Sanjay Suri & Anr vs Delhi Administration, Delhi & Anr 1987

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,279

Citation 1988 AIR 414, 1988 SCR (2) 234

Date of judgment 9^th December, 1987

Court Supreme Court of India, Delhi

Petitioner Sanjay Suri ANR

Respondent Delhi Administration, Delhi ANR

Bench Misra Ranganath, Justice Dutt,

Justice MM.

INTRODUCTION :

The petitioners, a News Editor and a trainee sub – editor, filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court under Article-32 of Constitution in the nature of public interest litigation it is a Criminology Case which follows the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in contains two sections i.e., section-7 Territorial Division and section 420 Warrant. Under Article-32 pointing out features of maladministration within the Central Jail at Tihar relating to juvenile undertrial prisoners and praying for appropriate directions to the respondents. The Court made several orders with reference to juvenile prisoners and undertrials. Under the orders of the Court, the Sessions Judge visited the jail on more than one occasion and made several reports. Pursuant to the Court’s directions, certain suggestions were made by the petitioners as well as the respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The petitioners, a News Editor and a trainee sub- editor, filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution in the nature of public interest litigation, pointing out features of mal-administration within the Central Jail at Tihar relating to juvenile under trial prisoners and praying for appropriate directions to the respondents.

2. When these writ petitions came up for hearing before Supreme Court, Supreme Court had certain hesitation in entertaining them because another petition was pending in the High Court of Delhi in regard to juvenile prisoners in Tihar Jail where some directions had been given by the High Court and they were anxious to avoid a parallel investigation particular since in matters of this kind it is desirable that the High Courts should be activised.

3. But since no inquiry into the conditions prevailing in the Tihar Jail, in so far prisoners in the juvenile ward are concerned, had been ordered and what was ordered was only a limited inquiry relating to medical examination of 7 juvenile prisoners who were directed to be produced in court, Supreme Court thought that it would be failing in its constitutional duty if it do not take judicial action and direct the District Judge to visit Tihar Jail for making inquiry into the conditions prevailing in the Tihar Jail in so far as the prisoners in the juvenile ward are concerned.

4. Supreme Court decided to entrust this task to the District Judge because he is even otherwise visitor at the Tihar Jail and Supreme Court thought it would be better to send an officer who is ultimately responsible for ensuring proper conditions in the Tihar Jail rather than entrust this work to an outside organisation or agency.

5. Report made by the District Judge discloses a shocking state of affairs in so far as juvenile prisoners are concerned. The District Judge has interviewed some of the juvenile prisoners in regard to whom he learnt, as a result of the inquiry made by him, that they had been subjected to sexual assault by the adult prisoners.

6. The juvenile prisoners who made statements before the District Judge have expressed apprehension that they might get into difficulties and be victimized if their names are disclosed and the District Judge has also suggested in his Report that either the names should not be disclosed or if the names of these juvenile prisoners are disclosed, adequate protection should be granted to them. Supreme Court thinks it would be right not to disclose the names of these juvenile prisoners while supplying copies of the Report of the District Judge to the advocates of the parties but it also thinks that it is necessary to provide adequate protection to them.

7. Supreme Court therefore, direct that the Court made several orders with reference to juvenile prisoners and under trials. Under the orders of the Court, the Sessions Judge visited the jail on more than one occasion and made several reports. Pursuant to the court’s directions, certain made suggestions were made by the petitioners as well as the respondents.

