MRS. GEETINDER KAUR versus STAIE OF PUNJAB AND 2 ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 23-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

325 
MRS, GEETINDER KAilR 
Vo 
STAIE OF PUNJAB AND 2 ORS • 
JULY 23, 1985 
[R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI JJ.] 
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 deten-
tion -
Administrati<:e choice of detaining authority -
Int:er-
ference by Court - When arises. 
The wife of the detenu in her petition under Article 32 
A 
B 
c 
ccntended that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody 
D 
in Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthsn 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, 
!ll!LD: 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 
waa in violation of any specific provision of the law or waa 
vitiated by arbitrary considerations and malafides. 
In the 
instant caae, 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 Rajaathsn, is not very distant from lhe 
State of Punjab and Haryans. 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, langusge, food 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
326 
SUPREME COUiX REPORTS 
[1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
and other illcldents of li villg, in the actual decision concerning 
the place of detention tbae coaaiderstions lllUlt yield to factors 
related to, and -sitatecl by, the need fclr placing him in 
preventive detentioll. [327 B-<:] 
3. llbile the c.onditions illposed upon a detenu held in 
preventive detention D18t not be punitive, they llllSt nevertheless 
be such 88 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 88 are 
reasonably and necessarily required by him, consistently of 
course with the need to maintain the security lof his detention. 
[328 C-DJ 
, 
5. Condition No. 4 (ii) of the National Security (Bajasthan 
Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 eiipo..ers the authorities to 
keep the detenu separate from ordinary prisoners. The nature of 
the detenu's detention does not call for interference. [328 G-11) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 391 of 
1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
I 
llardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner. 
Bhagwant Singh Sindhu, Advocate, General, Punjab and S.K. 
Baggs with him for th<! Respondent ilo. · 1 and B.D. Shanna for the 
Respondent Nos • 2 and 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PA'l'llAK, J. The petitioner, wlto 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 pro-
vided with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he should 
not be kept in solitary confinement, and should be allowed inter-
views 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~ vires. 
The petitioner is represented by Mr. llardev Singh, the 
State of Punjab by its Advocate Genral and the State of Rajasthan 
GEETlNOER KAUR v. STATE 
lPATHAK, J. J 
327 
by Shri B.D.Sh;;rma. 
We 
have heard them at length on this 
A 
petition. 
At the outset, it may be stated that tvlr. ttardev Singh 
did not question the validity of the provisions of the National 
Security (RaJasthan Condition of Detention) Order, 19S4. 
We 
propose to consider only those
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.