Ujagar Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The petitioners herein have a load of grievances. The point at the threshold is whether this Court should entertain the petition. And if it would, whether this Court is well-equipped to grant them the necessary relief.

The broad facts giving rise thereto are these: �

The detenus were arrested from the Golden Temple Complex at Amritsar after '' the Operation Blue Star somewhere in the first week of June, 1984, They were said to be involved in the crime of waging war against the Government of India and causing murders etc. (the long list of offences be kept apart). Later, in view of the enactment of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, the Central Government divided the State of Punjab in three Judicial Zones of Jullundur, Ferozepore and Patiala. For all these Zonal Special Courts, an Additional Special Court was set up at Jodhpur in accordance with Section 4(2) read with Section 7(2) of the said Act. Since the case of the petitioners would otherwise have been tried by the Special Court, Jullundur Zone, the Central Government thought it proper to transfer the case against the detenus to be tried by the Additional Special Court at Jodhpur. The detenus were presented there on the Court assuming jurisdiction and taking cognizance of the offences. Under orders of that Court passed from time to time, the detenus have been confined as under-trials in the Central Jail at Jodhpur. The petitioners claim themselves to be friends and political associates of the detenus. They also claim to be interested in other persons confined in Jodhpur Jail similarly situated as the detenus.

The grievance of the petitioners (which means the grievance of the detenus) is that some incident took place in the jail on 3-4-1986 as a result of which allegedly the detenus and a few others were tortured and beaten. Now the following reliefs are claimed by them:

(a) Production of the detenus before this Court.

(b) A Judicial Inquiry into the incident of 3-4-1986.

(c) Transfer of the under-trials to some jail in Punjab facilitating interviews by their relatives and friends.

(d) Medical facilities to the injured and ailing detenus.

(e) Simplification of procedure of interviews by permitting visitors to keep wearing their religious attire and adorning of weapons.

It is vehemently urged that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a petition and grant the above reliefs. The language of Article 226 of the Constitution has interpretingly been widened with the aid of judicial precedents to contend that this Court should entertain the petition and grant the above reliefs.

I regret this will not be possible for this Court, keeping apart whether it has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition of the kind or not. This Court would be slow to grant relief in a case in which, impeded as it is by distance and other factors to hold an inquiry and have its directions obeyed Furthermore, this Court would be slow to assume jurisdiction over a matter on which a sister Court can, with more efficacy, promptitude and exactitude, hold an inquiry and grant relief. In making this observation, this Court has in mind the availability of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur which can grant prompt and adequate relief to the petitioner?;. That Court has all the means to hold an inquiry, as asked for, and provide medical facilities to the detenus and adequate facilities to the interviewers. That Court, if it so chooses, can even personally inspect the jail premises to see the conditions of the detenus. It is futile here to enter into any controversy as to where did the detention begin and whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Let us assume that this Court has the jurisdiction (not by any means now holding so) but it cannot be denied that the Rajasthan High Court too has jurisdiction. The petitioners thus must be relegated to seek their remedies in that Court. Though the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide and extraordinary, it yet remains discretionary with this Court to exercise it or not in a given set of circumstances. As indicated earlier, the present is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.