COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal writ petition, was registered following the suo motu directions by the Court to issue notices in respect of a telecast "ghoos Mahal and Tihar Saga" shown by the channel "aaj Tak". The said feature disclosed and revealed acts of prison officials showing and giving undue favour to prisoners in breach of the Rules under the Jail Manual. This being inextricably linked with the infarction and breach of Rules under the Jail Manual, had a direct effect on the administration of criminal justice. The Court accordingly took cognizance and directed registration of a criminal writ petition vide order dated 6th May, 2005 and issuance of notices to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, Director General (Prisons), Delhi, Secretary, Department of justice, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India.

(2.) DURING the course of the proceedings, two news items appeared, one in "the hindustan Times" on 15th September, 2005 and the second in "times of India" on 16th September, 2005. Both the news items reported incidents involving breach of Jail Rules and discipline. The news item in The Hindustan Times was titled ""bikini show" has Tihar blushing, Recreational event turns into sleaze party; inquiry ordered". As far as this item is concerned, after issuance of notice and filing of replies, the matter had been concluded with The Hindustan Times recognizing that the programme was in the nature of a cultural programme for recreation and entertainment of inmates and had published a regret. The second new item published in Times of India was under the caption "for Pappu's fans, all roads lead to Tihar". The reference was to Pappu Yadav alias Rajesh Ranjan, who had been shifted to Tihar prison following the judgment of the Supreme Court titled "kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. " reported at AIR 2005 SC 972, to which we shall advert later. By this order, we wish to dispose of the notice issued in respect of this news item.

(3.) THE news item was authored by Ms. Megha Suri. It began by stating that Tihar jail was experiencing a poll buzz. It was not that the inmates were voting for any union election, but with the Bihar polls only a month away, political activists were calling on Pappu Yadav, the Madhepur MP lodged in Jail No. 3 and that there was rush of visitors for him. The news item imputed that there was a stream of visitors and the interviews/mulakats were granted in excess and in contravention of the Rules. Though the time prescribed was only 30 minutes, he could have all the time he wanted. Further, that his wife, who was an MP, visited him regularly with home cooked food and met him in the office of the jail Deputy Superintendent. Regarding facilities, it was reported that Pappu yadav was provided with a television set, a cooler and a special bed having a cushy mattress in his cell. For recreation in the evening, he liked to play volley Ball with other prisoners etc. The news item also gave the version of the Jail officials, who denied any Mulakats in contravention of the Rules. Jail officials further denied that any special privileges were being provided to him. The special bed had been provided on the recommendation of the Doctors of All india Institute of Medical Sciences and the cooler on the recommendation of the jail Hospital. Reply affidavits have been filed by the Jail administration. Written submissions have also been filed by Mr. S. K. Singh on behalf of the times of India and Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for Delhi Administration. Ms. Megha suri, the journalist, has also filed her affidavit. The stand of the Jail administration has been that the Mulakat and interviews were being granted in accordance with Rule 21, 22 and 23 of the Delhi Prisons (Prisoner Welfare Fund, Appeals, Petitions, Interviews and Communication) Rules, 1988. In terms of Rule 23, the Jail Superintendent was empowered to grant more than the prescribed number of interviews or at shorter intervals, should the situation so warrant. As regards the Mulakat being granted to his wife in the room of the Deputy Superintendent, Jail, it was urged that she was a sitting m. P. and in deference to her status, the interview was being granted in the room of the Deputy Superintendent, Jail. Further, in terms of Rule 29, it was within the powers of the Superintendent to grant an interview at any part of the jail premises. The provision of hospital bed was stated to be as per the recommendation of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) who found him to be a patient of Morbid Obesity and Right Thigh Fistula. A special bed was recommended for him. A cooler was similarly provided as per the recommendation of the Board of Doctors of the Jail Hospital on finding him to be suffering from sun exposure for a long time due to heat/raised temperature. As regards the provision of television, it is stated that TV facility is available in the barracks and cells except in the high security wards.