Ranbir Singh Sehgal v. State of Punjab

Judgment

rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of the profession of law. If he knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he is a very unworthy mem her of the learned profession. In any view of the matter, he does not appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre, which is essential for a member of the legal profession. If anything, by adopting the attitude of denial which has been demonstrated to be falEe in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he has not deserved well of the Court even in the matter of amount of punishment to be meted to him for his proved misconduct. In our opinion, he fully deserves the punishment of suspension from practice for five years.

This punishment will give him enough time and opportunity for deciding for himself, after deep deliberation and introspection, whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the legal profession. In our view he is not. Let him learn that a lawyer must never be a liar. RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL STATE OF PUNJAB (B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Jail Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular confi.nemen,,_V f!l•d_•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894), Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India, Art. 14. ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as an undcrtrial prisoner. 9n account of certain jail offences alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was In flie matter of Mr. 'A' An Advocate Sinha G. J, November 2.

"aohir Singh Sthc.J ,,.,, •f Pwi}d 296 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (11162) SUPP. not alleged to be guilty of any jail offence or indiscipline af1er this date he was still confinea in a separate cdl wil.hout being allowed to communicate 'With other prisoners; he was only allowed to come out in the compound attachd to the cell for one hour in the morning and for one hour in the evening. In December, 1960, the Governor ordered that the appellant be treated .;.is a "li" class prisoner. Even after thi., he was still kept in a separate cell with this difference that he locked up only at night aud was allowed to move in the compound attached to the cell during the day. But he was still not allowed to communicate with others. The Prisons Act provided for the separation of prisoners and s.2!l thereof permitte<l convicted criminal prisoners to be confined in cells citl:cr in association or individually.

Paragraph 57 l of the Punjah .Jail Manual provided that so far as possible all convicts shall be kepi separate both hy day and by night. Paragraph 575 provided that a convict who could not be confined in a cdl by day by reason that he was required for some jail service shall be confined in a cell uy night. The appellant contended that his confiuc1nent \va.s under para 575, that para 575 offended Art. 14 of the Cons<itution and that the Superintendent of .Jail acted ma/a fide and discriminated against him by keeping hin1 in solitary confinement. llfld, tha1 para 575 of the Punjab .Jail Manual did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. This parab>"faph was a part of an integrated sche1nc for the maintenance of discipline of prisoners by providing for their separation. The classification was n11dc on the basis of sex and the nature of the prisoners and depended on the availability of cells; it had a reasonable relation to the objcc< sought to be achieved.

The power to separate was entrusted to the highest officer in the Jail \vho " .. <ls ordinarily expected ro act reasonably, objectively and without bias. Hr.Id, further (p<r Sinha, C . .J ., SuLba Rao, Shah and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the confinement of the appellant in a separate cell in the manner it was being done was illegal. The separation of the appellant so as to seclude him from com1nunicating \\'ith or from the sight of other prisoners certainly a1nountcd to cellular confinement if not to solitary confinement. This could only be done as a measure of punishment, and even then the prjsuncr was entitled to have one hour's exercise every day an<l to have his meals in association with one or more prisoners. The appellant was discriminated from other prison err.: and, under the colour of the rules for separatiori, \vas illPgally confined in a manner not authorised by law.

Per Dayal,J.-There was no discrimination or illei:alitv in keeping the petitioner in a separatr <.~ li. l"l:c mrrc f.,ct ( l) S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'l' REPOR'fS that a person was kept in a separate cell did not m~ke his_ confinement solitary, ceilular or separate. Paragraph ;,71 . of the Jail Manual provided that subject to cell accomodat10n and requirement of labour all convicts be kept separate b?th by day and by night. Paragraph 575 provided an excepuon that where the convict could not be kept separate by day he could be kept separate by night. The entire scheme of the Prisons Act and the rules was that ordinarily a prisoner was to be kept separate and that only in cases of limitation of providing separate cells were prisoners to be kept together. There was no provision that a prisoner kept in a cell was to be specially allowed to associate or mix with other prisoners. CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1961.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order <lated March 17, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Writ No. 2 of 196 l. WITH Petition No. 147 of 1961. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Righ.ts. The appellant/petitioner in person. H. S. Doabia, AdditiOMl Advocate-General, P·unjab, Gopal Singh and P. D. Menon, for respondent (in the appeal and the petition.) 1961. November 2. The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Subba Rao, Shah and Mudholkar, JJ., was delivered by Subba Rao, J. Dayal, J. delivered a separate Judgment. SunBA RAo, J.-Both these matters are connected and raise the same questions and they may be disposed of together. Ranbir Singh Sehgal, the petitio)ler in the writ petition, is now a prisoner in the Central Jail .Ambala, in the State of Punjab. He was prosecuted for committing offences in different places. On June 13, 1961, he was convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Amba.la, under s.

