http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: SHEELA BARSE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/09/1987

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1988 (3)    15

ACT:      Permission to  journalists to  interview prisoners  and tape-record  the   interviews,  guarantees   under  Articles 19(1)(a) and 21-Benefits thereof for all the citizens.

HEADNOTE:      Sheela  Barse,   a  free   lance   journalist,   sought permission  to   interview  the   female  prisoners  in  the Maharashtra State  Jails. The  permission was granted by the Inspector-General of  Prisons. As,  how ever, the journalist started tape-recording  her interviews  with the  prisoners, the permission to interview was withdrawn. Feeling aggrieved by the  cancellation of the permission, the journalist moved this Court  in its  writ jurisdiction  on the  ground that a citizen has  a right  to know under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the  Constitution, if the Government is administering the jails in  accordance with  law, and  that the  Press  has  a special responsibility  to  collect  information  on  public issues to educate the people. The permission in question was cancelled, as  stated by the Inspector-General of Prisons in his counter-affidavit  to the  Writ Petition,  on the ground inter alia  that the  permission had  been  granted  to  the petitioner in contravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual and the  rules made  thereunder, which govern the interviews with the  prisoners; the  petitioner, an  amateur free lance journalist not  employed by  any responsible  newspaper, was not covered by the said rules. The respondent also contended that the  Articles of  the Constitution  referred to  by the petitioner were not attracted to the case.      Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court, ^      HELD: The  term ’life’  in Article 21 covers the living conditions of  the prisoners,  prevailing in  the jails. The prisoners are also entitled to the benefit of the guarantees provided in the Article subject to reason able restrictions. It is  necessary that public gaze should be permitted on the prisoners, and  the pressmen  as friends  of the society and public spirited  citizens should  have access to information about, and  interviews with,  the prisoners. But such access has to  be controlled  and regulated.  The petitioner is not entitled to uncontrolled interviews. The factual information collected as a result of the interviews should usually be 211

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

cross-checked with  the authorities, so that a wrong picture of a  situation may  not be published. Disclosure of correct information  is   necessary,  but   there  is   to   be   no dissemination  of   wrong  information.   Persons,  who  get permission  to   interview  have   to  abide  by  reasonable restrictions. As  for tape-recording  the interviews,  there may be  cases where  such tape-recording  is necessary,  but tape-recording is to be subject to special permission of the appropriate authority.  There may  be  some  individuals  or class of persons in the prisons with whom interviews may not be permitted  for reasons  indicated by this Court in Prabha Dutt v.  Union of  India &  ors., [1982]  1 S.C.R. 1184. The interviews cannot  be forced  upon anyone and willingness of the prisoners  to be  interviewed is  always to  be insisted upon. There may also be certain other cases, where, for good reasons,  permission  to  interview  the  prisoners  may  be withheld, which  situations can  be considered  as and  when they arise. [215C; 217F; 218B, E-H; 219A-B]      The  petitioner   can  make  a  fresh  application  for permission to  interview the prisoners, which is to be dealt with  in   accordance  with   the   guidelines   laid   down hereinabove. [219B]      Prabha Dutt  v. Union  of India & ors., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1184; Sunil  Batra v.  Delhi Administrator,  [1979] 1 S.C.R. 392  and  Francis  Coralie  Mulin  v.  Administrator,  Union Territory of  Delhi and  ors., [19811 1 S.C.C. 608, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTlON: Writ Petition No. 1053 of 1982.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Suleman Khurshid and K.K. Luthra for the Petitioner.      S.B. Bhasme,  A.M. Khanwilkar  and A.S.  Bhasme for the Respondent.      L.R. Singh for the Intervener.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA,  J. Petitioner  is a Bombay-based free lance journalist  who had  sought  permission  to  interview women prisoners  in the  Maharashtra jails  and on 6.5.1982, the Inspector-General  of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female prisoners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail,  the Yerawada  Central Jail  at Pune  and  the Kolhapur District Jail. When the petitioner started 212 tape-recording her  interviews with  the  prisoners  at  the Bombay Central  Jail, she  was advised instead to keep notes only of  interviews. When the petitioner raised objection on this  score,   the  Inspector-General   of  Prisons   orally indicated  that   he  had   changed  his  mind.  Later,  the petitioner was  informed that  grant of  permission to  have interview was  a matter  of  discretion  of  the  Inspector- General  and  such  interviews  are  ordinarily  allowed  to research scholars  only. Petitioner  has made grievance over the withdrawal  of the permission and has pleaded that it is the citizen’s  right to  know if Government is administering the jails  in accordance  with law.  Petitioner’s letter was treated  as   a  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution.      Return  has   been  made  to  the  rule  nisi  and  the Inspector-General of  Prisons in  his affidavit  has pleaded that the  petitioner is  a free  lance journalist and is not employed by any responsible newspaper. The permission issued in  favour   of  the  petitioner  was  under  administrative

