NALINI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is before us on the directions of the Honourable the Chief Justice, on a reference made by K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J., to the Honourable the Chief Justice, that this petition may have to be heard by a larger Bench of this Court, since the issue raised in this writ petition is of some public importance.

(2.) PETITIONERS , twenty -two in number, are the accused, alongwith four others, in C.C. No. 3 of 1992 pending on the file of the Designated Court, Poonamallee. Initiation of prosecution, is under Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1984 (Central Act 28 of 1987), now widely known as "Rajiv Gandhi Murder Case". The prayer in the main petition is for issue of a declaration or order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring Rule 530 -A of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules as null and void.

(3.) WHILE they were in police custody as well in the Sub -Jail, Chengalpattu and Central Prison, Salem, they were allowed freely to interview their relatives and also discuss with their counsel, all the time being in close contact. However, in the Special Sub -Jail at Poonamallee, such facility for free interview has been denied. Interview room looks like a parrot cage. This room measures 8' x 5' and divided into two parts by a partition wall of 3' height and a fibre glass partition above that, reaching the top, thereby preventing Petitioners from talking to their advocates and relatives in the Special Sub -Jail premises. Further no furniture is provided in the room and only one advocate can interview at a time. No facility has been provided for the interviewing advocate. He has to keep the papers only on the floor. No self -respecting person will come again to the jail, for purpose of interview, after a single experience. In a limited time, all the accused cannot meet their advocates. A high security arrangement is made in the jail and a third person can neither enter the jail premises, nor is permitted to do so. A thorough checking is made at three points and counsel are also subjected to such checking. The local police and special police force, C.R.P.F., take care of the security of the prison. Two years after arrest, no body can expect any danger to the lives of the Petitioners, when compared to the custody with the police or while kept at Sub -Jail, Chengalpattu or Central Prison, Salem, where they were allowed to move freely with visitors and advocates. When the Petitioners were permitted to interview freely with their advocates, even when investigation was not completed, there cannot be any reason in not permitting the Petitioners to talk freely with their advocates, especially when the investigation is over and trial is on the anvil.