R.D. UPADHYAY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 29-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

R.D. UPADHYA Y 
v. 
.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND 
V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Under/rial Prisoner-Lunatic-Languishing in jail in West Bengal Since 
1962-Medical aid-State failing to provide-Compensation-Report C 
submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate indicating that medical treatment 
provided after High Court intervened-Superintendent, Jail did not submit 
even medical reports of physical and mental state of prisoner from 1964 to 
1995-A.C.C.M. made no efforts to take any action-Even after Supreme 
Court pointed out existing state of affairs, there has been no fixing of 
accountability-Supreme Court showing its anquish-Held, there has been D 
complete violation of statutory provisions contained in Prisons Act, Code of 
Criminal Procedure and Indian Lunacy Act-Courts can award reasonable 
compensation to express court's condemnation of tortious act committed by 
State-Since the detenu has no known relatives, and he has been 
accommodated in the Home maintained by Missionaries of Charity (Brothers) E 
at Kancharapara, an institution which cares for sick and dying destitutes 
free of cost, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs would be paid by State Government to the 
said institution as an interim measure-Amicu9 Curaie and counsel for State 
Government would file a submission/suggestion note for assistance of court 
to issue necessary guidelines and directions regarding detenus like the 
present one. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
I.A. No. 4 
IN 
Writ Petition (C) No. 559 of 1994. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
F 
G 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Kapil Sibal (AC) (NP), Ranjit H 
167 
. 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Kumar, P.P. Malhotra, Taps Ray, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.W.A. Qadri, Ashok K. 
Shrivastava, Ms. Sushma Suri, A.K. Sharma, B.K. Parsad, B.V. Balramdas, 
D.S.Mahra, Bipul Kumar, H.K. Puri, S.K.Puri, Rajesh Shrivastava, Ujjwal 
Banerjee, B.B. Singh, N.K. Sharma, Ranjan Mukerjee, Kailash Vasdev, R.Rahim, 
B.S. Chahar, for Ashok Mathur, Gopal Singh, Anil Srivastava, Uma Nath 
B Singh, V.G. Pragasam, G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Jyotish A.P., Jayshree 
Anand, Addi. Advocate General for State of Punjab, G. Sivabalamurgan, Raj iv 
Kumar Sharma, R.S. Suri, Sushi! Kr. Jain, Addi. Advocate General for state of 
Rajasthan, A. Mishra, A.P. Dhamija, R.B. Misra, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Ms. 
A. Subhashini, Ms. H. Wahi, Amitesh Lal, S.V. Deshpande, G. Prabhakar (NP), 
Ms. Rani Jethmaiani, J.S. Attri, K.B. Rohtagi, K.S. Bhati, Prem Malhotra, K. 
C K. Rai (N.P), R.S. Jena, K.H. Nobin Singh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mahabir Singh, 
S.R. Sharma, K. Ram Kumar, B.Sridhar, K. Kiran and N.Ganpathy, for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing as 
Amicus, assisted by Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel and Mr. Tapas Ray, 
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the state of West Bengal, assisted by 
Mr. H K Puri, learned counsel. 
E 
In our order dated 16th December, 1999, we had traced the history of 
confinement of Ajoy Ghosh. From the report, submitted by the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, dated 15th January, 2000, it clearly emerges that between the 
period 1964 and I 995, learned court of A.C.M.M. made no efforts to take any 
action in the case of the unfortunate lunatic undertrial prisoner A joy Ghosh 
languishing in jail since 1962. Even medical treatment was provided to him 
F only after the High Court intervened. The A.C.M.M. as well as the Jail 
authorities had taken no action in that behalf. The Superintendent Presidency 
Jail, Calcutta even later on took no action to send medical reports of the 
physical and mental state of Ajoy Ghosh from 1964 to 1983 and thereafter till 
1995. There may be many like Ajoy Ghosh languishing in West Bengal or 
G other jails of the country. There has been a complete violation of the statutory 
provisions contained in the Prisons Act, 1990; the Code of Criminal Procedure; 
and the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 in dealing with the case of Ajoy Ghosh. We 
are anguished. The authorities are required to act according to law but the 
law has been unfortunately respected in its breach. There has been no fixing 
of accountability even after this Court pointed out the existence of the sad 
H state of affairs concerning Ajoy Ghosh. We shall revert to this aspect while 
R.D. UPADHYAY v. STATE 
169 
finally disposing of this appli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.