http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MRS. GEETINDER KAUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND 2 ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/07/1985

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1409            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 325  1985 SCC  Supl.  388     1985 SCALE  (2)54

ACT:      National Security  (Rajasthan Conditions  of Detention) Order, 1984,  Condition No.  (iv) -  Solitary Confinement of detenu -Validity of.      Preventive detention  - Detenu - Facilities of - Detenu whether entitled  to be  detained in  home State  - Place of detention -  Administrative choice  of detaining authority - Interference by Court - When arises.

HEADNOTE:      The wife of the detenu in her petition under Article 32 contended that  the detention  of the  detenu in  preventive custody in  Bharatpur in  the  State  of  Rajasthan  may  be located in  the State  of Punjab  or at a place not far off, that  the   detenu  should   be  provided  with  appropriate amenities and  facilities, that  he should  not be  kept  in solitary confinement,  and should be allowed interviews with his relatives, friends and legal adviser from time to time.      On the  question whether  the detenu should be detained in the State of Punjab, his home State, ^      HELD: 1.  The place  of detention  is a  matter for the administrative choice  of the  detaining  authority,  and  a Court would  be justified  in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any specific provision of the law  or   was  vitiated   by  arbitrary  considerations  and malafides. In  the instant  case, no  such material has been placed before  the Court.  On  the  contrary,  the  counter- affidavits indicate  that on  the facts and circumstances of the case  it  was  necessary  to  effect  the  detention  at Bharatpur. The  city of  Bharatpur although  situated in the State of  Rajasthan, is  not very  distant from the State of Punjab and  Haryana. The reasons for detaining the detenu at Bharatpur do  not, therefore,  permit  interference  in  the matter of place of detention. [327 D-F]      2. While  ordinarily a  detenu should be detained in an environment natural  to him  in point  of climate, language, food 326 and other  incidents  of  living,  in  the  actual  decision concerning the  place of detention these considerations must yield to  factors related  to, and necessitated by, the need

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

for placing him in preventive detention.[327 B-C]      3. While  the conditions  imposed upon a detenu held in preventive  detention   must  not  be  punitive,  they  must nevertheless be  such as  to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration. [327 C-D]      4. The  Jail authorities  will continue  to ensure that the  detenu   is  supplied  with  all  such  facilities  and amenities as are reasonably and necessarily required by him, consistently  of  course  with  the  need  to  maintain  the security of his detention. [328 C-D]      5. Condition  No.  4  (ii)  of  the  National  Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 empowers the authorities  to  keep  the  detenu  separate  from  ordinary prisoners. The  nature of  the detenu’s  detention does  not call for interference. [328 G-H]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  Petition (Criminal)  No. 391 of 1985.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.      Bhagwant Singh  Sindhu, Advocate,  General, Punjab  and S.K. Bagga with him for the Respondent No. 1 and B.D. Sharma for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, J. The petitioner, who is the wife of Simranjit Singh  Mann,   a  detenu  detained  in  the  District  Jail, Bharatpur, has  filed this  Writ Petition  praying that  the detention of the detenu in preventive custody may be located in the  State of  Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should  be provided  with appropriate  amenities  and facilities,  that   he  should   not  be  kept  in  solitary confinement, and  should  be  allowed  interviews  with  his relatives and  friends and  his legal  adviser from  time to time. It  is further  prayed that  certain provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 be declared ultra vires.      The petitioner  is represented by Mr. Hardev Singh, the State of  Punjab by  its Advocate  General and  the State of Rajasthan 327 by Shri  B.D.Sharma. We  have heard  them at  length on this petition. At  the outset,  it may  be stated that Mr. Hardev Singh did not question the validity of the provisions of the National Security  (Rajasthan Condition of Detention) Order, 1984. We  propose to  consider only  those points  on  which submissions were made by him.      Mr. Hardev  Singh contends  that the detenu should have been detained  in preventive custody in the State of Punjab, which is  his home State, or in any event at a place not far off from  that State.  We  have  given  the  matter  careful thought. While  it is  ordinarily desirable  that  a  detenu should be detained in an environment natural to him in point of climate, language, food and other incidents of living, in the actual  decision concerning the place of detention these considerations  must   yield  to  factors  related  to,  and necessitated by,  the need  for placing  him  in  preventive detention. While  we maintain  that the  conditions  imposed upon a  detenu held  in preventive  detention  must  not  be punitive, they  must nevertheless  be such  as to secure the effectiveness of  his incarceration.  The  respondents  have given reasons  for detaining the detenu at Bharatpur, and we are not persuaded that the law allows us to interfere in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

