122 PRISONERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a petition filed by 122 under-trial prisoners voicing several grievances, Advocate C.S. Dias, who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae, brought to the notice of this Court that there are huge number of under-trial prisoners languishing in different jails in the State, undergoing detention for more than even the maximum period of sentence prescribed for the offence or offences alleged against them. It was also submitted that this was mainly due to non-production of such prisoners in court for want of sufficient police escort.

(2.) Sensing the immediate need for an urgent intervention at the hands of this Court, a direction was issued to the Director General of Police (Prisons) to file a statement whether there are any such prisoners in the jails. A shocking statement dated 20.9.2006 was filed by the D.G.P. (Prisons), in response to the direction of this Court. The statement revealed that there are as many as 109 under-trial prisoners in the various jails of Kerala who suffer detention for more than half of or the maximum period of imprisonment which they have to undergo for the respective offences alleged against them. (The number, indeed, is alarming). The names of the respective Jails and the number of prisoners undergoing such detention in those jails have been furnished in the said statement.

(3.) On hearing both sides, it appears that the main cause for the unwarranted detention of the under-trial prisoners is their non-production in court, due to want of sufficient police escort, as alleged by the prisoners. It is also an admitted fact that there is difficulty in providing adequate police escort on all occasions, for want of sufficient police men. The continued existence of the deplorable state of affair has thus, become not merely imaginary now, but very real, as inferable from the statement of the D.G.P. (Prisons). As a remedial measure, this Court issued directions, as early as in March 2005, to implement video-conferencing at least in the three District Jails, in the State as suggested by the State itself. But, the said order remains in papers, without compliance. The State prays for further extension of time for implementation of video conferencing.