Court On Its Own Motion vs State & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1004 Del

                           HIGH COURT OF DELHI

%                                   Date of decision: July 11th, 2008

                          WP(Crl.)No. 662/2005


#Court on its own motion


                      Versus

$State & Ors.                                      ..Respondents

                           through
^                          Ms.Mukta Gupta with Mr. Rajat Katyal,
                           Advocates for respondent-State
                           Mr. S.K. Singh for Times of India
                           Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary for TV Today Network

Coram :

* Hon'ble Mr.Justice Manmohan Sarin
  Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.L. Bhayana

    (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be             Yes
        allowed to see the judgment?

     (2) To be referred to the reporter or not?             Yes

     (3) Whether the judgment should be reported            Yes
         in the Digest ?

   Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The above criminal writ petition, was registered following the

suo motu directions by the Court to issue notices in respect of

a telecast "Ghoos Mahal & Tihar Saga" shown by the channel

"AAj Tak". The said feature disclosed and revealed acts of

prison officials showing and giving undue favour to prisoners

in breach of the Rules under the Jail Manual. This being

inextricably linked with the infarction and breach of Rules

under the Jail Manual, had a direct effect on the administration

of criminal justice. The Court accordingly took cognizance

and directed registration of a criminal writ petition vide order

dated 6th May, 2005 and issuance of notices to the Chief

Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, Director General

(Prisons), Delhi, Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of

Home Affairs, Union of India.

2. During the course of the proceedings, two news items

appeared, one in "The Hindustan Times" on 15th September,

2005 and the second in "Times of India" on 16th September,

2005. Both the news items reported incidents involving

breach of Jail Rules and discipline. The news item in The

Hindustan Times was titled "'Bikini show' has Tihar blushing,

Recreational event turns into sleaze party; inquiry ordered". As far

as this item is concerned, after issuance of notice and filing of

replies, the matter had been concluded with The Hindustan

Times recognizing that the programme was in the nature of a

cultural programme for recreation and entertainment of

inmates and had published a regret. The second new item

published in Times of India was under the caption "For

Pappu's fans, all roads lead to Tihar". The reference was to

Pappu Yadav alias Rajesh Ranjan, who had been shifted to

Tihar prison following the judgment of the Supreme Court

titled "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu

Yadav & Anr." reported at AIR 2005 SC 972, to which we

shall advert later. By this order, we wish to dispose of the

notice issued in respect of this news item.

3. The news item was authored by Ms. Megha Suri. It began by

stating that Tihar Jail was experiencing a poll buzz. It was not

that the inmates were voting for any union election, but with

the Bihar polls only a month away, political activists were

calling on Pappu Yadav, the Madhepur MP lodged in Jail No.3

and that there was rush of visitors for him. The news item

imputed that there was a stream of visitors and the

interviews/Mulakats were granted in excess and in

contravention of the Rules. Though the time prescribed was

only 30 minutes, he could have all the time he wanted.

Further, that his wife, who was an MP, visited him regularly

with home cooked food and met him in the office of the Jail

Deputy Superintendent. Regarding facilities, it was reported

that Pappu Yadav was provided with a television set, a cooler

and a special bed having a cushy mattress in his cell. For

recreation in the evening, he liked to play Volley Ball with

other prisoners etc. The news item also gave the version of

the Jail officials, who denied any Mulakats in contravention of

the Rules. Jail officials further denied that any special

privileges were being provided to him. The special bed had

been provided on the recommendation of the Doctors of All

India Institute of Medical Sciences and the cooler on the

recommendation of the Jail Hospital. Reply affidavits have

been filed by the Jail administration. Written submissions

have also been filed by Mr. S.K. Singh on behalf of the Times

of India and Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for Delhi

Administration. Ms. Megha Suri, the journalist, has also filed

her affidavit.

The stand of the Jail administration has been that the Mulakat

and interviews were being granted in accordance with Rule

21, 22 & 23 of the Delhi Prisons (Prisoner Welfare Fund,

Appeals, Petitions, Interviews and Communication) Rules,

1988. In terms of Rule 23, the Jail Superintendent was

empowered to grant more than the prescribed number of

interviews or at shorter intervals, should the situation so

warrant. As regards the Mulakat being granted to his wife in

the room of the Deputy Superintendent, Jail, it was urged that

she was a sitting M.P. and in deference to her status, the

interview was being granted in the room of the Deputy

Superintendent, Jail. Further, in terms of Rule 29, it was

within the powers of the Superintendent to grant an interview

at any part of the Jail premises. The provision of hospital bed

was stated to be as per the recommendation of the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) who found him to be a

patient of Morbid Obesity and Right Thigh Fistula. A special

bed was recommended for him. A cooler was similarly

provided as per the recommendation of the Board of Doctors

of the Jail Hospital on finding him to be suffering from sun

exposure for a long time due to heat/raised temperature. As

regards the provision of television, it is stated that TV facility

is available in the barracks and cells except in the high

security wards.

