9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Removal of armed police guards posted around the jail. 2. Dismantling of the live-wire electrical mechanism fixed on top of the jail wall. Summary: Issue 1: Removal of Armed Police Guards The petitioners, who are undergoing sentences in the Central Jail at Visakhapatnam, sought the removal of armed police guards posted around the jail. They argued that prison discipline must have the authority of law and that there should be an "Iron curtain" between prisoners and the police to ensure freedom from police influence and tyranny. The court noted that the usual watch and ward staff of the jail were inadequate, necessitating the services of the Andhra Pradesh Special Police Force to guard the jail from outside. The court held that convicts are not denuded of all fundamental rights by mere conviction, but the presence of police guards outside the jail does not interfere with the petitioners' fundamental rights. The court emphasized that the security of one's person against arbitrary police encroachment is basic to a free society, but the presence of police in the immediate vicinity of the jail, without access to the jail, does not violate the petitioners' personal liberty. Issue 2: Dismantling of Live-Wire Electrical Mechanism The petitioners contended that the live-wire mechanism atop the jail walls was unconstitutional as it subjected prisoners attempting to escape to a virtual death penalty, which lacked the authority of law and violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The court clarified that if the measure violates fundamental rights, its justification must be found in some "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. The installation of the high-voltage wires lacked a statutory basis and was devised on departmental instructions, which are not "law" or "procedure established by law." However, the court found no possibility that the petitioners would come into contact with the electrical device in their daily activities, and they have no fundamental freedom to escape from lawful custody. The court held that the live-wire mechanism does not interfere with the petitioners' fundamental freedoms as it is a preventive measure intended to deter escape attempts. Conclusion: The petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought, as the acts complained of do not cause any interference with their fundamental rights. The rule was discharged on the ground that the measures taken by the jail authorities do not violate the fundamental rights of the prisoners.
|
