Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The Inspector General of Prisons, who is the second respondents, has filed a counter-affidavit in W.P. 4623 of 1979 on behalf of all the respondents denying ill-treatment alleged to be meted out to the petitioners and has inter alia stated that the petitioners are nexalites, that nexalite prisoners are treated on par with other classes of prisoners except in the matter of confinement, interviews, transfers and the privilege of letters writing for which the Government have issued separate guidelines for adoption, and that though the petitioners have political affiliation they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for criminal offences of murder etc., committed by them. It has been further averred that the petitioners will not come under the definition of 'political prisoners' that the interviews were conducted in the presence of Officers of the Q branch police C.I.D. that the petitioners refused to furnish list of those persons who wanted to interview them and that was why the interviews sought for were refused. The counter-affidavit further states that the Government in G.O. No. 1067 Home dated 24-4-1979, have issued guidelines for conducting interviews to nexalites prisoners and that interviews of nexalite prisoners should be confined to close relations and bona fide legal advisers. It has also been stated that their interviews must be conducted in the presence of the Q branch CID officials. As regards the confinement of the petitioners, the second respondent has stated that they are kept in a separate block having single cell as per G.O. No. 825 Home dated 28-3-1971. This is done in order to prevent the nexalite prisoners from indoctrinating the other prisoners. As there is no separate prison for confining extremist prisoners in the State, they are at present being kept in separate block having single cells in the existing Central Prison and not in the condemned cells. It has been further stated that legitimate requirements are being provided to these respondents. They are taken out in the morning for ablutions, morning meals, etc., and, in the noon, for mid-day meal, and, in the evenings, for evening meals. Further, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1503 Home dated 18-6-1979, they are allowed to come out to their cells during daytime for strolling and doing exercise for one hour daily within their enclosures. Regarding threat of hunger-strikes, it has been submitted that all reasonable requirement have already been provided even originally and the strikes were uncalled for. Convict No. 5150 Vathiar alias Kaliaperumal (concerned in W.P. 4623 of 1979) now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, attempted to escape from the Central Prison Tiruchirapalli, on the night of 20/21-4-1979 along with four other nexalite and hence a case was registered against him and he was sent to court on several occasions in connection with the case. Their is no information or complaint about the hand cuffing of the nexalite prisoners in the convict wards attached to the Government Head quarters hospitals, as escort is being provided by the police department. As regards interviews, the second respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the jail authorities strictly follow the instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1067 Home dated 24-4-1979 and G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 3-1-1980. Restricted interviews and monitoring of the same are done by the Q branch police officials in the interest of security. As regards the specific allegations regarding convict Kaliaperumal, the second respondent has stated that no compound wall has been erected in the cell to prevent him from seeing any body passing by the block in which the nexalites are confined in Central Prison, Vellore, is adjacent to the kitchen and opposite to the firewood godown. Hence it is not true to say that they cannot see any body, as prisoners will be working in the firewood godown and going to tower and kitchen often. It is not true that food is supplied in mud pots used for cleaning latrines and sometimes phenyle is also added to the 'sambar', as alleged in the petition. The second respondent has reiterated that the prisoners involved in these petitions, though nexalites, are treated on par with other convict prisoners except in the matter of confinement, interviews, transfers and the privilege of writing letter to their relations. Restriction on these matters is being made in obedience to the separate guidelines issued by the Government. It has been submitted by the second respondent that nexalites are supplied with newspapers and magazines at Government cost as the case of other convicted prisoners. The second respondent has admitted that the view of the serious nature of offence in which the nexalite prisoners are involved and their adherence to the policy of violence, mis-behaviour and indiscipline and annihilation of class enemies, the incoming and outgoing letters of the nexalite prisoners are censored by an officer from the District Social Branch City in co-ordination with C.I.D. branch/special branch at the prison premises itself to facilitate speedy censorship before they are sent to the addresses. As regards medical treatment accorded to the prisoners, the second respondent has definitely stated that proper treatment is being given to all the prisoners and wherever necessary they are referred to the headquarters hospital. The same treatment was also done for convict Nambiar. As regards entertainment, the second respondent has stated that a radio set has been installed in all the prisons in such a manner that programmes can be heard by all the prisoners confined. Film shows are conduced in the prisons at regular intervals. However, film shows for nexalite prisoners are governed by the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 92 Home dated 21-1-1976, as modified in Government Memo No. 27336/Pr. III/76. The second respondent has further stated that according to instructions, nexalite prisoners may be permitted as far as possible to witness film shows from their cells and in other cases where such facilities are not available, they may be brought to the vicinity where film show is conducted and kept at a distance having no contact with other prisoners and under special guard subject to the condition that the Superintendents of Prisons may use their discretion according to the facilities and security arrangements available in the respective prisons. It has been further averred that from the security point of view these prisoners are kept at different places irrespective of their relations and that nexalite prisoners are treated on par with other prisoners and clothing, bedding, reading facilities and diet are given as per the rules in force as in the case of other convict prisoners. The second respondent has further stated that these petitioners are allowed for strolling and doing exercises with proper securityguard, that they are provided with flush out latrines, that they are provided with good food, that except that they are exclusively kept not allowing them to mingle with the other prisoners, they are treated well strictly in accordance with the rules contained in the Tamil Nadu Prison and Reformatory Manual, Volume II, and that they are all treated as B class prisoners and that such treatment is given uniformly in all the prisons where nexalite prisoners are confined. Finally, the second respondent has stated that there is absolutely no harassment or illtreatment of any kind and that as such the writ petitions have to be dismissed with costs.