5 of the In~ Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to Jil61 Ranbir Singh lithtal State of PunjtJb Subba Rao J. 19CI /,'111;.'1ir Si11gh Sth$ol S1,,1r flj P1111jab 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to p&y & fine of Rs. 2,000/·. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said conviction an-1 ~en~nce, and the said appeal is now pending in tl1c High Court of Punjab. On January :m, 1!161, the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Ambala, convicted the petitioner Wlder ss. 120-B and 399 of the Indian Penal Code and sent.~mced him to 7 years rigorous impri~onment and a fine of Rs. 2,000iunder the former section, and to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine cif Rs. 2,00'.l/- under the latter section. Tlw petitioner preferred an appeal against this conviction and sentence to the High Court of Pm1jab and the same is now pending there. The other cases ar" not disposed of and they are still pending in various courts.

The petitioner was arrested by the Ambala police on September 14, 1958, and was detained in police custody for a period of about 8 months, and on. May 'i, l!l59, he was transferred to judicial custody at Ambala. On June 13, l!l60, he was convicted under the Indian Arms Act, and from that date he is in the Central Jail, Ambala, e.s a convicted prisoner. On December 15, 1960, the Governor of Punjab ordered that the petitioner should be ~reated as a 'B' class prisoner. On February 9, 1961, he filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh, questioning inter ali11 bis confinement in that prison on the ground that para. 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual whereunder he was confined to a separate cell in the prison, offended Art. 14 of the Constitution, and that in fact discriminatory treatment was meted out to him not for the maintenance of disr.ipline but for extraneous reasons.

That petition was dismissed by the said High Court on March l 7, llIBI, and Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1961 was filed against the said order by special leave granted by this Court. That a.part be also filed the present writ petition (Writ Petition No. 147 of 1961) in this Court under Art. :l2 of the Constitution oovering the same ground. The prisoner (l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R.EPOR'rS argued his own case. He raised before us two points, namely, (I) para. 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual offends Art. 14 of the Constitution in asmuch as it confers arbitrary power on the Superintendent of Jail to deal with a prisoner under the colour of the said provision in a brutal way circum- , venting other stringent provisions of the Prisons Act and other paragraphs of the Punjab Jail Manual conceived in the interest and fair treatment of prisoners, (2) the Superintendent of Jail, for extraneous reasons, on the pretext of disciplinary action, gave him solitary confinement in a cell since the date he was tmnsfcrred to that Jail, and thus acted with rnala /ides: th11.t apart,. he discriminated him in the matter of treatment from other prisoners and even from the co-accused, who were convicted along with him, and t.hus offended Art. 14 of the Constitution.

The first quest.ion falls to be decided on the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, tl;o Prisons Act, and the Punjab Jail Manual. There are three types of punishment, namely, (i) solitary confinement, (ii) cellular confinement, and (iii) separate confinement. Solitary confinement means such confinement with or without labour as entirely secludes the prisoner both from sight of, and communication with, other prisoners. The punishment of solitary confinmcnt can be imposed by a court only, and, in view of its dangerous potentialities, stringent conditions are imposed thereon. No person can be sentenced to undergo solitary confinement for more than three months.

There is a limit prescribed on the punishment of solitary confinement that can be imposed on a prisoner: it shall not exceed (a) one month, ifthe term of imprisonment does not exceed six months, (b) two months, if the term of imprisonment exceeds six months, but does not exceed one year, and (c) three months, if the term exceeds one year: (vide s. 73 of the Indian Penal Code), Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code says, Ra11bir Stngh Sehgat Stale of Punjab Subha Rao J. },'c;1.lir Singh ._'-'thJ;al St11le of P1mjab Subba Rae J. 300 SUPREME C'OURT REPOHTS [1962) SUPP.

