| Citation | WRIT PETITION (crl.)No(s)307 OF 2020 |
| Date of Judgment | 28, April ,2021 |
| Court | Supreme court of India |
| Case Type | Writ petition |
| Appellant | Kerala union of working journalist |
| Respondent | Union of India & ORS |
| Bench | Chief justice NV Ramana , Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Bopanna |
| Referred | The fundamental Right to life is available to under trial prisoners as well |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Siddique Kappan, a journalist affiliated with the Malayalam news portal Azhimukham and serving as the secretary of the Delhi unit of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ), was apprehended along with three others. Their arrest occurred while in route to Hathras to cover the tragic incident of the gang-rape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit girl in Uttar Pradesh in October 2020. The girl was reportedly cremated in the middle of the night, purportedly without her family’s consent. Additionally, the government claimed that kappans ID card was expired and had nothing to do with journalism and alleged Kappan of being involved in a conspiracy aimed at inciting religious conflicts within the country.
Kappan was charged for having alleged connections with the Popular Front of India (PFI) under
- IPC Section 153A, involving the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion
- IPC Section 295A, concerning deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings
- Sections 65, 72, and 75 of the Information Technology Act
- Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
ISSUES
Following Issues were Raised in Supreme Court of India-
- Whether the writ petition of habeas corpus(Art32) claiming the arrest as illegal detention is maintainable or not,
- Interim direction and release on bail due to deteriorating health condition of the siddique kappan and his mother
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner side-
1) The senior learned counsel kapil sibal on behalf of appellant pleaded to let siddique qapan visit his ailing mother with critical health condition
2) The counsel argued that the arrest was illegal without prior notice
3) The counsel argued on behalf of the petitioner, emphasizing the imperative release on bail owing to the petitioner’s precarious health conditions. A report was submitted to the court, confirming the accused’s positive COVID status and the presence of a head injury.
Respondent side
1) Tushar Mehta, solicitor General of india argued, that the alleged detenue Siddiqui kappan was given the similar aid and care received by the otter jail inmates
2) Sidique kapan was not detained illegally and was booked under relevant provisions of IPC, UAPA and IT Act
JUDGEMENT
The Court observed that Siddique Kappan was not illegally detained, proper investigation, charge sheet were filed thus the court did not intervene and examined the detailed facts and focused only in line with adequate health care and relief to the accused. Meanwhile, he was diagnosed covid positive. Also, his medical report suggests that he has diabetes, heart ailment, blood pressure and bodily injury although, later by the additional affidavit, it was said that he is covid negative.
.
Mere fact that other jail inmates receive similar aid cannot deter the court. Herein, the right to life is embraced under trial prisoners as well. Thus, he shall be shifted to government Hospital for proper medication. As and when doctors certify him fit, he should be shifted back to the jail and can avail the remedies as stated in the law.
REFERENCES
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/602f4bda9fca1973741a1089
https://lawfoyer.in/kerala-union-of-working-journalists-vs-union-of-india/
This Article is written by Darshan Agrawal of Lloyd law college , intern at legal vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
