NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (in short "MDMK") and detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 21 (2) & (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and Sections 109 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer him from Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli to Central Prison, Madurai forthwith.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he is a member of MDMK and his party, namely MDMK had decided to conduct a public meeting to celebrate party's 9th year anniversary and propagate the policy and achievements of the party and to invite the party functionaries to participate in the said public meeting. The public meeting was held on 29.06.2002 at Thirumangalam, Madurai District. Based on the complaint of one Thangavel, Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam registered a case against the petitioner and eight others including Thiru Vaiko under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 21 (2) & (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and Sections 109 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2002 along with others and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam remanded all of them under judicial custody till 07.08.2002. After remand, they were all taken to Central Prison, Madurai. Though all were arrested in the same crime number and remanded by the same Judicial Magistrate at Thirumangalam, Madurai District, A. Ganesamoorthy and Pullover Sivanthiappan were lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai, Vera. Ilavarasan and M. Bominathan were taken to Central Prison, Salem, P.S. Manian, Alagusundaram, Madurai Ganesan and the petitioner were taken to Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Special Court for trial under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 Chennai at Ponamallee on 07.08.2002. His remand was extended further from time to time. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Thirumangalam and all of his family members and friends are residing in and around Thirumangalam. His mother, aged about 72 years was suffering from Bone Cancer. She is unable to visit him, he applied to the Director General of Prisons, Chennai to transfer him from Tiruchirappalli Prison to Madurai Prison, so that his mother can visit him. The said request was sent through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, but the second respondent did not consider the same favourably and he was orally informed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli that his request has been turned down. In such a circumstance, having no other remedy, filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor received instructions from the Additional Director General of Prisons, Chennai 8 - second respondent herein. According to the second respondent, the petitioner and seven others concerned in Thirumangalam Town Police Station Crime No.280/02 under Section 13 (1) (A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 21 (2) and (3) of POTA and Sections 109 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code were remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam on 09.07.2002 and they were admitted in Central Prison, Madurai on the same day. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai in his telex message dated 10.07.2002, reported to the Additional Director General of Prisons, Chennai that only one high security block is provided for the accommodation of Muslim Fundamentalist prisoners, that 35 Muslim Fundamentalist prisoners were confined in his prison and the present population had considerably increased over the authorised accommodation and that much difficulties will be experienced for the segregation of POTA remand prisoners, who were admitted on 09.07.2002 and also convenient separate accommodation was also not available in his prison. Therefore, he requested to transfer six POTA remand prisoners to some other Central Prison on administrative reasons. After examining the request of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai and the accommodation as well as the present strength and in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 820 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, Volume II, six persons were ordered to be transferred to the Prisons mentioned against each for administrative and security reasons vide Additional Director General of Prisons telex message dated 10.07.2002. In accordance with the said order, the petitioner was transferred to Central Prison, Trichy along with other remand prisoner P.S. Manian @ Subramaniam, while four other remand prisoners were transferred to other prisons. Regarding the representation made by the petitioner, it is stated that the representation was duly examined with reference to the circumstances under which he was transferred from Central Prison, Madurai to Central Prison, Trichy and it was rejected by the Additional Director General of Prisons by memo dated 10.12.2002, since the situation prevailing in Central Prison, Madurai at the time of his transfer to Central Prison, Trichy has remained the same. Due to the continued detention of the prisoner in prison as a remand prisoner, as per the order of Court, he cannot be physically present by the side of his mother, who is stated to be bed ridden and is undergoing treatment. His relatives and friends have been allowed to meet him in the prison on 57 occasions from 12.07.2002 to 22.01.2003. The Hon'ble Central Minister Thiru Kannappan and Thiru Gingee Ramachandran have also interviewed him on various dates during this period. So, it is clear that he was not denied any reasonable facility for interview. Since the petitioner belonged to a political party, the prison administration had a responsibility to keep him safely and securely without risk to his life from any source. There are no justifiable reasons to accept the case of the petitioner to transfer him to Central Prison, Madurai.