik. [1003Gl (iii) The Sessions Judges in the State of Rajasthan should remember the rulings of this Court in Sunil Batra I and II and Rakesh KaUshik and. act in such manner that judicial authority over sent~nces. and the conditions of their inCarceration are not eroded by judicial in·action. [1004AJ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1979] 1 SCR 392 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR S51, Rakesh Kaushlk v. B. L. Vig, Superi•. ttndent Central Jail, New Delhi [19801 3 S. C. R. 929. applied. · ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 5287 of 1980. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution). P. H. Parekh, Amicus Curiae for the "Petitioner. B. D. Sharma for the Respondent. , The Judgment of the Court was delivered by - KRISHNA IYER, J.

-The moral of this case is P,Oignant: So long as an iron curtain divides the law set by the Constitution and lit by the Supreme Court from the minions of the State, so long shall this Court's writ remain a mystic myth and harmless half-truth making law in the books and law-in-action distant neighbours. This shall not be. , The sombre scenario unfurled by this habeas corpus proceeding· begins with a telegram (dated 3-10-1980) on behalf of the prisoners-:-the petitioners- to one of us, complaining, manu ·brevi. or insufferable, illegal solitary confinement punctuated by periods of iron fetters, a lot shared by two others with him in Jaipur Central Jail. . This trauma-laden message reads : "Convict Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev Pareek Surjeet Singh • Central Jail Jaipur confined in cells with fetters illegally unconstitutionally more than eight months habeas corpus writ prayed order enquiry and save . . • • . . . • . . . . . . Daulat Singh". .

' ench have kept the door ajar and unfailingly helped the Court as free janitors of justice and free forensic functionaries at the ~ervice of any one aggrieved by injustice arid seeking legal justice. A~ter a111 the great proposition. that inspires the calling of justicing-by the Bench and the Bar alike--is best expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr) in his letter from Alabama Prison : Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. We must, even here, record our appreciation of Shri Parekh's passion for the prisoners' cause coupled with pains-taldng presentation of the grievances they had. So too Shri B. D. Sharma's commitment to jail justice, beyond jailor's injustice i. e. his client's brief.

In retrospect, we feel it was right that we took quick action to liberate the three prisoners from their callously lonely, barbarously fettered solitary custody. Justice must be instant and it has been wisely said : "Caution, caution, sir ! It is nothing but 1 'Y · the word. of cowardice ! ( ) Where human bondage and personal torture are involved, to wait is to defeat. In personal liberty jurisprudence, this court has not tarried or teetered and shall not. The reason is clear. The writ must right the wrong forthwith or must stand self-condemned as make-believe. Where justice is in jeopardy (1) John Brown: quoted by Bruce Catto:i, Life, Sept. 12, 1955. 3-6 S. C. IndiajND/81 998 (1981] 1 S. C. R. m freedom is in fetter5 the court is n0t non-aligned and acts with · sensitive speed. Time is of the essence where otherwise torture is the consequence.

The order of this court dated 6-10-1980 brought counsel on both sides into tho scene, set free the prisoners from the hateful 'solitary' and summoned before us the presence of the Superintendent of the Prison on 21-10-1980 to answer for his breach of the fundamentail law laid down in Sunil Batra(1). On that day, i. e. 21-10-1980, after a brief hearing, we directed : "The respondent will file a detailed affidavit giving particulars and also produc communication with, but not from sight o~ other prisoners; We cannot agree that either the Section or the Rules can be ( read in the absolutist expansionism the prison authorities would like us to read. That would virtually mean that prisoners are nonpersons to be dealt with at the mercy of the· prison echelons. This. country has no totalitarian territory even within the walled world we call prison. Articles 14, 19 and 21 9perate within the prisons in the manner explained in Sunil Batra (I) (supra), by a Constitution Bench of this Court.

It is significant that t. lie two opinions given separately in that judgmefrt agree in spirit and substance, in reasoning and conclusions. Batra in that case was stated to be in a separate confinement and not solitary cell. An identical plea has been put forward here too. For the reasons given in Sunil Batra's case we must overrule the extenuatory submission that a separate cell is different from solitary confinement. The petitioners will, therefore, be entitled to move within the confines of the prison like others undergoing rigorous imprisonment. If special restrictions. of a punitive or harsh character have to be imposed for convincing security reasons, it is necessary to comply with natural justice as indicated in Sunil Batra case. Moreover, there must be an appeal not from Caeser to Caeser, but from a prison authority to a judicial organ when such treatment is meted out.

Sobraj in the same case (Sunil Batra, supra) was kept in fetters and reasons more persuasive than in the present case were put forward in defence. This Court, however, directed "such fetters shall forthwith be removed". Of course, we do not place any absolute ban but insist that only in extreme cases of compelling necessity for security of other prisoners or against escape can such fettering be resorted to. Human dignity is a dear va·lue of our Constitution not to be . bartered away for mere apprehensions entertained by jail officials. The latter decision of this Court in Sunil Batra ll(1) clothes with flesh and blood the principles laid down in 2 Sunil Batra (I) (supra). In Rakesh Kaushik( ) the position has advanced further and concrete directions have been issued which we extract here because t)l.

e law laid down by this Court applies not to one State or the other but to all national institutions in the country: "(2) He will furrther enquire, with specific reference tO the charges of personal assault and compulsion for collaboration in canteen swindle and other vices made by the prisoner against the Superintendent and the Dy. Sup. '. )rintendent. (3) He will go into the question of the directives issued in the concluding portion of Sunil Batra's case (W. P. 1009/79) (3) with a view to ascertain whether these directions have been ) substantially complied with and to the extent there is shortfall or default whether there is any reasonable explanation therefor. (4) Being a Visitor of the jail, it is part of his visitatorial functions for the Sessions Judge to acquaint himself with the condition of tension, vice and violence and prisoners' grievances ..... . y We hold that the jail authorities in Rajasthan will comply with the principles so laid down. We read down s.

46 and Rules 1(f) and 79 ·Of the Rajasthan Prison Rules and sustain them in this limited fashion. OJ [1980] 4 sec 488. (2) Rakesh Kaushik v. B. L. Vig, Supdt. Ce11tral Jail, New Delhi & Anr. (3) [1980] 4 sec 488. We direct the Respondents to act accordingly. Further we remind that the Sessions Judges in the State of Rajasthan to remember the rulings of this Court in Sunil Batra I & ll and Rakesh Kaushik (supra) and act in such manner that judicial authority over sentensees and the conditions of their incarceration are not eroded by judicial in-action. We find that the old rules and circulars and instructions issued under the Prisons Act are read incongruously with the Constitution, especially Art. 21 and interpretation put upon it by tl]is Court. We.

therefore, direct the State Government of Rajasthan-and indeed, all the other State Government,') in the country-to convert the rulings of this Court bearing on Prison Administration into rules and instructions forthwith so that violation of the prisoners' freedoms can be avoided and habeas corpu:t litigation may not proliferate. Afiter all, human rights are as much cherished by the State as by the citizen. Since the petitioners have been released from separate confinement and from cross-bar fetters and since counsel for the State has assured us that nothing will be done in violation of the propositions set out in the catena of cases of this court (Sunil Batra I & II and Rakesh Kaushik (supra)), we deem it unnecessary to give any further directives pursuant to this habeas corpus application. N. V. K. Petition allowed.