State of H. P. vs Amar Singh

P.D. Desai, C.J.—The application is rejected as not maintainable since the grounds on which a review can be legitimately sought and granted are wholly non existent.

The Court cannot part with the case without observing, however, that it is surprised to find that the order in question has been regarded to be a fit one to be made the subject-matter of review by the State which professes to be wedded to the ideal of a social welfare State and is duty bound to abide by those Directive Principles of State Policy which have been enshrined in the Constitution for the benefit of the socially and economically backward sections and the under privileged classes of society.

The original petitioner, aged 25, is a convict undergoing imprisonment in the District Jail, Dharamshala. He wants to prosecute studies in B.A. Part-I and apprehends that for the want of proper academic guidance he might not succeed in the examination. From Jail, therefore, he moved a writ petition seeking permission to attend the college under police escort or to be provided with the facility of teaching in the Jail so that he might be able to prosecute his studies properly. The Court felt that to permit him to attend the college under police escort might create problems or difficulties of diverse nature and, therefore, passed the order under review in the presence of and after hearing the learned Deputy Advocate General directing, inter alia, that a Lecturer on the staff of the Post Graduate College, Dharamshala, in each of the concerned subjects, be deputed to the Jail once in a month for imparting instructions to the petitioner.

The State seeks review of the order aforesaid on the ground that the order might have �far reaching repercussions�, since the convicts who are similarly situate cannot be denied such facility and that such an arrangement might involve �administrative as well as financial difficulties�. There was no material before the Court then and there is none even now to show whether there are other convicts similarly situate and, if so, how many, whether they have sought such facility and what administrative difficulties and financial burden, if any, are involved and the extent thereof. The apprehension would thus appear to be more imaginary than real. Besides, since the facility was provided under the Court�s order, it willbe for the Court to decide in a future case, if any, whether similar facilities require to be extended to a person who is exactly similarly situate. But even if such facility is to be provided to one or a few of more of such prisoners and some expense or administrative adjustments are involved, is there any justification for denying the same?

A convict undergoing imprisonment is entitled to prosecute studies and to be provided with all the reasonable facilities and opportunities therefor. The State is under an obligation to make effective provision for securing his right to education even if it involves public assistance in any form. Any effort or outlay by the State on that count is for the ultimate good of the individual and the society and in accord with the present enlightened thinking on the reformative and rehabilitative aspects of penalty and the liberalised approach in the field of jail jurisprudence. True it is that the material direction herein was issued on the basis of the statement made by the Principal, Government Post Graduate College, Dharam-shala, at the suggestion of the Court. In making the statement, in our opinion, the Principal acted correctly and with circumspection and in the proper exercise of his discretion, apart from showing due deference to the considered suggestion of the Court which as a public servant he was expected to do. Be it realised, however, that the Court�s power and jurisdiction to pass such an order does not depend upon the statement of the nature made by the Principal and that the Court would have, in any event, issued these directions, even if no such statement had been made by the Principal since, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in light of the preceding observations, the petitioner�s reasonable request could not possibly have been rejected.

Dasti copy on usual terms.