1980 (12) TMI 200 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appearance of the State of Bihar in response to notice.
2. Housing arrangements for blinded prisoners.
3. State liability for compensation under Article 21.
4. Provision of legal representation to blinded prisoners.
5. Production of accused before judicial magistrates within 24 hours.
6. Judicial magistrates' concern for injuries sustained by prisoners.
7. Handling of blinded prisoners' petitions by judicial officers.
8. State Government's response to allegations of police atrocities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appearance of the State of Bihar in Response to Notice:
The court acknowledged the State of Bihar's delayed appearance due to the notice being served only on 6th December, 1980, and exonerated the State from remissness for not appearing on 2nd December, 1980.

2. Housing Arrangements for Blinded Prisoners:
The court addressed the immediate concern regarding the housing of blinded prisoners post-treatment. It was suggested that they be housed in the Blind Relief Association of Delhi, with the State of Bihar bearing the cost of their boarding and lodging until the next hearing.

3. State Liability for Compensation under Article 21:
The court discussed the contention that the State should compensate the blinded prisoners for the violation of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21. The court highlighted the constitutional importance of the issue and indicated that detailed arguments would be heard in the next session to explore the implications of Article 21 in this context.

4. Provision of Legal Representation to Blinded Prisoners:
The court noted that most blinded prisoners were not provided legal representation during their initial production or remand hearings. It emphasized the constitutional mandate under Article 21 for the State to provide free legal services to indigent accused, not only at trial but also at the initial stages of judicial proceedings. The court directed judicial officers to inform accused persons of their right to free legal services.

5. Production of Accused Before Judicial Magistrates within 24 Hours:
The court observed irregularities in the timely production of accused before judicial magistrates, as required by Article 22. It urged the State and police authorities to scrupulously observe this constitutional requirement.

6. Judicial Magistrates' Concern for Injuries Sustained by Prisoners:
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the judicial magistrates for not inquiring about the injuries sustained by the blinded prisoners. It pointed out that either the prisoners were not physically produced before the magistrates, or the magistrates failed to take necessary action despite being aware of the injuries.

7. Handling of Blinded Prisoners' Petitions by Judicial Officers:
The court criticized the judicial officers for not acting upon the petitions of blinded prisoners alleging police atrocities. It highlighted that the petitions disclosed serious offences, and the judicial officers should have taken cognizance or ordered an investigation.

8. State Government's Response to Allegations of Police Atrocities:
The court sought detailed information from the State Government regarding the steps taken after receiving complaints from blinded prisoners about police atrocities. It aimed to determine whether appropriate actions could have prevented further incidents.

Conclusion:
The court directed the State Government to furnish detailed particulars regarding their response to the blinded prisoners' complaints before the next hearing on 6th January, 1981.