"In executing a sentence of solitary cun· fiuement, such confinement hall in nu C"ase exceed fourteen days at a tim<.• with intervals beteen the periods of solitary eo11fincmC'11t ,,f not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment ;iwarded shall exceed three months, the solitary ''onfinement shall not ex<'.eed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarder., with intervids between the periods of solitary confinement of nut less dumtion than such periodF." Section 2!) of the Prisons Act reads, "No cell Rball be user! for solitary con· finement unles8 it is furnished with the means of enabling the prisoner to communicate at any time with an officer of the prison, and every prisoner 80 confined in a cell for more than twenty-four hours, whether as a punishment or otherwise, shall be visited at least once a day by the Medical Officer or Medical Subordinate." Ctillular confinement is punishment which can be imposed on n prisoner by a Superintendent of Jail.

A Superintendent of Jail cnn punish in a suitable ca.ee a prisoner by imposing on him cellular confinement for a period not exceeding fortee_n <lays, provided that after each period of ecllnfar confinement an interval of not leSB than such period must elapse before the prisoner is again sentenced to cellular or solitary confinnment. Cellular confinement ia·defincd to mean such confinement with or witout labour as entirely secludes a prisoner from communioation with, but not from sight of, other prisoners. Sepamto confinement is defined to mean such confinement with or without labour as secludes a prisoner from communication with, but not from sight of, other pri1011ers, and allows him not less than one hour's exercise per diem and to have his meals in association with one or more other prisoners. Separate confinement for a period not exceeding three months can be imposed on a prisoner in a suitable case by the Sup• intemlent of Jail. (Vide s. 46(8) of the Prisons Act).

Section 47 of the Prisons Act prohibits the combination of cellular confinement with separatn confinement so as to prolong the total period of seclusion to which a prisoner shall be liable. Solitary confinement can be giYen only by a court and the other two by a Superintendent of Jail for jail offences. The provisions concfived in the interest of the physical, moral and mental health of prisoners impose stringent conditions in carrying out those senten~es in urder to prevl'nt their abuse. But in the interest of maintaining diseipline among the inmates of jail, the Prisons Act and the Jail Manual prescribe rules for a separation of prisoners. The separation of prisoners depends upon t.he nature of the prisoner, the class to which he belongs aml the availability of adequate number of cells.

Section 27 of the Prisons A•"t provides that, (1) in a prison containing female as well as male prisoners, the females shall be imprisoned in separate buildings, or separate parts of the same building, i11 such manner as to prevent their seeing, or conversing or holding any intercourse with the male prisoners; (2) in a prison where male prisoners under the age of twenty-one are confined, means shall be provided for separating them nltogether from the other prisoners an<l for separnting t.hcse of them who have arrived nt the age of puberty from those who have not ; (3) unc0nvictcd criminnl prisoners shall be kept apart from convicted criminal prisoners ; and ( 4) civil prisoners shall be kept apart from criminal prisoners. Section :!H of the said Act says, "Subject to the requirements of the last foregoing section, convicted criminal prisoners may be confined either in association or Ranbir Sineh Se\gal State of P1mjab Subha Rao ,f, Ra11bir Si11gh S1li_,al Statt of Punjab Subha Ra" J. 302 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1!!62)

SUPP· individually in cells or partly in one way and partly in the other". Presumably in exercise of the power conferrPd on tho State Government by s. 59 of the Prisons Act, certain rules were framed for the separation of prisJners >ind they arc contain Pd in the Jail l\fanual. Under para. 571 of the Jail Manual, "all convicts shall, so far as thn requirements of labour and the cell accommodation of the Jail will allow, be kept separate both by day and by night." Paragraph 572 dee.ls with the occupation of vacant cells, and para. 573 says that "convi0ts of the habitual class shall be subjected to the system of separation prescribed in the preceding rulPs, in rotation." Paragraph 574 provides. "Jf, at any time, there a.re more cells in any jail than suffice for thP separation of all convicts of the habitual class, prisoners of the c.MJual class shall be confined in cells, both by day and night, in rotation.'' Then comes the impugned provision, namely, para. ;37 5, which reads :

