MADHUKAR BHAGWAN JAMBHALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale, who was under going sentence and lodged in Dhule District Jail, made a complaint about torture and ill-treatment by the prison authorities by a letter to this Court. Overlooking all formalities the letter was treated as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Rule was issued. Miss India Jaising was appointed Advocate for him and on her appointment a regular formal petition under Article 226 of the Constitution came to be filed on September 26, 1983. In this petition apart from the complaint against torture and ill-treatment, various Rules and practices of the prison are challenged as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Thus what was initially a complaint about the treatment meted out to an individual, the applicant before us, has assumed the character of class action on behalf of the convicts who are undergoing sentence in the prisons in this State.

(2.) In the month of July/August 1983 the petitioner complained to the prison authorities about deterioration of quality of food given to him. On August 13, 1983, he complained to the Senior Jailor that the brinjal vegetables served in the morning meal contained worms, caterpillars. According to him, this complaint went unheeded and on the contrary he was threatened with dire consequence. His request for being promoted as a watchman was also turned down. Our of frustration he swallowed nails. He was then taken to hospital and the nails were taken out. According to him, the Jail Superintendent resented this form of protest end he was beaten and when the petitioner demanded ration for the day, the Superintendent called for a pot of night soil and demanded that the petitioner do eat it. It is alleged that he was then put up in a double lock-up in a separate cell. He again swallowed three nails and was required to be taken to the hospital for taking them out. In view of the serious nature of allegations made against the Dhule Prison Administration, the District and Sessions Judge. Dhule, was asked to make an enquiry into the allegations. We, however, do not propose to deal with the aforesaid allegations since we find that material on record indicates that the petitioner is not consistent in his version about the incidents. Moreover, in his affidavit the Jail Superintendent has denied the allegations. According to him, the allegations are made by the petitioner out of frustration since his request for being promoted as a watchman was rejected. Assuming that the specific allegations made by the petitioner as to the quality of food and about his being asked to ear night soil may not be true, it does appear that he may be having some other genuine grievances against the Dhule Prison Administration. In the absence of adequate material it is not possible for us to come to any definite conclusion in the matter. Miss Jaising also fairly stated that in the circumstances she does not desire to make submissions regarding the alleged torture to the prisoner at the hands of the prison officers, particularly having regard to the fact that the prisoner was transferred to Yerawada Prison on November 7, 1983, during the pendency of this petition. She, however, submitted that this should not be taken as an admission of the petitioner that there was no torture or ill-treatment and the petitioners right to take such proceedings against the prison officers as he may deem fit in a competent Court of law is not thereby affected.

(3.) The petition, however, has raised certain vital issues as regards the validity of certain Rules framed under section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. Firstly, the Rules regarding classification of convicts as Class I and Class II prisoners on the basis of higher status, better education and higher standard of living were challenged as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Secondly, Rules 20, 17(ix) and 23 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Facilities to Prisoners) Rules, 1962, which put restrictions on the rights of the prisoners to correspond and also provide for censorship are challenged on the ground that they violate their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Thirdly, it is contended that the double lock-up system provided for some of the cells in Dhule Prison, though said to be intended as separate confinement under the Prisoners Rules, is in effect nothing but solitary confinement and, therefore, wholly unpermissible in law. Lastly, it is contended that the grievance procedure prescribed under the various Rules is grossly inadequate and does not conform to the guidelines in the matter of grievance procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration) A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1579.