http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MADHU LIMAYE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SUPERINTENDENT, TIHAR JAIL, DELHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1975

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1505            1975 SCR  (3) 582  1975 SCC  (4) 148

ACT: Constitution   Article   32--Habeas   Corpus--Punjab    Jail Manual--Racial  discrimination  beteen Indian  and  European prisoners--Whether  question  raised can  be  determined  if detenu released.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner  filed the present  Habeas  Corpus  Petition challenging  his detention.  The petitioner also  challenged the  provisions  of  the Punjab Jail  Manual  which  creates artificial   discrimination  between  Indian  and   European prisoners   in  the  matter  of  treatment  and  diet.   The respondent  contended  that since the  petitioner  has  been released   the   petition  has  become   infructuous.    The petitioner  cited various authorities of this Court as  well as  of the Supreme Court of United States that where  issues of  great  moment  affecting  liberty  of  the  citizen  are involved the decision should not be avoided even though  the immediate  prohibition’ which led to the filing of the  writ petition has for the time being disappeared. HELD : The Court would not decide the issue for two reasons. Firstly,  the  petitioner  is  no  longer  in  prison,  and, secondly,  the  Leamed Solicitor General assured  the  Court that he would draw attention of the Punjab Government to the need  for revision of the impugned rules from the  point  of view  of  racial equality.  The court hoped that  the  State Government  would take up the reform of the  law,  eluminate the  vice of inequality and update the regulations to be  in keeping  with  the spirit and letter of the  paramount  law. [583D-E] Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 318 of 1970. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Santok Singh, for the Petitioner. L.  N. Sinha and R. N. Sachthey, for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : KRISHNA IYER, J.-Shri Madhu Limaya, M.P. moved this petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

while  he was prisoner, imbued more by the pro bono  publico sphit  than perhaps by his own invidious lot in  jail.   The gravamen  of  this public grievance in that  a  long  silver jubilee  span of years. having elapsed after India became  a Sovereign  Democratic Republic. it is obnoxious that  racial discrimination,   smacking  of  colonial  hangover,   should stubbornly  resist  arts. 14 & 15 of  the  Constitution  and survive in the Punjab Jail Manual.  If it were so, it were a matter to blush for, but the preliminary objection raised by the  Solicitor  General is that the petitioner  having  been freed  from  prison  years ago, this  Court  should  not  be invited into an academic exercise on a constitutional issue. of  course,  he concedes that the Court is not  deprived  of jurisdiction by the cessation of incarceration.  An inflexi- ble  rule  that as soon as a custodial term  or  prohibitory order  expires the Court will not investigate  its  legality may  well  immunize ephemeral  illegality  against  judicial review  on  unwitting  infraction of the  amplitude  of  the Court’s powers.  But there are cases and cases. 583 Mr.  Santok  Singh, for the petitioner, has brought  to  Our notice  decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court  of the  United  States to press home his point that  issues  of such  great  moment affecting the liberty  of  the  citizens should not be avoided even though the immediate  prohibition which has led to the’ writ petition has, or the time  being, disappeared  (See  Carroll  v.  Commissioners  of   Princess Anne(1) and United States v. Phosphate Export Asso(2);  also Madhu  Limaye  V.   Ved Murti(s) and Himat Lal  K.  Such  v. Commr. of,-Police, Ahmedabad(4). The thrust of the charge of unconstitutionality made  bv.Sri Madhu  Limaye  consists  in  the  artificial  discrimination between  Indian  and  European prisoners in  the  matter  of treatment and diet, going by the rules he has set out in his petition. it is true that many laws which do not square with the  equality  enshrined in Arts. 14 and 15 die  hard  until pronounced  dead by the ’Court Prima facie the rules  quoted are neither fair on their face nor equal in their bosom,  as between.  Indians and Europeans., This white-complex has  no right  to remain extent in the rules, according  to  counsel for  the  petitioner.  We have drawn the  attention  of  the Solicitor  General  to what appears to be  an  obsolete  but overlooked  discrimination.  We are not inclined to  examine this matter more incisively for two reasons.  The petitioner is  ’no longer in prison.  Even so may-be the matter can  be competently  scrutinized  from the constitutional  angle  by this  Court.  But the learned Solicitor General  assures  us that he will draw the ’attention of the Punjab Government to the  need for revision of the impugned rules from the  point of view of racial equality.  In the light of this submission we hope the State Government will take up the reform of  the law, lop off dead wood, eliminate the vice of inequality and update the regulations to be in keeping with the spirit  and letter of the paramount law. In- view of this attitude of the Solicitor General,  counsel for  tile petitioner himself expressed that he was not  keen on  going  on  with  the  case.   We  hope  that  the  above observations  would be sufficient for the high  purpose  the petitioner has in view. We. accordingly dismiss the petition. P.H.P.          Petition dismissed. (1)  21 L. Ed. 2d. 325. (2)  21. L Ed. 2nd. 344. (3)  A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2481. (4)  [1973] 1 S.C.C. 227, 232

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

470SupCI/75. 584