LexMADHU LIMAYE versus THE SUPERINTENDENT, TIHAR JAIL, DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
582
MADHO LIMAYE
A
v.
THt: SUPERINTENDENT, TIHAR JAIL, DELHI & ORS.
February 19, 1975
[K. K. MATHEW. v. K. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
Consti1111io11 A rtide 32-Hah!'ll.1· Corpu.1-Punjab Jail Manual-Racial dis-
crimi11atirl11 berween Indian and E11ro.nea11 p:·isoners-Whet!ier que~tion raised
B
cnn he drrennined if detenu released.
The petitioner filed the present Habeas Cot pus. ~etition challengi~g
hi.s
detention.
The petitioner also challenged the prov1S1ons of the
p,~niab Jail
Manual which creates artificial discrimination between Indian and European
pri)OlhTS in the matter of treatment and diet.
The resnondent contended that since the oetitioner has been released
the
petition ha;; become infructuous.
The petitioner cited various authorities of
this Court as well as of the Supreme Court of Un;•ed States that where issues
of great moment affecting liberty of the citizen are involved the decision should
not be avoided even though the immediate prohibition which led to the filing
of the writ pe,ition has for the time being disappeared.
HELD : The Court would not decide ihe issue fer two reasons.
Firstly,
the petitioner is no longer in prison and, secondly, the Learned. Solicitor General
assured the Court that he would draw attention of the Punjab Government to
the need for revision of the imougned rules from the point of view of racial
equality. The court hoped that the State Government would take up the reform
of the law, eluminate the vice of inequality and update the regulations to be
in keeping with the spirit and letter of the paramount Jaw.
[5830-E]
Petition dismi.ssed.
ORIGINAL JIJRISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 318 of 1970.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Santok Singh, for the Petitioner.
L. N. Sinha and R. N. Sachthey, for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
c
D
E
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Shri Madhu Limaya, M.P. moved this petition
F
while he was prisoner, imbued more by the pro bona publico spirit
than perhaps by his own invidious lot in jail. The gravamen of this -
public grievance in that a Jong silver jubilee span of years having elap--
sed after India became a 'Sovereirrn
Democratic
Re;111h1ic.
it
is obnoxious that racial discrimination, smacking of colonial hang-
over, should stubbornly resist arts. 14 & 15 of the Constitution and
survive in the Punjab .fail Manual. Tf it were so, it were a matter to
G
blush f~. but the preliminary objection raised bv the Snlicit·or Gene-
ral is thc1t the petitioner having· been freed from prison years ago,
this Court should not be invited into an academic exercise on a con-
stitutional
issue. Of course, he concedes that the C-ourt
is
not
deprived of jurisdiction by the cessation of incarceration. An inflexi-
ble rule that as soon as a custodial term or prohibitory order expires
the Court will not investifl'ate its legality may well immmli:cc ephemc-
H
rat illcg1lity against judicial review on unwitting infraction of the
amplitude of the Court's powers. But there are cases and cases.
A
B
c
D
E
F
MADHU-LIMAYE v. SUPDT. T!HAR JAIL (Krishna Iyer, ].)
583
Mr. Santok Singh, for the petitioner, has brought to our notice
decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of the United States
to press home his point that issues of such great moment afiecting the
liberty of the citizens should not
be avoided even though the
immediate proh101t1on which has led to the writ pet1t10n nas, tor Ilic
time being, disappeared
(See Carroll v. Commissioners of Princess
Anne( 1) and Umted States v. Phosphate t:xpurr Assa("); also Maanu
Limaye v. Ved Mi.rti(8) and Himat Lal K. Such v. Comm1. of Police,
Ahmedabad(4).
The thrust of the charge of unconstitutionality made by Sri Madhu
Limaye consists in the artificial discr:mination between Indian and
European prisoners in the matter of treatment and diet, gomg by t11c
rules he has set out in his petition. Jt is true that many laws which do
not square with the equality enshrined in Arts. l 4 and 15 die l1ard
until pronounced dead by the Court Prima f acie the rules quoted
are neither fair on their face nor equal in their bosom, as between
Indians and Europeans. This white-complex has no right to remain
extent in the rules, according to counsel for the petitioner. We have
drawn the attention of the Solicitor General to what appears to be an
obsolete but overlooked discrimination. We arc not incli,ned tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.