ZARZOLIANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications for issuance of Writs of Habeas Corpus in view of alleged 'illegal detentions' of the petitioners under the guise of the 'Judicial Process'. Upon hearing adept and accomplished arguments of Mrs. V. L. Talukdar, Mrs. A. Hazarika, Miss K. Das and Mr. G. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel appointed as 'Amicus Curiae' as well as Mr. K. K. Bezbaruah, Standing Counsel, Mizoram, I feel inclined to outline the broad features of the State's responsibility to provide legal aid as well as the necessity of quick disposal of cases in Mizoram. It appears that the Governments of the region have not paid necessary heed to several landmark cases of the Supreme Court on the points.

(2.) HOSKOT : 1978CriLJ1678 ushered a new era in Criminal Jurisprudence and Constitution. It laid bare the true meaning of the expression 'Procedure' in Article 21. It has ruled that the word 'procedure' in the expression 'procedure established by law' in Article 21, means 'fair, reasonable and just' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; and the word 'Law' means 'reasonable law, not merely an enacted piece'. The Supreme Court heavily relied on the observations of Bhagwati, J, in the 'landmark case' of Maneka Gandhi, : [1978]2SCR621

(3.) THE declaration of the above law must be obeyed by all State Govts. expeditiously. The duties and obligations of the State Governments have been clearly indicated. The High Courts are bound to see that the commands of the Supreme Court are followed in every nook and corner of India. A common striking feature which pervades in Hoskot 1978 Cri LJ 1678(SC) (supra), the Prisons Reforms case of Sunil Batra : 1978CriLJ1741 , Hus -sainara Khatoon's cluster of Cases (I to VI, post) and Niemeon Sangma (Post), is that the orders of the Supreme Court travelled beyond the immediate parties and were not confined to the cases alone, Distinguishing features of one case tormented the judicial mind that innumerable prisoners in the country belonging to the lower, illiterate bracket were suffering deprivation of liberty by unreasonableness, arbitrariness and unfair procedure inside the 'stone walls' and behind the 'iron bars', in complete disregard of the norms of justice, guaranteed by and under Article 21 buttressed by Article 19(1) (d) read with Sub -article (5). It impelled the Supreme Court to declare laws for the entire prison population.'