"A convict who would ordinarily CC;m<> under the operation of any of the preceding rules relating to the separation of prisoners, hut cannot be confined in a cell by day, by reason that he is required for some jail service, Rha.11 bP. confined in a cell by night.'' These mies, along with the provisions of the PJ"iaous Act, furm an integrat1;rl scheme r,onceived for the maintenance of discipline of prisoners, and tho preforcntial treatment in the allotment of cc lls is b.asod upon sex, age, nature of the crime committed and the naturfJ of the prisoners, and also the nvaila.bility of cells. Tho question is whether para.. 575 of the Jail Manual offends Act. J 4 of tho Constitution. The said provision is only in a group of rules providing for the separation of prisoners and it only says that if a prisoner to whom any of the prison rules SUPREME COURT .REPORTS applies oa.nnot be confined to a cell by day Bhall be confined in a cell by night.

It pre-supposes that the prisoner concerned belongg to the category to whom a separate cell is allotted and, by reason of his being required for jail service, cannot be confined to the cell by day : in such a case it says that he shall be confined to the cell by night. It is only a rule providing for a contingency when a prisoner who should be so confined in a cell both by day and night cannot be confined by day in such a cell. But the objection may be taken to mean that the other rules, along with this rule enable a Superintendent of Jail to put a prisoner in a cell offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is settled law that Art. 14 of the C'onstitu· tion permits classification, and the said classification must bear just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The object of the said provision is to maintain discipline among the inmates of jail. The classification is made on the basis of sex and the nature of the prisoners and also on the availa· bility of cells.

The cla.ssifioation has certainly a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the 'legislation; nor can . the power conferred on the Superintendent to separate pr.isoners be said to be arbitrary. The object of the conferment of the said power is very limited, and the provisions clearly lay down the conditions for separation. The power to separate is entrusted to the higheat officer in the jail premises, who may . ordinarily be expected to act reasonably, objecti· vely and without bias. In these circumstances, we must hold that para. 57 5 of the J11.il Manual in its setting_ does not'offend the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The next quostion is whether in purported exercise of the ea.id power the ~uperintendent in the present case acted with ma/,a .fidea and meted out discriminatory treatment to the petitioner and thus offended Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the Runbir Singh Sehgal Stole of Punjab Subba Rtlo J. 1M1 Ranhir Singh Sthtal SltUt of Pl»tjah S11bhE1 Rr.n J. 304 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962]

SUPP. affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, the petitioner made certain allegations against the Superintendent in respect of his treatment in jail. The aaid allegations may be summarized thus : The petitioner wM transferred to the judicial oustody at the Central .Jail, Ambala, on May 7, 1969, after protracterl p0Jic3 custody of over eight months. On the very day of his arrival in the Jail, the petitioner was locked up in solita.ry confinement in a cell in the condemned prisoners block and "a lock up period of 24 hours inside the cell was clamped." Though ~overal representations were made b,v the relatives of the petitioner to the higher authorities, no redrnss was given to him. He waJ sought to be kept in the cell for 13 months till June 13, Hl60 when he was convicted in one of the cases filed against him. On June 14, 1960, the Superintendent of the Jail again ordered the petitioner to be locked up in complete solitary confinement under para. 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual, and again a confinement of 24 hours inside the cell was "clamped".

On December le, 1960, the Governor of Punjab ordered that the petitioner should be treated as a 'B' class prisonE1r, and even thereafter he was not transferred to the general ward of the prison where other 'B' class prisoners were kept confined, but he was kept in the same condemned prisoners ward. Though the lock-up period of 24 hours inside the cell was considerably reduced the ban imposed on his aR~ocin.tion with other pris0ners had not been relaxed. The petitioner was not allowed even to meet his co-accused who were in the general ward of the prison. While the other prisoners in the jail including the petitioner's co-accused were given numerous facilities i.o. of association work and recreation he was completely segregated in a cell without any such facilities. The jail authoritiea adopted this methorl of torture for ulterior pur· poses. The Superintendent of the Jail filed a counter affidavit. His answer to the grave allegations may be stated thus :

