SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu proceeding initiated upon a complaint petition submitted by a prisoner in the Central Prison, Kannur.

(2.) In the written complaint made by him, it is alleged that prisoners in the Kannur Central Prison are subjected to physical abuse by other persons as a result of the political rivalry among the prison population. It is alleged that the staff in the Kannur Central Prison are not doing anything to stop this abuse and the failure on the part of the authorities is partly due to the sympathy for the faction belonging to the political party in power and partly because of the inadequate number of prison staff to maintain control over the population. Before the matter was referred considered on the judicial side, the learned single judge, before whom the complaint was received, called for a report from the District & Sessions Judge and the report substantially shows that the complaint alleged is true. Some of the instances of assault in the Central Prison, Kannur were also reported. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge placed the matter to be considered in the judicial side and that is how the matter came up before us.

(3.) Taking note of the serious allegations as substantiated by the report of the District & Sessions Judge and to prevent such recurrence in future, we appointed Advocate Sri.Sahasranaman as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court and to file a detailed report after making an on-spot inspection of the jail. Accordingly, the Amicus Curiae has submitted a detailed report and made his valuable suggestions as a measure to prevent recurrence of such incidents. As the law on the subject is very clear that whether inside prison or outside, a person shall not be deprived of his freedom, right just and fair methods as held by the apex court in Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1579). It is equally true that Article 21 of the Constitution ensures that convicts - both prisoners and under trials can be subjected to only such restrictions as permitted by law. (See Nilabati v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960). Therefore, we find that the allegations raised in the complaint regarding assault among the prisoners belonging to different political parties itself is a serious matter which has to be stopped and the recurrence of which are to be prevented by taking appropriate measures in this regard. Solutions as suggested by the Amicus Curiae as contained in his report in paras 10 to 15 are as follows:-