http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  36 of 2005

PETITIONER: Smt. Angrej Kaur

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of  India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’) presents some unusual  features.  In mythology Sati Savitri’s prayer ensured that her husband  Satyaban escaped jaws of death. Petitioner Smt. Angrej Kaur is the wife  of one B.S.F. Constable named Surjit Singh.  Though he has been  declared to have died in the Indo-Pak war in 1971, the petitioner on  the basis of certain materials believes that he is alive and is  languishing in Kot Lakhpat Rai Jail, Pakistan.

The factual scenario in the present petition as projected by the  petitioner runs in somewhat similar lines and even at first flush may  appear fictional.  It is in essence prayer for writ in the nature of  habeas corpus.  Though technically it may appear to be unacceptable as  the concerned person is stated to be in custody in a Pakistan jail, yet  the petitioner’s human emotions refuse to accept this legal landline. First the factual background as projected by the petitioner needs  to be noted. Surjit Singh was Constable in 57 Battalion of B.S.F. and he was  posted in Chhamb Sector on 3rd/4th December, 1971. Initially he was  reported to be missing. A communication dated 26.7.1972 was received by  the petitioner from the concerned authorities granting her family  pension of Rs.130/- as Surjit Singh was reported to be missing. On  26.9.1974 the Commandant of the concerned authority issued certificate  to the effect that for all official purposes he had died on 4.12.1971  while on duty. A letter to this effect was also received by the  petitioner. In spite of these informations, the petitioner believes  that her husband is alive and she did not believe that he could have  died. Her unfailing faith on the almighty made her believe that the  information was wrong. She awaited for information about Surjit Singh  being alive, as her prayers were coming from her heart. Her son Amrik  Singh was hardly one year of age at the time his father was reported  dead. Now he is in his thirties. Though more than three decades passed  by, she refused to believe that her husband has died. She read in the  newspaper (Punjabi Daily) ’Ajit’ on 3.9.2004  that  one Khushi Mohammad had returned from Pakistan Jail after 14 years. The  news report indicated that though Khushi Mohammad and few others were  released there were as many as eighty five Indians Still lying in jails  of Pakistan in pitiable circumstances and the name of one Surjit Singh  was mentioned along with others. The petitioner believes that said  Surjit Singh was none other than her husband. On 4.9.2004 Amrik Singh

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

went to meet aforesaid Khushi Mohammad at Nishant Colony, Malerkotla  City, Punjab and showed him the photograph of his father Surjit Singh.  Khushi Mohammad immediately identified the person in the photograph and  confirmed having seen him in ’Kot Lakhpat Rai Jail’ in Pakistan. This  news was of a great solace and joy to the petitioner and her family  members. On 16.9.2004 Amrik Singh met other persons who had been  released along with Khushi Mohammad. They also identified the  photograph of Surjit Singh and confirmed having seen in Kot Lakhpat Rai  Jail in Pakistan. On 24.9.1994 the petitioner sent representation to  various authorities, functionaries and dignitaries requesting that  efforts be made to bring back Surjit Singh from Pakistan Jail. Making a  grievance that she had not received any positive response to her  petition, the writ petition was filed. On 7.2.2005 direction was given  to the opposite parties to look into the grievance of the petitioner  within a period of four weeks. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of  the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Directorate of  B.S.F. Various steps taken by the authorities have been indicated. From the status report, we find  that steps have been taken to find out actual position. It also appears  that initial response of the Pakistan authorities was that they have  checked various jails but Constable Surjit Singh could not be traced.  It appears that the matter has been discussed at the B.S.F. and  Pakistan Rangers meetings. In the India-Pakistan Quarterly Meeting (DIG  level), the matter was discussed on 29.12.2004. In February, 2005, the  Pakistan authorities intimated that steps were being taken to trace  Constable Surjit Singh and he will be repatriated if found in Pakistan.  Since there was a negative response from the Pakistan authorities,  later matter appears to have been taken up at Bio-Annual meeting and  the B.S.F. authorities have requested their counterparts in B.S.F. to  take up the matter expeditiously. We are satisfied that the B.S.F.  authorities have taken all possible steps to find out the petitioner’s  husband. Let the Ministry of External Affairs which was requested by  B.S.F. authorities to look into the matter also intervene in the  matter. If a soldier, while fighting for the country’s security, is  captured and taken to other country’s prison contrary to the official  belief that he was dead, it would be in the interest of not only  petitioner and her family members but also for the armed forces of this  country to see that he is brought back to our country. It is not to be  understood that we are issuing a writ of habeas corpus to any authority  outside India. Our directions essentially relate to Indian officials.  But it cannot be lost sight of that law cannot ever be a combination of meaningless and  purposeless  combination of words. The judicial system reaches its pinnacle when it  serves the ultimate object of all laws; i.e. delivering justice to the  recipient who deserves it, not shackled by pitfalls and landmines of  technicalities. Within the four corners of legal framework, the reliefs  can be moulded to achieve the ultimate objective, that is to deliver  justice.

       We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the direction  that the authorities shall continue the efforts to find out the actual  position and expeditiously intimate the petitioner, the results of the  efforts/inquiries made by them. Though we are disposing of the writ  petition, let status report indicating the latest development in the  matter be filed within three months, which shall be placed before us.

       The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.