S BALAMURUGAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THANIKKACHALAM, J :- S. Balamurugan, M. Natarajan and Ramar alias Ramaswamy, the petitioners in these habeas corpus petition, have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a declaration that their detention in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is illegal and to direct their retransfer to Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows :- The petitioners are life convicts serving their term of sentence, after their appeals before the High Court were dismissed. The petitioners were originally lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1194 of 1995 had undergone 8 years of imprisonment at Central Prison, Palaymakkottai i.e. from 16-7-1986 to 18-4-1994 and then transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore on 19-4-1994 and on 2-1-1995, he was transferred back to Palayamkottai and once again re-transferred to Cuddalore Prison on 5-2-1995 against his consent and will, Likewise, the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1135 of 1995 had undergone ten years of imprisonment in the Central Prison, Palayamkkottai i.e. from 16-1-1985 to 1-4-1995 and on 2-4-1995 he was transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore. The petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1126 of 1995 was in Central Prison, Palayamkkottai from 30-9-1986 to 6-12-1989 and then transferred to Central Prison, Coimbatore on 7-12-1989 and was there till 16-9-1993 and then transferred back to Central Prison, Palayamkottai on 17-9-1993 and again retransferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore, on 3-4-1995. The further common allegations of the petitioner are, that their oral representations to the jail authorities, to send them back to Central Prison, Palayamkottai, were of no avail, that the central Prison at Cuddalore is 550 K.Ms. away from their native place, that it is very difficult for their family members and close friends to spend for such travel to meet the petitioners at Cuddalore, as they were very poor, that their detention at Cuddalore Prison is against law and the sprit and direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. (1980 SCC (Cril) 777) : (1980 Cri LJ 1099). According to the petitioners, they have been transferred to the Central Prison, Cuddalore, without their consent and that they have no other alternative efficacious remedy available to them and hence, they have filed these petitions.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, in his counter-affidavit, has stated that the petitioner in HCP No. 1134 of 1995 was a habitual prison offender and he had committed four offences inside the prison, the details of which are given in a separate sheet appended to the counter affidavit. Likewise, the petitioner in H.C.P. 1125/95 had committed four offences inside the prison and the petitioner in H.P.C. 1126 of 1995 had committed six offences, while he was in the Central Prison at Palayamkottai and at Coimbatore. According to the respective counter-affidavits, the details of such offences were enquired into by the jail authorities in their presence and they were later on recorded in their respective history tickets. The counter affidavit further proceeds to state that the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1126 of 1995 indulged in instigating other prisoners to commit prison offences such as destroying of art gallary, using filthy language against the prison authorities and their family members. Therefore, on the proposal of the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, the petitioners were transferred by the Inspector General of Prison and such transfer to other prisons is not at all a punishment, but only to correct the prisoners and also in the interest of maintaining discipline amongst the prisoners. It is also stated that the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1126 of 1995 committed similar offences in the Central Prison at Coimbatore and so he was re-transferred to Palayamkottai and in that prison, he again started indulging in such activities and so, he was transferred to Central Prison, Cuddalore. According to the 2nd Respondent, as regards the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1124 of 1995 is concerned, he was re-transferred to Central Prison, Palayamkottai on 2-1-1995 for a period of one month for interview purposes and after the expiry of that period, he was re-transferred back to Central Prison, Cuddalore and such transfer of prisoners from one prison to another is not against law; but in fact, they are as per the instruction contained in the Jail Manual to correct such prisoners, who indulge in prison offences, that the petitioners, during the visit of the Inspector General of Prison, gave representations to him for their retransfer to Palayamkottai Central Jail and they are under consideration and that there are executive instructions as well, where under, if such prisoners show good improvement in their character for a period of three years, their cases are liable for consideration for re-transfer to their parent prisons, but in these cases, that period has not yet been over and that therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for the dismissal of these petitions.