ANIL YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 23-03-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
~--
'/ 
.. } 
• ; 
j" 
ANIL · YADAV. & _ORS.' 
'· v. 
·.'_;--;:.I ·.·' 
· l·. 
. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
. •, 
,,- .•.. 
., 
. ·.· , , March 23, 1982; 
·-; 
,"-;.·· 
".-· .. V'. 
[Y.V. CJIANDRACHUD, C.J., A.' v ARADARAJAN AND 
A!llARENDRA NATH SEN, JI.] 
-. 
. . 
_, .. _· .. 
. •• f 
533 
· ... 
, .. 
. __ . · ConJt/tullon oflmlia 1950, Art.32-Habea• CorpuJ petltlon-&•pondmt a 
go1ernment official directed tO file Oj/idarit..:...OffiClal' 1usp•nded by; government-
Susptn1/011 Order whether Can be challenged in /11cldental Proceedt,,Z8. · · · 
-
The second respondent who was the Superintendent or the BbagaJpur 
Central Jail was suspended by the State Government on ·the groand that he was 
negligent in providing~ propel- -medicai aid to the blinded undertrial prisoners 
inside the jail and that he bad failed to make entries in the jail register as reg~rds 
the physical condition or the ui:tdeririat prisoners.': 
~ 
I 
In a Mlscellaneous Petition ·filed by him he claimed ·that bis order of 
suspeOsion be quashed as it·was passed ma/a fide. with the object ol preventing 
him from tiling the affidavit as directed by the cOurt. · ; .. 
·The. State GovemiDent contested the petitiO~ cOntendi.iig that the respon-
dent was suspended for his ·failure to Comply with the requirements of Rule 474 
(1) of the Bihar Jail Manual in that he -did iiot scrutinise and sign the entries 
made in the Admission Register maintained at the jail to satisfy himself whether 
those entries were correct and whether the relevant rules in regard to the admis-
sion of the prisoners were complied with.· He_ did_ not. aJso record any 'special" 
. ofdei under Rule 474 (2) regarding the medical treatmeiit given or to be given to 
the blinded prisoners with the reslllt that they were not sent for examination to 
any eye specialist. He did ... not make 3. report on the blindings of the prisoners 
and. he ~~pplied .to newsP_aper_s bis own version of the blindings • 
. , 
. 
Dismissing the petitions;-, 
' 
,--. 
: ", 
HELD: . OrdinarilY 30: older ·or sus~D.Sion cailliot be ~·hau~nied i~. I.a · 
inCideiltal proceeding but it ·was heaid Since the allegation was th3t the petitioD.Cr 
was suspended in order 10 defeat the order passed _by this Court. [539 E] · · , ·: 
< 
-
' 
~ 
~ . . · .. 2. The Order of, suSpension. was -not._ passed: by the GoveiUment ·ma/a 
J;j~ as a couuter·blast to the order passed b)' this Coor! on December l, 1980 
lliid 10 c!efc~t it. (540 FJ 
· · 
· 
·A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
A. 
8 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( l 982J '3 S.C.R. 
3. The allegation that the motive behind the order was to frustrate the 
purpose of the Court's direction calJing upon the petitioner to file an affidavit is 
not proved. The evidence on record indicates that the State Government officials 
were enquiring into the blindings of the under-trial prisoners and there is a report 
in the- Government files recommending that the petitioner be suspended for dere-
liction of duty, It cannot be said that this report was prepa1ed later and ante-
dated to justify the order of suspension. [540 G-H; 541 A-BJ 
4. By placing the petitioner under suspension the State Government 
could not prevent him from filing an affidavit in Court. He was free to file bis 
affidavit and in fact he filed an affidavit after suspension. [541 CJ 
S. 
The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order of suspension in 
a properly constituted proceedings on such grounds as may be open to him 
including the ground that the order was passed ma/a fide. [541 Fl 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 8774 
of 1980 & 2581of1981. 
~-, 
IN 
Writ Petition No. 5352 of 1980. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) 
B.L. Das Petitioner-in-person. 
K.G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent (State). 
R.N. Poddar for the Res,Pondent (CBI). 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, CJ. These Misc. Petitions are an off-shoot 
of the blindings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State 
of Bihar. Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite 
of the veil of secrecy behind which the blindings of those prisoners 
lay concealed or suppressed, this Court and the country awoke one 
day to the incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial 'prisoners 
were subjected to the most inhuman torture imaginable : their eyes 
were pierced with needles and acid poured into them. Whether 
these barbarous acts were committed by members of the public afte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.