13. For this counter affidavit, the petitioners have filed a common reply affidavit, dated 3-4-1980. It is unnecessary for us to deal with this elaborate reply affidavit in view of the fact that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have confined their arguments to the reliefs stated in paragraphs supra.

14. By a further counter affidavit dated 27-8-1980, the second respondent has inter alia stated that the petitioners who want certain reliefs by means of these writ petitions are 'extremists' having been indulging themselves in all sorts of dangerous activities as explained in the counter affidavit filed earlier and therefore, form a class by themselves, viz, 'extremists' a dangerous set of people indulging in violence, misbehaviour and discipline, and that in this view the treatment meted out to them treating them as a class by themselves, which is absolute warranted in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to offend Art. 14 of the Constitution in view of the fact that it is well established that classification based on intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object to be achieved is perfectly valid. It has been further averred that the actions of the jail authorities which are complained of by the petitioners are well within their authority and jurisdiction and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The petitioners are kept apart from the others separately on the strength of Rule 213 of the rules framed under the Prisons Act. Hence the complaint of the petitioners as regards their solitary confinement is wholly baseless in view of the fact that the respondents have authority to confine the prisoners of any class like the petitioners whom it is considered desirable for any reason to keep apart from others. The second respondent further submitted that dehors the Government Orders referred to by the petitioners the respondents are authorised under the rules framed under the Prisons Act, of 1894, to confine them separately under the statuary rules in force. As regards interviews, the second respondent has stated that under Rule 434 of the Jail Manual, the Superintendent of the Jail has got every direction to refuse an interview to a prisoner which the prisoner would ordinarily be entitled to under the rules if in the opinion of the Superintendent it is inexpedient in public interest to allow any particular person to interview a prisoner. It has been further submitted that having regard to the provision contained in Rules 426-D and 434 of the rules the petitioners have no right to have an interview with anybody they chose as claimed in the writ petitions. Hence the jail authorities have sample jurisdiction to screen of restrict the interviews of any prisoners, more so in the case of the petitioners who form a class by themselves. Under Rule 430, every interview with a convict prisoner shall take place in the presence of an experienced jail officer for reasons set out in the said rules itself who can place himself in such a position so as to see and hear what transpires between the prisoner and the person with whom he interviews. No doubt, in respect of the petitioners, apart from the jail officials, referred to in the rules, certain police officials have also been directed to be present in order to maintain strict supervision. Though under under the rule, the jail officials present at the time of the interview can place themselves in such a position as to see and hear what passes between the prisoner and the person with whom the interview is to take place, the Government have ordered that the jail officials and the police officials present at the time of the interview be within the sight but beyond the earshot in the case of legal interview. In the foregoing circumstances, it has been submitted by the second respondent that their is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioners in this regard. In so far as the complaint regarding censoring of the mail despatched and received, by the petitioners, the second respondent submitted that Rule 435 confers absolute jurisdiction and authority on the jail authorities to censor the incoming and outgoing letters of all the prisoners. Hence the complaint of the petitioners relating to the censoring of the letters is absolutely without any basis and wholly misconceived. In so far as lock-up of the petitioners in the cell day and night, the second respondent submitted that the same had been done only with a view to preserve discipline and orderliness inside the jail. The factum of some of the prisoners escaping from the jail and also including other prisoners to indulge in misbehaviour and indiscipline affecting the smooth functioning and safety of both the prisoners as well as the officers of the prison, has made respondents to confine the petitioners in separate cells. It is in these circumstances, that having regard to the fact that the petitioners form a class, the action of the jail authorities in confining them day and night is perfectly valid. The second respondent has further stated that the petitioners are allowed about five to six hours outside the cell every day during the morning meal, lunch and dinner and the time given to them for strolling and doing exercises. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners in this regard. The petitioners, according to the respondents, are allowed to see films shows from within the cell wherever it is possible and from outside in other cases but away from other prisoners. With the abovesaid allegations, the second respondent who has filed the further counter-affidavit on behalf of all the respondents, has stated that the actions of the jail authorities are well within their jurisdiction, well in accordance with the statutory rules and in any event saved from any complaint under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents would thus pray for a dismissal of the writ petitions.