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

misunderstanding   and    mistaken   belief   and   was   in contravention of  the Maharashtra  Prison Manual.  When this fact was  discovered the  permission was  withdrawn. It  has been pleaded  that interview  with prisoners  is governed by the rules  made in  the Maharashtra  Prison Manual  and  the petitioner does  not satisfy  the prescription therein so as to justify  grant of  permission for  having interviews with prisoners. The  Inspector-General  wrote  a  letter  to  the petitioner  on  31st  May,  1982,  explaining  therein  that normally the prison authorities do not allow interviews with the prisoners  unless the  person  seeking  interview  is  a research scholar studying for Ph. D. Or intends to visit the prison as  a part of his field work of curriculum prescribed for post  graduate course  etc. The letter further indicated that there  was no rules for permitting interviews except to the relatives and legal advisers for facilitating defence of prisoners. The  Inspector-General further  indicated in  his letter that  there was  no inherent  right of journalists to elicit information from prisoners.      The counter  affidavit further indicated that the State Government has  prescribed a  set  of  rules  known  as  the Maharashtra Visitors  of Prisons  Rules, 1962.  A  Board  of Visitors  is  constituted  for  every  jail  and  the  Board consists  of   both  ex-officio  visitors  and  non-official visitors appointed  by the  State Government. The members of the Board  are expected to inspect the barracks, cell wards, work sheds  and other buildings; ascertain or make enquiries about the  health, cleanliness,  security of  prisoners  and examine registers  of convicted  and under  trial prisoners, punishment  books,  other  records  relating  to  prisoners, attend  to   representations,  objections   etc.   made   by prisoners, make 213 entries in  the visitors’  book abou  their visits.  It  was finally indicated  in  A  the  counter  affidavit  that  the petitioner was  an  amateur  journalist  and  had  published ’certain articles  in the  newspapers and  magazines without realising the  impact thereof;  many of such allegations and the so-called  hearsay stories  said to  have been collected from  the  under  trials  were  one-sided  and  nothing  but exaggeration of  facts. Such  articles written  by her  were defamatory, irresponsible  and no  mature  journalist  would have published such reckless articles.      We  have  heard  Mr.  Salman  Khurshid  Ahmed  for  the petitioner and  Mr. Bhasme  for the State of Maharashtra and have considered  the written  submissions filed on behalf of both in furtherance of their submissions.      According to  the petitioner  and her  counsel Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 guarantee to every citizen reasonable access to information about the institutions that formulate, enact, implement and  enforce the  laws of  the land. Every citizen has a  right to  receive  such  information  through  public institutions  including   the  media  as  it  is  physically impossible for every citizen to be informed about all issues of public  importance  individually  and  personally.  As  a journalist, the  petitioner  has  a  right  to  collect  and disseminate information to citizens. The press has a special responsibility in  educating  citizens  at  large  on  every public  issue.  The  conditions  prevailing  in  the  Indian prisons  where   both  under  trial  persons  and  convicted prisoners are  housed is  directly connected with Article 21 of the  Constitution. It  is the  obligation of  Society  to ensure that  appropriate standards  are  maintained  in  the jails  and   humane  conditions   prevail  therein.   In   a participatory democracy as ours unless access is provided to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