matter.  The   place  of  detention  is  a  matter  for  the administrative choice  of the  detaining  authority,  and  a court would  be Justified  in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any specific provision of the law or  was vitiated  by arbitrary  considerations and  mala fides. No  such material  has been  placed before us. On the contrary, the  affidavits filed  by the  respondents on  the record indicate  that the mind has been applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it was felt necessary to effect  the detention  at Bharatppur.  It may be observed that the  city of  Bharatpur, although situated in the State of Rajasthan,  is not very distant from the States of Punjab and Haryana.  In the circumstances, we find ourselves unable to grant the relief sought by Mr. Hardev Singh in respect of the place of detention.      The  next   contention  of   learned  counsel  for  the petitioner is  that  the  detenu  should  be  provided  with various amenities  and facilities necessary for a proper and decent human  existence, and  among them  are mentioned good food, furniture  and proper  lighting, the  supply of  linen including pillows,  bed-sheets and  a mosquito net, adequate medical attention, as well as recreational amenities such as a radio.  It is  also prayed  that the  petitioner should be entitled to  have his  religious symbols  near him to enable him to observe his religious practices. A counter 328 affidavit filed by Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, who was Superintendent of the  District Jail  at Bharatpur  upto May  23, 1985  has enumerated on oath that the detenu has been provided all the necessary amenities  and  facilities.  He  has  specifically mentioned that a suitable diet, recommended by the doctor on duty, is  being supplied  to the detenu, and that the detenu is allowed  to supplement  the food  at his  cost or by food supplied by  his family.  Besides, it is averred, the detenu has been allowed religious books appropriate to his faith as well as books on philosophy, history and fiction. It is also asserted that  newspapers are  supplied to  the detenu.  The learned Advocate  General for the State of Punjab has stated before us  that he  will have  no objection  to any  further necessary  and  desirable  amenities  and  facilities  being provided to  the detenu,  and that  a transistor radio could also be  made available  to the  detenu. On  the question of medical attention  for the  detenu, it  appears that he is a patient of  high blood  pressure, and  it is  affirmed  that adequate medical  attention by  medical experts  as well  as appropriate medicines  have been  made available  to him. We have no  doubt that  the Jail  authorities will  continue to ensure that  the detenu is supplied with all such facilities and amenities  as are reasonably and necessarily required by him, consistently  of course  with the  need to maintain the security of his detention.      On the  question of the detenu being allowed interviews with his lawyer, and his parents, wife and family as well as other relatives, the learned Advocate General has assured us that the  State of  Punjab will  have no  objection to  such interviews, provided  an application  in that behalf is duly made to the Jail authorities before hand. We direct the Jail authorities   to    dispose   of   all   such   applications expeditiously.      Some argument  was raised  on the  question whether the detenu was  being kept  in solitary confinement in his cell. It appears  from the  record before  us that  the detenu has been provided two adjacent cells and enjoys a certain degree of freedom of movement from early morning to the evening. It is also  mentioned that a convict officer serves as his cook

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

and he  is entitled  to contact  two wardens, one of whom is available in  the ward itself and the other is posted at the gate of  the ward.  It is  stated that  medical officers and male nurses also attend on the detenu. The respondents claim that condition No. 4(ii) of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of  Detention) Order,  1984 empower  them to keep the detenu separate from ordinary prisoners. Learned counsel for the  petitioner has  been unable  to satisfy us that the nature of  the detenu’s  detention calls for interference by the Court. 329      Learned counsel  for the  petitioner alleges  that  the petitioner was  tortured during  an  earlier  stage  of  his detention, and  has sought  to prove  this by  summoning the Visitors’  Register   maintained  at   the  District   Jail, Bharatpur in  order to show that police officers had visited the detenu  and interrogated  him. While  we are  of opinion that the  petitioner  is  entitled  to  adduce  evidence  in support of the allegation of torture, we fail to see how the Visitors’  Register   will  substantiate  that  charge.  The Register will indicate the identity of the visitors, and may record the  duration of  the visits.  It has  not been shown that it  will prove what actually went on during the visits. In the  circumstances we  see no  reason  to  send  for  the Register.      The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A.P.J. 330