ARAYAKANDY ACHUTHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL CANNANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition sent from jail by one Arayakandy Achuthan, undergoing detention in the Central Jail, Cannannore under the Kerala Security Prisoners order, 1971. He complains that the clothing to which he is entitled under Clause 8 of the above Order is not supplied to him by the jail authority. Under Clause 8, every security prisoner is entitled to six shirts, six pyjamas or clothings, six banians, six underwears and six towels annually. They can change the items according to their requirements. These items are to be given at the beginning of the detention. The clothing once issued to a security prisoner need not be surrendered at the time of his release from the jail. They are even permitted to make private arrangements at their own cost for additional clothings over and above what is supplied by the Government.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that even though about 1 1/2 months have elapsed since his detention, these clothings have not been supplied. He further complains that petitions submitted by him to be forwarded to the authorities have not been so forwarded. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Cannannore in his written explanation has stated that the petitioner was offered clothing manufactured in the jail department, but he refused to accept them. He has also cited Rule 376 of the Kerala Prison Rules to show that the prisoners are entitled only to clothing and bedding manufactured in the. iail department and not those purchased from the market. This rule, however, applies only to convicts and under-trial prisoners and cannot apply to detenus under the Kerala Security Prisoners Order. The; superintendent of the Central Jail cannot jettison the claim of the petitioner by quoting Rule 376. Security prisoners as is evident from the Order itself, are to be treated on a different footing. They are to be treated honourably. This is quite evident from the various amenities allowed to them under the Ordtr. Clause 9 of the Order, for instance, deal-Ing with bedding, directs that they should be supplied with bedding given to A class prisoners. They are also directed to be supplied with two pairs of chappals costing Rs. 15/- per pair. Clause 10 provides that each security prisoner will be supplied with one cake of toilet soap of standard quality and half a bar of washing soap every month. They are also to be supplied 170 grams of cocoanut oil or ginyelly oil for oil bath every week. In addition, each prisoner will be supplied with a tooth brush and a tongue cleaner once in six months and a tube of tooth paste every month.

(3.) THESE provisions show that they are tn be treated on a much higher foot-ing than the convict or the under-trial prisoner. The dress rules generally applicable to convicts or under-trial prisoners therefore, cannot, apply to secu-rity prisoners. They are entitled to clothing to which they are accustomed and which are ordinarily worn by them. In, other words, the same tvpe of dress worn by them at the beginning of the detention can legitimately be claimed by them during the period of detention. Clause 8 directs that the particular items of dress should be supplied to them the moment they enter the prison. The delay in supplying, in the circumstances, is unpardonable. The type of dress to which the petitioner is entitled is not seen manufactured in the tail. They have therefore to be purchased from the market and supplied. It is expected that the necessary items of dress usually worn by the detenu will be supplied without any further delay.