the citizens  and the  media in  particular it  would not be feasible to improve the conditions of the jails and maintain the quality  of the  environment in  which a  section of the population is housed segregated from the rest of community.      On behalf  of the  State it  has  been  contended  that neither of  the Articles  is attracted  to a  matter of this type. The  rules made  by the  Government  are  intended  to safeguard  the   interests  of   the  prisoners.  The  Board contemplated under  the Rules  consists  of  several  public officers both  executive and judicial. Apart from that there is a  body of non-official visitors as provided in Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Rules. Detailed provisions have been made in the Rules as to the duties of the visitors and the manner in which the  visitors have  to perform  the same.  It has been further contended that the idea of segregating the prisoners from the  community is  to keep  the prisoners  under strict control and H 214 cut off  from the  community. If  unguided and  uncontrolled right of visit is provided to citizens it would be difficult to maintain  discipline and  the very purpose of keeping the delinquents in prison would be frustrated.      In the  case of  Prabha Dutt  v. Union of India & ors., 119821 1  SCR 1184 this Court was considering the claim of a jounalist to  interview  two  condemned  prisoners  awarding execution. The learned Chief Justice said:           "Before considering the merits of the application,           we would  like to  observe that the constitutional           right  to   freedom  of   speech  and   expression           conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,           which includes the freedom of the press, is not an           absolute right,  nor indeed  does  it  confer  any           right on  the press to have an unrestricted access           to means  of information. The press is entitled to           exercise its  freedom of  speech and expression by           publishing a  matter which  does  not  invade  the           rights  of  other  citizens  and  which  does  not           violate the  sovereignty and  integrity of  India,           the security  of the  State, public order, decency           and morality.  But in  the instant case, the right           claimed by  the petitioner  is not  the  right  to           express any  particular view  or opinion  but  the           right to  means of  information through the medium           of an  interview of  the  two  prisoners  who  are           sentenced to  death. No  such right can be claimed           by the  press unless  in the  first instance,  the           person sought  to be  interviewed is willing to be           interviewed. The  existence of  a free  press does           not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the           citizens to  supply there is under section 161 (2)           of the  Criminal Procedure  Code. No data has been           made available  to us  on the  basis of  which  it           would be  possible for  us to  say  that  the  two           prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed Dealing  with  the  matter  further  learned  Chief  Justice stated:           "Rule   549    (4)   of   the   Manual   for   the Superintendence and Management of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi,  provides that  every prisoner under a sentence of death  shall   be  allowed   such   interviews   and   other communications  with   his  relatives,   friends  and  legal advisers   as    the   Superintendent   thinks   reasonable. Journalists or newspapermen are not 215           expressly referred  to in clause (4) but that does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

