Rajbir Singh Budhwar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2001
Petitioner: Rajbir Singh Budhwar & Ors.
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2001
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 18, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. Balwant Singh Malik, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Mr. B.K. Khurana, Ms. Sunita Pandit, Mrs. Vandana Singh, Mrs. Santosh Singh, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Mr. Jai Prakash Dhanda, Smt. Raj Rani Dhanda and Mr. Sunder Khatri,
Advocates with him for the appearing parties.
Advocates with him for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
Criminal Law
CONSTITUTION
Articles 14 and 15 – Punjab Jail Manual – Para 576-A – Writs – Power of High Court to examine the vires of jail manual – Respondent convicted for murder filing writ seeking directions for being classified as class B prisoner in terms of the jail manual and for grant of facilities available to such prisoners – High Court dismissing the petition and holding the classification of prisoners into different classes by para 576A of the jail manual to be violative of Articles 14 and 15 – Whether High Court correct in declaring the classification to be ultra vires the Constitution. Held, without putting the advocate general of the state and others concerned on notice and without affording an opportunity of bringing on record material relevant for adjudication upon such validity, the procedure adopted by the High Court in invalidating para 576A of the jail manual was wholly unsatisfactory and therefore unsustainable.
Held:
It is pertinent to note that the question of vires of para 576-A of Punjab jail manual was not raised by anyone before the High Court. The High Court also, before formulating its opinion as expressed in the impugned order, did not give any indication of its mind that adjudication upon the constitutional validity of the provision was proposed. None was put on notice. Nobody was afforded an opportunity of bringing on record material relevant for adjudication upon such validity. The advocate general of the state was not put on notice. The procedure adopted by the High Court while invalidating para 576-A of the Punjab jail manual was wholly unsatisfactory and unsustainable. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2001
1. The respondent Nihal Singh is a convict under section 302 IPC sentenced by court martial to undergo imprisonment for life and incarcerated in civil jail, Sangrur (Punjab). Nihal Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to be classified as class-B prisoner and being allowed the facilities available to such prisoners in accordance with para 576-A of the Punjab jail manual. Punjab jail manual is a compilation of statutory provisions, rules and executive instructions, referrable to prison and prisoners, issued from time to time and is meant to guide the jail administration and the jail officers. Para 576-A contemplates classification of convicted persons into 3 categories, namely, classes A, B and C and catalogues the factors which would be relevant for classification and enumerates the benefits and facilities to which the prisoner would be entitled depending on the classification. The petition came up for hearing before a learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, who formed an opinion that the classification of prisoners into classes A, B and C was violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, declared such classification ultra vires of the Constitution. Consequent upon such declaration the petition filed by the respondent was directed to be dismissed.
2. It is pertinent to note that the question of vires of para 576-A of Punjab jail manual was not raised by anyone before the High Court. The High Court also, before formulating its opinion as expressed in the impugned order, did not give any indication of its mind that adjudication upon the constitutional validity of the provision was proposed. None was put on notice. Nobody was afforded an opportunity of bringing on record material relevant for adjudication upon such validity. The advocate general of the state was not put on notice. The procedure adopted by the High Court while invalidating para 576-A of the Punjab jail manual was wholly unsatisfactory and unsustainable.
3. For the short reason as abovesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the finding arrived at by the High Court, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for hearing and decision afresh and in accordance with law.
4. The appeal stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 709 and 710/2001
5. These appeals have been filed by some of the prisoners detained in jails in the state of Haryana putting in issue the judgment dated May 9, 2000 delivered by learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Nihal Singh which has been dealt with and set aside by the abovesaid order in Crl.A. No. 708/2001. The occasion for filing these two appeals by special leave arose because the judgment delivered by the High Court in the case of Nihal Singh was circulated by the state governments to jail authorities in the states of Punjab and Haryana – both. Acting upon the said judgment the jail authorities in state of Haryana withdrew the facilities extended to the prisoners based upon classification as per para 576-A of Punjab jail manual which was adopted for administration of jails in the State of Haryana also. Inasmuch as the judgment of the High Court in the case of Nihal Singh has already been set aside, these appeals have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2001
1. The respondent Nihal Singh is a convict under section 302 IPC sentenced by court martial to undergo imprisonment for life and incarcerated in civil jail, Sangrur (Punjab). Nihal Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to be classified as class-B prisoner and being allowed the facilities available to such prisoners in accordance with para 576-A of the Punjab jail manual. Punjab jail manual is a compilation of statutory provisions, rules and executive instructions, referrable to prison and prisoners, issued from time to time and is meant to guide the jail administration and the jail officers. Para 576-A contemplates classification of convicted persons into 3 categories, namely, classes A, B and C and catalogues the factors which would be relevant for classification and enumerates the benefits and facilities to which the prisoner would be entitled depending on the classification. The petition came up for hearing before a learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, who formed an opinion that the classification of prisoners into classes A, B and C was violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, declared such classification ultra vires of the Constitution. Consequent upon such declaration the petition filed by the respondent was directed to be dismissed.
2. It is pertinent to note that the question of vires of para 576-A of Punjab jail manual was not raised by anyone before the High Court. The High Court also, before formulating its opinion as expressed in the impugned order, did not give any indication of its mind that adjudication upon the constitutional validity of the provision was proposed. None was put on notice. Nobody was afforded an opportunity of bringing on record material relevant for adjudication upon such validity. The advocate general of the state was not put on notice. The procedure adopted by the High Court while invalidating para 576-A of the Punjab jail manual was wholly unsatisfactory and unsustainable.
3. For the short reason as abovesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the finding arrived at by the High Court, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand restored on the file of the High Court for hearing and decision afresh and in accordance with law.
4. The appeal stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 709 and 710/2001
5. These appeals have been filed by some of the prisoners detained in jails in the state of Haryana putting in issue the judgment dated May 9, 2000 delivered by learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Nihal Singh which has been dealt with and set aside by the abovesaid order in Crl.A. No. 708/2001. The occasion for filing these two appeals by special leave arose because the judgment delivered by the High Court in the case of Nihal Singh was circulated by the state governments to jail authorities in the states of Punjab and Haryana – both. Acting upon the said judgment the jail authorities in state of Haryana withdrew the facilities extended to the prisoners based upon classification as per para 576-A of Punjab jail manual which was adopted for administration of jails in the State of Haryana also. Inasmuch as the judgment of the High Court in the case of Nihal Singh has already been set aside, these appeals have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.
