M KARUNANIDHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the common question is whether G.O.Ms. No. 972, Home (Prison-B) dated 8-6-1992 is unconstitutional and invalid. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that W.P. No. 8710 of 1992 has become infructuous inasmuch as the persons on whose behalf the petition was filed are not in detention. But, we do not want to dismiss the petition on the ground that it has become infructuous since we are considering the same question in the other writ petitions.

(2.) The Prisons Act, 1894 (Central Act IX of 1894) empowers the Government to make rules. Section 59 provides for the same. Section 40 of the said Act provides that due provision shall be made for the admission at proper times and under proper restrictions, into every prison of persons with whom civil or unconvicted criminal prisoners may desire to communicate. Care being taken that, so far as may be consistent with the interest of justice, prisoners under trial may see their duly qualified legal advisors without the presence of any other person. Under Sec. 59, the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules have been framed by the State Government. Rule 541(1) thereof is to the effect that unconvicted criminal prisoners and civil prisoners shall be granted all reasonable facilities at proper times and under proper restrictions for interviewing or otherwise communicating either orally or in writing, with their relatives, friends and legal advisers. The State Government passed G. O. Ms. No. 972, Home (Prison-B), dated 8-6-1992 introducing a proviso to the said rule, which is in the following terms :-

(3.) The stand taken by the State Government is that the friends and distant relatives who got permission to interview remand prisoners and under-trial prisoners under TADA Act are always indulging in indiscipline inside and outside the prison premises. The accused and under-trial prisoners instigate their friends to create problems outside. After viewing the situation, especially in the case of the prisoners under the TADA Act, the Government thought fit to bring the amendment and introduced the proviso. It is submitted by learned counsel that it is open to the Government to impose restrictions for reasons of security. The Government can, according to him, take into account the various factors including the nature and gravity of the offences involved. It is submitted that each case has to be determined on the relevant circumstances as decided by the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 : (1982 Cri LJ 340). Reliance is placed upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraph 108 of the judgment (at page 382 of Cri LJ) :-