SANKAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to permit the Petitioner's counsel to have interview with the Petitioners. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the learned Counsel, who appeared for the Petitioners, that the Petitioners were arrested on 4.2.1991 by the Police of Adyar Police Station for an offence under Section 12(1)(C) of the Passport Act. They are Sri Lankan Tamils and they are now detained under the National Security Act on 19.2.1991 by the first Respondent herein. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Thiru Rajiv Gandhi, they were shifted to Central Prison, Salem and again from there to the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Refugees at Thuraiyur, Tiruchi District. It is further stated that the Counsel went to the third Respondent on 21.2.1992 and met the third Respondent for getting permission to meet Petitioners to interview for legal assistance The third Respondent did not let him to interview the Petitioners, telling that at that time no regulation was formed to interview the Petitioners. Third Respondent ultimately directed the counsel to meet the second Respondent for getting permission. On 17.3.1992 he met the second Respondent at his office and presented a letter to get permission for the interview and the second Respondent directed him to meet him after two weeks. Accordingly the counsel met the second Respondent on 3.4.1992 for getting permission to meet the Petitioners and was directed to meet the P.A.(G) to Collector, and endorsed in the counsel's letter to that effect. Accordingly the counsel met the P.A.(G) who directed him to meet the District Supply Officer. When he met the District Supply Officer, he told the counsel that his representation was sent to the first Respondent for suitable action and reply would be sent to him. No reply has been sent to him by the Respondents and hence this petition.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent, it is stated that it is true that the Petitioners were arrested on 4.2.1991 for alleged offences under the Indian Passport Act as well as for the offences under Section 12(1)(c) of Indian Passport Act. It is also true that by order bearing Government Orders Ms. No. 223,227 and 218, Public (Law and Order) Department, dt. 19.2.1991, the Petitioners who are Sri Lankan Tamils were detained under the National Security Act. Based on the said order, the Petitioners were lodged in Thuraiyur Special Camp for Sri Lankan Refugees on 18.2.1992. It is further submitted that the Special Camps were ordered to be looked after by the Collectors. The needs of the inmates and the regulation of the visitors were looked after by the respective Collectors. In view of the serious threat perception to the country's sovereignty as well as to the V.I. Ps' lives and also in view of the susceptibility of the inmates themselves to outside threat, the Government had ordered to restrict entry of outsiders in the Special Camp. But whenever genuine requests came, after examining the requests, the Collectors were allowing interviews with the inmates by the relatives. There are also instances where the Government have permitted close relatives of the inmates to stay with them in the Special Camp itself. Lastly it is stated in the counter affidavit that the counsel of the Petitioners could not be permitted as he had come to certain adverse notice of the Government.

(3.) IN this connection, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Francis Corali v. Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R.1981 S.C. 746 wherein the Apex Court has considered the same question in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows: