MRS. GEETINDER KAURversusSTAIE OF PUNJAB AND 2 ORS.

                                                             325


                       MRS, GEETINDER KAilR                         A
                               Vo
                  STAIE OF PUNJAB AND 2 ORS •

                         JULY 23, 1985

            [R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI JJ.]               B

      National Security (Rajasthan. Conditions of Detention)
Order, 1984, Condition No. (iv) - Solitary Confinement of detenu
- Validity of.

      Preventive detention - Detenu - Facilities of - Detenu        c
whether entitled to be detained in home State - Place of deten-
tion - Administrati<:e choice of detaining authority - Int:er-
ference by Court - When arises.

      The wife of the detenu in her petition under Article 32
ccntended that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody    D
in Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthsn may be located in the
State of Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should
be provided with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he
should not be kept in solitary confinement, and should be allowed
interviews with his relatives, friends and legal adviser from
time to time.
                                                                    E
      On the question· whether the detenu should be detained in
the State of Punjab, his home State,

      !ll!LD: 1. The place of detention is a matter for the
administrative choice· of the detaining authority, and a Court
would be justified in interfering with that decision only i f i t   F
waa in violation of any specific provision of the law or waa
vitiated by arbitrary considerations and malafides. In the
instant caae, no such material has been placed before the Court.
On the contrary, the counter-affidavits indicate that on the
facts and ·circumstances of the case it was necessary to effect
the detention at Bharatpur. The city of Bharatpur although          G
situated in the State of Rajaathsn, is not very distant from lhe
State of Punjab and Haryans. The reasons for detaining the detenu
at Bharatpur do not, therefore, permit interference in the matter
of place of detention. [327 D-F]

      2. While ordinarily a detenu should be detained in an         H
environment natural to him in point of climate, langusge, food
    326               SUPREME COUiX REPORTS        [1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A
    and other illcldents of livillg, in the actual decision concerning
    the place of detention tbae coaaiderstions lllUlt yield to factors
    related to, and -sitatecl by, the need fclr placing him in
    preventive detentioll. [327 B-<:]

          3. llbile the c.onditions illposed upon a detenu held in
B
    preventive detention D18t not be punitive, they llllSt nevertheless
    be such 88 to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration.
    [327 C-D)

          4. The Jail authorities will continue to ensure that the
    detenu is supplied with all such facilities and amenities 88 are
    reasonably and necessarily required by him, consistently of
c   course with the need to maintain the security lof his detention.
    [328 C-DJ                                      ,

          5. Condition No. 4 (ii) of the National Security (Bajasthan
    Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 eiipo..ers the authorities to
    keep the detenu separate from ordinary prisoners. The nature of
    the detenu's detention does not call for interference. [328 G-11)
D
            ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 391 of
    1985.

            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
E
                                                      I
            llardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.

          Bhagwant Singh Sindhu, Advocate, General, Punjab and S.K.
    Baggs with him for th<! Respondent ilo. · 1 and B.D. Shanna for the
    Respondent Nos • 2 and 3.
F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PA'l'llAK, J. The petitioner, wlto is the wife of Simranjit
    Singh Mann, a detenu detained in the District Jail, Bharatpur,
    has filed this Writ Petition praying that the detention of the
    detenu in preventive custody may be located 'in the State of
G   Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should be pro-
    vided with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he should
    not be kept in solitary confinement, and should be allowed inter-
    views with his relatives and friends and his legal adviser from
    time to time. It is further prayed that certain provisions of
    the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order,
H
    1984 be declared~ vires.
           The petitioner is represented by Mr. llardev Singh, the
     State of Punjab by its Advocate Genral and the State of Rajasthan
                                                                               •
              GEETlNOER KAUR v. STATE    lPATHAK, J. J               327


