GOPALANACHARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lament of the petitioner, Gopalanachari, a septuagenarian languishing in a Kerala prison, is that in his case the law has become lawless and justice has fallen as the first casualty, a lot shared by several other prison-mates. He wrote a letter dated nil to one of us (Krishna Iyer, J.) complaining of illegal detention under S. 110, Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) whereupon the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked and the following order was made :

(2.) Even here we may state that Shri M. M. Abdul Kader, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri E. M. Sadrul Enam, Advocate-on-Record, has rendered help as amicus curiae and enabled the court to set human rights in perspective in a S. 110 situation. Shri Tarkunde also, as intervener, has helped the court which, incidentally, strengthens the current of participative justice since leading members of the bar and public organisations in the field taking part in the court process in the shape of assistance in the cause of justice lends reality to the democracy of judicial remedies.

(3.) The State, in response to the notice, put in a statement that in the Sub-Jail at Kottayam there are as many as six prisoners detained under S. 110 of the Code. Apparently, they have been suffering incarceration for several months, the petitioner himself having been in jail from 23-2-1980. It is added by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, that the petitioner "is well known habitual prisoner of the Kerala State ............ he is known as 'Kallan Gopalan' " i. e., thief Gopalan. In pathetic contrast to this stigmatising generalisation that the petitioner is a wellknown 'habitual' we find the averment in the petition of the detainee that he has been falsely implicated without any regard for human rights. His averments which have not been specifically contested may well be extracted :