LexRAMESH KAUSHIK versus B. L. VIG, SUPERINIBNDENT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMESH KAUSHIK v. B. L. VIG, SUPERINIBNDENT AND ANR. April 30, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] Jtdl Jurisprudence-Prison torture and Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Cowt-Tl'eatment for 'B' class amf 'C' class in Tihar !Mil whither o/Jlmlfs Artidt 14 of the Constitution-Constitution of India Artie/ea 21, 19 and 14. A B r Kaushik, a lifer lodged in Tihar Jail moved a quasi habeas corpus petition .bittaiy complaining with facts and figures, of the terror and horror, pb,ysica1 C and poycbic, let loose on him and ot:ber jail mates by a crypto criminal combiaa- ·.tiOD of senior officials and superior prisoners, thereby making the prison life withia that walled world such a trauma a-nd torment the law never mearit under the sentence suffered at the bands of the Court. Briefly, the petitioner .allqiod that his life in jail is subjected to intimidation by overbearing ~ooglls' inlide, that he is forced to be party to misappropriation of jail funds by Biid ·bribe<y of officers, that homoS:exual and sexual indulence with the connivmi<e D of ollicials are going on, that smuggling in and out is frequent and drug racket <:OOUllOll, that alcoholic and violent nUsconduct by gangs like those involved in Bank Robbery and other notoriou,, cases are a menace to quieter prisoner& and the whole goal of reformation of sentences is defeated by this supercrimc syndrome. On this the Court appointed Sri Subodh Markentleya as amiaus curiae to inquire into the allegations and submit a report. The respondent Delhi. Admini~tration transversed the grounds in the petition. E Allowing the petitions, the Court HEID : 1. Prison torture is not beyond the reach of the Supreme Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. [931 Fl Were there a modicum of truth in the disclosures made; of vice and violence,. ~-overt and covert, in the goings on in Tihar such an institutional outrage would I. mate our constitutional culture blllsh and our judicial punishment 'guilty' pro- ' cednre. And on the materials placed before the, Court there is gronnd enough to exercise our exceptional but undoubted jurisdiction to ensure some minimum ''°f" aocial hygierie and banishment of licentious excesses lest the ·sentence of court be frustrated in its dual ends of deterrence and rehabilltatioo by prison pathology. [932 B-C] 2.· When police and prison torture is escalating in our human rights era, courts owe a duty to society not to ignore such a dangerous reality. Under our ,a-ilution, deprivatioo of personal liberty as penal policy ill purposive and the Pemmf · O:xle itself is valid because the imprisonment of the criminal is reason~ able. not arbitrary, and is sanctioned as a measure of social defence atid indmdual rehabilitation. A court sentence does not deprive the prisooer of bis Dmdamental rights. To reform and deter the criminal and to work out that procellS ~ to social defence, the convict is cast into prison-not k> make Jhim more hardened, more brutal, more cunning and dangerous to society. This F G H I 930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.. A r~on d'etr~ of penological institutions in our Gandhian country, with hnma- rusm ~ basic to. the. constitutional scheme, caonot be; written off without peril. A Prison t~rm _in T1~ Jail is not a post graduate training in tough crime. No sentencmg Judge, high and low should hang his helpless head in frustration and. humibation because institutional alternations and personnel perversions havec sullied and stultified the justice of his sentence. [932 F-H, 933 A, B, CJ - B Sunil Batra v. State (Delhi Administration), [1980] 2 SCR,557; referred to. 3. The human rights of common prisoners are at a discount and~ ia our Socialist Republic moneyed 'B' class convicts operate to oppress the humbler inmates. There cannot be inequality in prison too on the score of social and financial status. Bank robbers in 'B' class because they are rich by robbery andJ nameless little men in •c• class because they are only common Indians! Article C 14 is suffocated if this classification is permitted, and yet that, according to rule itself, is prevalent. Therefore, the Supreme Court must act, will act, to resto1e the rule Of the law and respect of the residual fundamental risbls 0£ any harassed ~itioner. [933 D-F]. D E F 4. The writ jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court must be equal to the need& of human rights and human wrongs. In Sunil Bat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.