4. We have also heard learned counsel Mr. S.K. Singh on behalf of

Times of India and Ms. Mukta Gupta in opposition. Mr. S.K.

Singh has submitted that on a consideration of all the facts

and events in their correct perspective, it would become

apparent that the authorities were bending backwards to

somehow justify the provision of these facilities to the

prisoner. He submits that the provision of a hospital bed to

Rajesh Ranjan is sought to be justified on account of his being

a case of "hypertension with morbid obesity with sleep

apnea". Again for cooler, it was claimed that he was suffering

from heat and sun exposure and the cell temperature was

very warm and condition humid. Mr. Singh submitted that if

indeed the above was the situation, the best place for the

prisoner would have been the Jail hospital, which was

proximate to and near the Cell. Hospital would also have had

the provision of the special bed as also cooler. But that was

not to be so because had he been shifted to the hospital, he

could not have had his stream of visitors. Learned counsel

also mentioned that while on the one hand under trial Prisoner

is stated to be suffering from conditions which require a

special bed and cooler for heat exposure, yet he is found to be

a keen sportsman. As per respondent's affidavit, he plays

Volley Ball in the evening. This submission of Mr. Singh is

appealing and deserves consideration.

5. Regarding provision of a television in the barracks and cell, he

submitted that the two were not comparable as the barracks

housed 30-40 inmates. Therefore, provision of a television

there was understandable while a cell hardly had 3-4 prisoners

and, therefore, provision of a television therein was a special

privilege. Learned counsel claimed that as per their

information, at the relevant time, it was Pappu Yadav's cell

alone which had a TV. He submits that the Jail authorities

were failing in their duties to strictly go by the directions of

the Supreme Court which had transferred the prisoner from

the Beur Jail to Tihar to prevent discriminatory favours being

granted to him there. He urged that the Jail Authorities at

Tihar were improperly exercising their discretion resulting in

conferring of undeserved benefit and facilities to the prisoner.

Learned counsel submitted that he has instructions to say that

should the situation arise, they would plead justification for

the article which had been written bonafide and in public

interest. He prayed for the present notice to be discharged.

6. Learned counsel has referred to several judicial

pronouncements in support of his contentions. However,

considering the view that we are taking in the matter, it is not

necessary to refer to them. The transfer of Rajesh Ranjan

from Beur Jail was pursuant to the directions given by the

Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan

alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.(supra). The Supreme Court had

found that while he was supposedly in judicial custody, he was

found addressing an election meeting at Madhepura in Bihar.

He had been permitted to be taken out of judicial custody

pursuant to the production warrant issued by a Court in

Madhepura. However, as the said day was declared to be a

holiday, the Magistrate had remanded him back to custody. It

was then found that the escort had taken him for addressing

the public meeting. Further, the Supreme Court had also

noted that when his bail was cancelled and he was directed to

be taken to Jail, an urgent Medical Board was constituted

which directed his medical treatment at the Patna Medical

College though the Patna Medical Hospital had a separate Cell

for treatment under special orders of the Doctor and the

Superintendent of the Hospital, Pappu Yadav was

accommodated in the Special Ward. There were also reports

of hosting of parties etc. for prisoners and co-prisoners in Jail.

7. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion

that the concerned authorities especially the Authorities at the

Beur Central Jail, were not in a position to contain the illegal

activities of the respondent therein, i.e. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan

and, therefore, transferred him out of State. A specific

direction given while transferring the respondent to Tihar Jail

was as under:

"We think it appropriate that the respondent be transferred to Tihar Jail at Delhi and we direct the seniormost officer-in-charge of Tihar Jail to make such arrangements as he thinks is necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of the activities of the respondent of the nature referred to hereinabove and shall allow no special privileges to him unless the same is entitled in law. His conduct during his custody in Tihar Jail will specially be monitored and if necessary be reported to this Court. However, the respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of the visit of his family as provided for under the Jail Manual of Tihar. He shall also be entitled to such categorization and such facilities available to him in law."

8. Having considered the record produced before us, the affidavit

filed and the written and oral submissions made by both the

counsel and considering the plea of the newspaper that the

news item in question had been written bonafide in good faith

and in public interest, giving the version of the Jail Authorities.

It was written without any malice as also the Newspaper's

submission to plead justification for the imputations made, we

are of the view that the notice issued need not be pursued

further and deserves to be discharged. Ordered accordingly.

Further, noting the observations of the Supreme Court as

reproduced in para 6 above, we direct the Jail authorities to

keep in mind the directions of the Supreme Court that no

special privileges are to be allowed unless so entitled at law.

Towards this end, the Jail authorities shall have medical

examination of Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav done

forthwith and followed every quarter by an independent Board

of Doctors nominated by the Secretary (Health), Government

of NCT of Delhi. The said Board after examination of Rajesh

Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, would give its recommendation

regarding the treatment as also whether the provision of

special bed, cooler and other facilities needs to be continued.

The notice is discharged accordingly with the above directions.

Manmohan Sarin, J.

July 11th, 2008                                  S.L. Bhayana, J.
rk