Mrs. Geetinder Kaur Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors [1985] INSC 161 (23 July 1985)
PATHAK, R.S. PATHAK, R.S.
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 1409 1985 SCR Supl. (2)
325 1985 SCC Supl. 388 1985 SCALE (2)54
ACT:
National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of
Detention) Order, 1984, Condition No. (iv) - Solitary Confinement of detenu
-Validity of.
Preventive detention - Detenu - Facilities of
- Detenu whether entitled to be detained in home State - Place of detention -
Administrative choice of detaining authority - Interference by Court - When
arises.
HEADNOTE:
The wife of the detenu in her petition under
Article 32 contended that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody in
Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthan may be located in the State of Punjab or at
a place not far off, that the detenu should be provided with appropriate
amenities and facilities, that he should not be kept in solitary confinement,
and should be allowed interviews with his relatives, friends and legal adviser
from time to time.
On the question whether the detenu should be
detained in the State of Punjab, his home State, ^
HELD: 1. The place of detention is a matter
for the administrative choice of the detaining authority, and a Court would be
justified in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any
specific provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary considerations and
malafides. In the instant case, no such material has been placed before the
Court. On the contrary, the counter- affidavits indicate that on the facts and
circumstances of the case it was necessary to effect the detention at
Bharatpur. The city of Bharatpur although situated in the State of Rajasthan,
is not very distant from the State of Punjab and Haryana. The reasons for
detaining the detenu at Bharatpur do not, therefore, permit interference in the
matter of place of detention. [327 D-F]
2. While ordinarily a detenu should be
detained in an environment natural to him in point of climate, language, food
326 and other incidents of living, in the actual decision concerning the place
of detention these considerations must yield to factors related to, and
necessitated by, the need for placing him in preventive detention.[327 B-C]
3. While the conditions imposed upon a detenu
held in preventive detention must not be punitive, they must nevertheless be
such as to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration. [327 C-D]
4. The Jail authorities will continue to
ensure that the detenu is supplied with all such facilities and amenities as are
reasonably and necessarily required by him, consistently of course with the
need to maintain the security of his detention. [328 C-D]
5. Condition No. 4 (ii) of the National
Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 empowers the authorities
to keep the detenu separate from ordinary prisoners. The nature of the detenu's
detention does not call for interference. [328 G-H]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.
391 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.) Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.
Bhagwant Singh Sindhu, Advocate, General,
Punjab and S.K. Bagga with him for the Respondent No. 1 and B.D. Sharma for the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. The petitioner, who is the wife of Simranjit Singh Mann, a detenu
detained in the District Jail, Bharatpur, has filed this Writ Petition praying
that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody may be located in the
State of Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should be provided
with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he should not be kept in
solitary confinement, and should be allowed interviews with his relatives and
friends and his legal adviser from time to time. It is further prayed that
certain provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention)
Order, 1984 be declared ultra vires.
The petitioner is represented by Mr. Hardev
Singh, the State of Punjab by its Advocate General and the State of Rajasthan
327 by Shri B.D.Sharma. We have heard them at length on this petition. At the
outset, it may be stated that Mr. Hardev Singh did not question the validity of
the provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Condition of Detention)
Order, 1984. We propose to consider only those points on which submissions were
made by him.
Mr. Hardev Singh contends that the detenu
should have been detained in preventive custody in the State of Punjab, which
is his home State, or in any event at a place not far off from that State. We
have given the matter careful thought. While it is ordinarily desirable that a
detenu should be detained in an environment natural to him in point of climate,
language, food and other incidents of living, in the actual decision concerning
the place of detention these considerations must yield to factors related to,
and necessitated by, the need for placing him in preventive detention. While we
maintain that the conditions imposed upon a detenu held in preventive detention
must not be punitive, they must nevertheless be such as to secure the
effectiveness of his incarceration. The respondents have given reasons for
detaining the detenu at Bharatpur, and we are not persuaded that the law allows
us to interfere in the matter. The place of detention is a matter for the
administrative choice of the detaining authority, and a court would be
Justified in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any
specific provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary considerations and
mala fides. No such material has been placed before us. On the contrary, the
affidavits filed by the respondents on the record indicate that the mind has
been applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it was felt
necessary to effect the detention at Bharatppur. It may be observed that the
city of Bharatpur, although situated in the State of Rajasthan, is not very
distant from the States of Punjab and Haryana. In the circumstances, we find
ourselves unable to grant the relief sought by Mr. Hardev Singh in respect of
the place of detention.
The next contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the detenu should be provided with various amenities and
facilities necessary for a proper and decent human existence, and among them
are mentioned good food, furniture and proper lighting, the supply of linen
including pillows, bed-sheets and a mosquito net, adequate medical attention,
as well as recreational amenities such as a radio. It is also prayed that the
petitioner should be entitled to have his religious symbols near him to enable
him to observe his religious practices. A counter 328 affidavit filed by Mr.
K.P. Upadhyay, who was Superintendent of the District Jail at Bharatpur upto
May 23, 1985 has enumerated on oath that the detenu has been provided all the
necessary amenities and facilities. He has specifically mentioned that a
suitable diet, recommended by the doctor on duty, is being supplied to the
detenu, and that the detenu is allowed to supplement the food at his cost or by
food supplied by his family. Besides, it is averred, the detenu has been
allowed religious books appropriate to his faith as well as books on
philosophy, history and fiction. It is also asserted that newspapers are
supplied to the detenu. The learned Advocate General for the State of Punjab
has stated before us that he will have no objection to any further necessary
and desirable amenities and facilities being provided to the detenu, and that a
transistor radio could also be made available to the detenu. On the question of
medical attention for the detenu, it appears that he is a patient of high blood
pressure, and it is affirmed that adequate medical attention by medical experts
as well as appropriate medicines have been made available to him. We have no
doubt that the Jail authorities will continue to ensure that the detenu is
supplied with all such facilities and amenities as are reasonably and
necessarily required by him, consistently of course with the need to maintain
the security of his detention.
On the question of the detenu being allowed
interviews with his lawyer, and his parents, wife and family as well as other
relatives, the learned Advocate General has assured us that the State of Punjab
will have no objection to such interviews, provided an application in that
behalf is duly made to the Jail authorities before hand. We direct the Jail
authorities to dispose of all such applications expeditiously.
Some argument was raised on the question
whether the detenu was being kept in solitary confinement in his cell.
It appears from the record before us that the
detenu has been provided two adjacent cells and enjoys a certain degree of
freedom of movement from early morning to the evening. It is also mentioned
that a convict officer serves as his cook and he is entitled to contact two
wardens, one of whom is available in the ward itself and the other is posted at
the gate of the ward. It is stated that medical officers and male nurses also
attend on the detenu. The respondents claim that condition No. 4(ii) of the
National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 empower them
to keep the detenu separate from ordinary prisoners. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has been unable to satisfy us that the nature of the detenu's
detention calls for interference by the Court.
329 Learned counsel for the petitioner
alleges that the petitioner was tortured during an earlier stage of his
detention, and has sought to prove this by summoning the Visitors' Register
maintained at the District Jail, Bharatpur in order to show that police
officers had visited the detenu and interrogated him. While we are of opinion
that the petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence in support of the allegation
of torture, we fail to see how the Visitors' Register will substantiate that charge.
The Register will indicate the identity of the visitors, and may record the
duration of the visits. It has not been shown that it will prove what actually
went on during the visits.
In the circumstances we see no reason to send
for the Register.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
A.P.J.
Back