ISSUE RAISED:

4 main issues were raised

Whether it is mandatory to supply the age of person to be detained?
Whether any authority i.e., police officer or jail authorities refuse to avoid warrant if doesn’t specified age?
Whether regular prisoners not to be assigned work in same area as of juvenile delinquents?
Whether over crowded should be avoided in the jail?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT:

The petitioners filed writ petition on the Supreme Court pointing out of features of maladministration with in the central jail at Tihar relating to juvenile under trail prisoners to get the relief for the juveniles who are facing issues by the adult prisoners. The main intention of the petition is to save the prison rights of juveniles, the government and non-governmental organizations work together for the rehabilitation of the juvenile. Restoration of juvenile back to the society is very important for the reformation of the child to make him or her into a model citizen.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

The respondent doesn’t accept the point of petitioner i.e., maladministration with in the central jail at Tihar, so the Supreme Court order the sessions judge to visit the central jail to known the facts of the case. Under the order of the court the sessions judge visited the jail on more than one occasion and made several reports. The respondent agreed the judgment of the Supreme court. The jail administration took responsibility and ensures proper management of jail and safeguard the rights of prisoners.

JUDGEMENT:

Supreme Court direct that the number of under trial juvenile prisoners, shall be released immediately in the course of the day on their executing a bond of Rs.500 each before the superintendent of Tihar Jail. There are also three convicted juvenile prisoners in the Tihar Jail, who have given statements to the District Judge They should be released forthwith on parole for a period of one month on their executing a bond for Rs.500 each before the Superintendent of Tihar Jail that they will surrender themselves to the jail authorities on the expiration of the period of one month The release of these three convicted juvenile prisoners on parole had also been done in the course of the day.
The juvenile who was affected by the adults should be sent to rehabilitation centres. In case of the child in need of care and protection, the State Governments have been empowered to constitute a Child Welfare Committees for every Districts.
Supreme court held that age is mandatory before the detention. If the accused is stated without age no detention would be occur. The courts of Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi when a young accused is produced before them, they have to ascertain whether he is a child or not with in the meaning of the Children’s Act. If the accused is not a child, then send him into Judicial Custody. If he’s stated as child, accused should sent to separate ward and consider them as juvenile. Supreme Court ensures the age of juvenile is 16 to 18 years.
Magistrate or trial Judge authorised to issue warrants for detention of prisoners to ensure that every warrant authorising detention specifies the age of the person to be detained Judicial mind must be applied in cases where there is doubt about the age- not necessarily by a trial-and every warrant must specify the age of the person to be detained.
Supreme Court call upon the authorities in the jails throughout India not to accept any warrant of detention as a valid one unless the age of the detenu is shown therein. By this order of Supreme Court, it made it clear that it shall be open to the jail authorities to refuse to honour a warrant if the age of the person remanded to jail custody is not indicated. It would be lawful for such officers to refer back the warrant to the issuing court for ratifying the defect before it is honoured.
Supreme Court strictly prohibited the over crowd in the prisons.
Supreme Court decided to shift or inter-change or a predecessor, the warders or superintendent at the end of every three years. This is a principle which had been accepted in the Punjab Jail Manual (Chapter VI, Rule 273). Delhi Administration has a difficulty in doing so in a real way because it has only one jail and may have one more when the other jail under construction comes up, but there is no other place to which warders can be transferred. The Administration should take note of the situation, the rules should be changed and the warders or superintendent may either by inter changed with some other category of service working outside the jail or a common Union Territory service could be set up to permit the same. Such transfer will indeed be helpful in restoring discipline in the jail. That due care shall be taken to ensure that the juvenile delinquents are not assigned work in the same area where regular prisoners are made to work. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no scope for their meeting and having contacts.

CONCLUSION:

To conclude, this case is about the juveniles’ facing problems with the adult prisoners at the same prison i.e., sexual assault. The Supreme Court changed some rules and also added some regulations over the juveniles and authorities to be followed strictly i.e.,

Age is mandatory for detention.
Any authority can refuse warrant, if the age is not mentioned.
There should be a different prison for adults as well as juveniles.
The juveniles who are effected by adults are sent to rehabilitation centres.
No over crowd in prison.
Every Warders and Superintendent should be transferred at the end of the three years to other prisons.

REFERENCE :

This Article is written by N.Shishwa student of University College of Law, Osmania University , Intern at Legal Vidhiya.