by Shri B.D.Sh;;rma.   We have heard them at length on this                A
petition. At the outset, it may be stated that tvlr. ttardev Singh
did not question the validity of the provisions of the National
Security (RaJasthan Condition of Detention) Order, 19S4. We
propose to consider only those points on which submissions were
made by him.
                                                                           B
      Mr. Hatdev Singh contends that the detenu should have been
detained in preventive custody in the State of Punjab, which is
his home State, or in any event at a place not far off from that
State. We have given the matter careful thought.  While it is
ordinarily desirable that a detenu should be detained in an
environment natural to him in point of climate, language, food             C
and other incidents of living, in the actual decision concerning
the place of detention these considerations must yield to factors
related to, and necessitated by, the need for placing him in
preventive detention.   While we maintain that the conditions
imposed upon a detenu held ill: preventive detention must not be
punitive, they must nevertheless be such as to secure the effec-           u
tiveness of his incarceratio~. The repondents have given reasons
for detaining the detenu at Bharatpur, and we are not persuaded
that the law allows us to interfere in the matter. The place of
detention is a matter for the administrative choice of the
detaining authority, and a court would· be justified in i.nterfer-
ing with that dectsion only if it was in violation of any speci-
fic provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary considera-           E
tions and ma.la £ides. No such material has been placed before
us. On the GOntrary, the affidavits filed by the respondents on
the record indicate that the mind has been applied to the facts
and circl.UllStances of the case and that it was felt    necessary    to
effect the detention at Bharatppur. It may be observed that the
city of ijharatpur, although situated in the State of Rajas than,          F
is not very distant from the States of Punjab and Haryana. In
the circlllllStances, we find ourselves unable to grant the relief
sought by Mr. Hardev Singh.in respect of the place of detention.

     The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the detenu should be provided with various amenities and              G
facilites necessary for a pr6per and decent human existence, and
among them are mentioned good food, furniture and proper light-
ing, the supply of linen including pillows, bed-sheets and a
mosquito net, adequate medical attention, as well as recreational
amenities such as a radio. It is also prayed that the petitioner
should be entitled to have his religious symbols 'near him to              H
enable him to observe his      religious practices.       A counter-
    328              SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


A   affidavit filed by•Mr. K.p. Upadhyay, who was Superintendent of
    the District Jail at Bharatpur upto May 23, 1985 '  has enumerated
    on oath that the detenu has been provided all the necessary
    amenities and facilities. He has specifically mentioned that a
    suitable diet, recommended by the doctor on duty, is being
    supplied to the detenu, and that the detenu is allowed to supple-
B   ment .the food at his cost or by food supplied by his family.
    Besides, it is averred, the detenu has been allowed religious
    books appropriate to his faith as well as books on philosophy,
    history and fiction. It is also asserted that newspapers are
    supplied to the detenu. The learned Advocate 'General for the
    State of Pi.injab has stated before us that he wiil have no objec-
    tion to any further necessary and desirable amenities and facili-
C   ties being provided to the detenu, and that a transistor radio
    could also·, be made available to the detenu·. On the question of
    medical attention for the detenu, it appears that he is a patient
    of high blood pressure, and it is affirmed tr.at adequate medical
    attention by medical experts as well as appropriate medicines
    have been made available to him. We have no doubt that the Jail
    authorities will continue to ensure that the detenu is supplied
D   with all such facilities and amenities as are , reasonably and
    neces•arily required by him, consistently of course with the need
    to maintain the security of his detention.

          an th~ question of the detenu being allowed interviews with
    his lawyer, and his parents, wife and family as well as other
E   relatives, the learned Advocate General has assured us that the
    State of Punjab will have no objection to such interviews, pro-
    vided an application in that behalf is duly made to the Jail
    authorities before hand. We direct the Jail authorites to dis-
    pose of all such applications expeditiously.

F          Some a:r-gum.ent was raised on the question whether the detenu
    was being kept in solitary confinement in his cell. It appears
    from the record before us that the detenu has been provided two
    adjacent cells and enjoys a certain degree of freedom of movement
    from early morning to the evening. It is also mentioned that a
    convict officer serves as his cook and he is entitled to contact
G   two wardens, one of whom is available in the ward itself and the
    other is posted at the gate of the ward. It is stated that
    medical officers and male nurses also attend on the detenu.       The
    respondents claim that condition No. 4(ii) of the National
    Security (Rajas than Conditions of Detention) Ordh, 1984 empower
    them to keep the detenu separte from ordinary prisoners~ Learned
H   counsel for the petitioner has been unable to satisfy us that the
    nature of the detenu' s detention calls for interference by the
    Court.
                 GEETINDER KAUR v. STATE   (PATHAK, J. j     329


      Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the peti-
tioner was tortured during an earlier stage of his detention, and
has sought to prove this by summoning the Visitors' Register
maintained at the District Jail, Bharatpur in order to show that
police officers had visited the detenu and interogated him.
While we are of opinion that the petitioner· is entitled to
                                                                    B
adduce evidence in support of the allegation of torture, we fail
to see how the Visitors' Register will substantiate that charge.
The Register will indicate the identity of the visitors, and may
record the duration of the visits. It has not been shown that it
will prove what actually went on during the visits. In the
circumstances we see no' reason to send for the Register.
                                                                    c
         The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.




A.p.J.