         not mean  that they  can always  and without  good           reasons be  denied the  opportunity to interview a           condemned prisoner.  If in  any given  case, there           are weighty  reasons for doing so, which we expect           will always  be recorded in writing, the interview           may  appropriately   be  refused.   But  no   such           consideration  has   been  pressed   upon  us  and           therefore  we   do  not   see   any   reason   why           newspapermen  who  can  broadly,  and  we  suppose           without great  fear of contradiction, be termed as           friends of  the society  be denied the right of an           interview under clause (4) of the Rule 549."      That Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens  to freedom of speech and expression is not the point in  issue; but  the  enlarged  me.  ng  given  to  the provisions of  Article 21  by this  Court would, however, is relevant. The  meaning given  to the  term ’life’ will cover the living condition prevailing in jails.      In Sunil  Batra v.  Delhi Administration,  [1979] 1 SCR 392 a  Constitution Bench  of this  Court was  examining the effect of  Article 21 in regard to a condemned prisoner. The Court observed thus:           "Judges, even  within a  prison setting,  are  the           real, though  restricted, ombudsmen  empowered  to           prescribe and prescribe, humanize and citizens and           life-style within  the carcers.  The operation  of           Articles 14,  19 and  21 may  be pared  down for a           prisoner  but   not  puffed  out  altogether.  For           example, public  addresses by prisoners may be put           down but  talking to fellow prisoners cannot. Vows           of silence  or taboos on writing poetry or drawing           cartoons are  violative of  Article 19.  So  also,           locomation  may   be  limited   by  the  needs  of           imprisonment but binding hand and foot, with hoops           of steel,  every man or woman sentenced for a term           is doing violence to Part III .. "      The Constitution  Bench quoted  with approval from Munn v. Ilino’s, [1877] 94, U.S. 113, to emphasise the quality of life covered  by Article  21. The  same  Constitution  Bench judgment further states: -           "..... so,  when human  rights are  hashed  behind           bars, constitutional  justice impeaches  such law.           In this  sense, courts  which sign  citizens  into           prisons have  an  onerous  duty  to  ensure  that,           during detention and subject to the 216           Constitution, freedom  from torture belongs to the detenu."      In  Francis   Coralie  Mulin  v.  Administrator,  Union      Territory of  Delhi & ors., [1981] 1 Scc 608 this Court      pointed out that:           " ...  A prisoner or detenu is not stripped of his           fundamental or  other  legal  rights,  save  those           which are  inconsistent with his incarceration and           if the  constitutional validity of any such law is           challenged, the court would have to decide whether           the procedure  laid down by such law for depriving           a person  of his  personal liberty  is reasonable,           fair and just .. .. It was  also pointed  out in  this case that ’life’ included the right  to live  with human  dignity In  A.K. Roy etc. v. Union of India & Anr., [ 1982]2 SCR the word was found:           ".......... to include the necessity of right such           as nutrition,  clothing  shelter  over  the  head,           facilities for  reading, writing,  interviews with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