(d) by prisoners convicted under Sections 376 or 377, I.P.C.;

(e) by prisoners of the habitual class; and

(f) by other prisoners.

Note : (1) Separation under this rule is distinct from cellular and separate confinement, and as it is a disciplinary measure only and not a punishment, it is to have irksome conditions attached to it, other than such as are necessary to secure the ends in view.

(2) The age of the prisoners for the purposes of their segregation and treatment under the Prisons Act should be fixed by the Medical Officer of the jail."

46. In this background we can now examine as to the validity of putting the petitioners in separate cells day and night and as to whether such confinement is being made all the 24 hours.

47. The second respondent, on behalf of the other respondents also filed the first counter-affidavit dated 20-3-1980. In this counter-affidavit, certain Government orders and instructions are referred to and in pursuance thereof the jail authorities are stated to have taken some precautionary methods of maintaining discipline and security within the jail premises. No doubt in this counter-affidavit, the petitioners are taken as a nexalites' though it is true there is absolutely no organisation called 'nexalites' and the members of the Communist Party either belong to Communist Party of India, or Communist Party of Marxist or Communist Party of Marxists and Leninist. There cannot be any separate classification as 'nexalites.' Nevertheless, the jail authorities on the instructions from the Government thought it fit to keep these petitioners in separate cells in order to prevent them from indoctrinating the other prisoners. It has been averred in this counter-affidavit that these petitioners are allowed to go out of their cells during day time for strolling and doing exercise for one hour daily within their enclosures. Apart from this, they are also taken out of the cells at the time of ablution etc., lunch and evening meals. There is also an averment in this counter-affidavit that one of the petitioners herein attempted to break the jail and escape from the Central Jail, Tiruchirapalli. Finally, this counter-affidavit states that the petitioners-prisoners are treated as nexalites only in view of the serious nature of the offences in which they were involved and their adherence to the policy of violence, misbehaviour and indiscipline and annihilation of class enemies. Hence certain prisoners mentioned in the affidavit have been treated as nexalite prisoners in view of their activities. It has been further averred in this counter-affidavit that the special treatment is being given to the petitioners because of the dangerous attitude and in view of their activities as set out above. In the common additional counter-affidavit dated 15-4-1980, filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Home department Government of Tamil Nadu, it has been averred in paragraph 4 that these petitioners are separately confined mainly on the security point of view and administrative reasons so that they should not indoctrinate non-nexalite prisoners. It has been further stated that the very purpose of keeping them separately is that they should not be allowed to move with each other, as otherwise they will conspire or execute plans for jail outbreak, escape etc. If they are allowed to move with each other, the prison authorities cannot prevent them from escaping or planning etc., whatever may be the strength of warder guard. In the further counter-affidavit filed on 8-8-1980 the second respondent, on behalf of the other respondents also, has stated that the petitioners are kept in separate cells in order to prevent them from indoctrinating the other prisoners. In this counter-affidavit, it has been further averred that convict No. 5150 Vythian alias Kaliaperumal, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, attempted to escape from the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, on the night of 20/21-4-1979, along with four other naxalites. Hence a case was registered against him and he was sent to Court in several occasions in connection with the case. It has been specifically denied in this counter-affidavit that prisoners cannot see anybody from the cells in which they have been put in. This counter-affidavit again reiterates that in view of the petitioners' adherence to the policy of violence, misbehaviour and indiscipline and annihilation of class enemies the incoming and outgoing letters of the naxalites prisoners are censored by the Q branch police.