         members of  the family  and friends,  subject,  of           course, to  present regulation, if any . . . . . .           . . . . .      Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the observations of this  Court in  the case of S.P. Gupta & OrS. v. Union of India &  orS., [1982]  2 SCR  365 at  page 598, where it was said:           "Now it  is obvious  from the Constitution that we           have adopted  a  democratic  form  of  Government.           Where a  society has chosen to accept democracy as           its creda faith it is elementary that the citizens           ought to  know what  their government is doing The           citizens have  a right  to decide  by whom  and by           what rules  they shall  be governed  and they  are           entitled to  call on  those who  govern  on  their           behalf to  account for their conduct No democratic           government can  survive without accountability and           the basic  postulate of accountability is that the           people   should   have   information   about   the           functioning of  the  government.  It  is  only  if           people know  how government  is  functioning  that           they can  fulfil the  role which democracy assigns           to them  and make  democracy  a  really  effective           participatory  democracy.  "Knowledge  said  James           Madison, ’will  for ever  govern ignorance  and  a           people who mean to be their own gover- 217           nors must  arm themselves with the power knowledge           gives.A   popular   government   without   popular           information on the means of obtaining it, is but a           prologue to  a force  or tragedy or perhaps both’.           The citizens’  right to  know the  facts, the true           facts, about  the administration of the country is           thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And           that  is  why  the  demand  for  openness  in  the           government is  increasingly growing  in  different           parts of the world."                "The demand for openness in the government is           based principally on two reasons. It is now widely           accepted that democracy does not consist merely in           people exercising  their franchise  once  in  five           years to choose their rulers, and once the vote is           cast, then  retiring in  passivity and  not taking           any interest in the government. Today it is common           ground that  democracy has a more positive content           and its  orchestration has  to be  continuous  and           pervasive.  This  means  inter  alia  that  people           should not  only  cast  intelligent  and  rational           votes but  should also  exercise sound judgment on           the conduct  of the  government and  the merits of           public policies, so that democracy does not remain           merely a sporadic exercise in coting but becomes a           continuous process  of government-an  attitude and           habit of  mind. But this important role people can           fulfil in  a democracy  only  if  it  is  an  open           government  where   there  is  a  full  access  to           information in  regard to  the functioning  of the           government "      We endorse these observations as a correct statement of the position.  We also  reiterate  the  views  expressed  in several decisions  of this  Court that  "life" in Article 21 has the  extended  meaning  given  to  the  word  and  those citizens who  are detained in prisons either as under-trials or as  convicts are  also entitled  to the  benefit  of  the guarantees subject to reasonable restrictions.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    Judicial notice should be taken of the position that on account  of   intervention  of   courts  there  has  been  a substantial improvement  in  the  conditions  prevailing  in jails. The provisions of jail manuals have undergone change; the authorities  connected with the jail administration have changed their  approach  to  administration  and  method  of control there  has been  a new awakening both in citizens in general  and  the  people  detained  in  jail.  Indisputably intervention of  the courts  has been possible on account of petitions and protests lodged from jails; 218 news items  published in  the Press.  We may not be taken to mean that the rules prescribed for administration of prisons are of  no value at all. Yet, until the appropriate attitude grows in  the administrative establishment the provisions in the several  manuals applicable  to the jails in the country would not  provide adequate  safeguard for implementation of the  standards  indicated  in  judicial  decisions.  It  is, therefore, necessary  that public gaze should be directed to the matter  and the  pressmen as  friends of the society and public spirited  citizens should  have access  not  only  to information but  also interviews. Prison administrators have the human  tendency of  attempting to  cover up their lapses and so  shun disclosure  thereof. As  an instance,  we would like to  refer to incidents in the Tihar Jail located at the country’s capital  under the  very nose  of the  responsible administrators.      In such  a situation  we are  of the  view that  public access should be permitted. We have already pointed out that the citizen  does not  have any  right either  under Article 19(1)(a) or  21 to  enter into  the jails  for collection of information  but   in  order   that  the  guarantee  of  the fundamental right  under Article  21 may be available to the citizens detained  in the  jails, it  becomes  necessary  to permit citizen’s  access to  information as  also interviews with prisoners. Interviews become necessary as otherwise the correct information may not be collected but such access has got to be controlled and regulated.      We  are,   therefore,  not   prepared  to   accept  the petitioner’s claim  that she  was entitled  to  uncontrolled interview. We  agree with  the submission  of Mr. Bhasme for the respondent  that as  and  when  factual  information  is collected as  a result  of interview the same should usually be cross-checked  with  the  authorities  so  that  a  wrong picture  of   the  situation  may  not  be  publised.  While disclosure  of  correct  information  is  necessary,  it  is equally important  that there  should be no dissemination of wrong  information.   We  assume   that  those  who  receive permission  to  have  interviews  will  agree  to  abide  by reasonable  restrictions.   Most  of   the  manuals  provide restrictions   which    are   reasonable.    As   and   when reasonableness of  restrictions is  disputed it  would be  a matter for  examination and  we hope  and  trust  that  such occasions would  be indeed  rare. We see reason in the stand adopted by  Mr. Bhasme  relating to  the objections  of  his client about  tape-recording by  interviewers. There  may be cases where  such tape-recording  is necessary  but we would like to  make it clear that tape-recording should be subject to special  permission of  the appropriate  authority. There may be  some individuals  or class of persons in prison with whom  interviews  may  not  be  permitted  for  the  reasons indicated by this Court in the case of 219 Prabha Dutt (supra). We may reiterate that interviews cannot be  A   forced  and  willingness  of  the  prisoners  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

interviewed would  always be  insisted upon.  There  may  be certain other  cases where  for good  reason permission  may also  be   withheld.  These  are  situations  which  can  be considered as and when they arise.      The petitioner  is free  to make  an application to the prescribed authority for the requisite permission and as and when  such  application  is  made,  keeping  the  guidelines indicated above,  such request may be dealt with. There will be no order for costs. S . L.                                 Petition disposed of. 220