On the very day of his arrival in the jail the p~titioner behaved rudely and impertinently towards the jail staff and in a defiant 'way tried to undermine jail discipline. He was not kept' in solitary cell for ulterior motives. He committed 12 jail offences and he was punished for them. After he was convicted he was put in a separate cell and that he was allowed one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening for exercise and also to have his bath outside the courtyard. After he was classified as a 'B' class prisoner, he was given amenities to which a 'B' class prisoner was, entitled under the rules, but in the interest of jail discipline he was segregated from other prisoners. The cell in which the petitioner was kept was one of the cells in block of 32 cells out of which only 8 were allocated for condemned prisoners and the rest were utilized for separate confinement for the segregation of hardened and troublesome convicted criminal prisoners.

The petitioner was confint>d in the cell only for the night and he could move about in the o~n compound of the cell throughout the day. The affidavit and the counter-affidavit disclose the following admitted facts : The cell in which the petitioner was and is confined is one of the cells in the block of 32 cells out of which 8 cells are used for condemned prisoners. The cell has a small separate enclosure of its own. From the date the petitioner entered the prison, that is, on Ma.> 7, 1959, till he was convicted, that is, on June 13, 1960, when he was an under-trial prisoner, he was separately confined to a cell. Though the Superintendent 'Vaguely says that the petitioner was not looked-up fu a. solitary cell,, he practically admits that the petitioner was given separate confinement in a cell as punishment for jail olfenoes committed by him. Though he 1'61 Ranbir Singh 81h1•I Stall of Punj•b 8u6ba Ruo J. llanhi' SV.gh SJital Staie of Pwnjah Sub/xi R.. J. 3~ SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962]

SUPP. denies that the petitioner was kept in a cell for 24 hours, he doE.18 not say what facilities \Vere provided for him to move a.bout or mix with other prisoners . The statement of off'ences committed by the petitioner and the punishments inflicted on him filed by the Superintendent does not contain any details and is thus vague. Section 12 of the Prisons Act enjoins on a. Superintendent to maintain a punishment book, ands. 51 thereof l't'quires him to enter tho details therein. But the statement before us does not strictly comply with that section; and it is represented in court that no other register is maintained in the jail. The statement, vague as it is, shows that even on the first day of imprisonment, the petitioner was kept in a. separate cell and the offence alleged to have been committed by him is that he was rude and impertinent. The subsequent entries show that the petitioner attempted to break articles and even ~ruck his head against wall or door.

These a.ots of the petitioner appear to us to be more due to the effect of the inhuman and discriminatory treatment given to him even when he was an under-trial prisoner rather than a conscious attempt on his pa.rt to commit any jail offenoos. Be that as it may, we are not concerned at this stage whether the petitioner had committed those offences, for those were committed at a time when he was an under-trial prisoner with which we are not now directly concerned. The facts remain that even as an under-trial prisoner from the date he entered the premises of the jail, he was segregated from other prisoners and kept in a. separate cell. Now coming to the second period, that is the period commencing from the date he waa con: victed till be was classified as a • B' class prisoner, that is, from June U, 1960 to December 15, 1960, the petitioner alleges that he was kept in solitary confinement a.s before throughout 24 hours of the day.

In the counter-affidavit of the Superintendent I it is not denied that the petitioner was kept in a separate cell, but it is stated therein that he was given one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening for exercise and also he was allowed to have his bath outside the courtyard of the cell. The Superintendent does not sta,te that he allowed the petitioner to communicate with others or to talk to other prisoners. It is not stated whether he was allowed for exercise to go out of the separate enclosure of the cell or whether he was allowerl. to mix up with other prisoners or to talk to them. During this period, the petitioner did not commit any jail offences and, therefore, his separate confinement in a cell could not be a punishment for an offence, but only for the maintenance of discipline in the jail and for convenience of accommodation. There is nothing on the record 1 o suggest that he was guilty of any indiscipline during this period.

If so, his confinement in a separate cell for a period of six months without allowing 'him to communicate with others is a punishment of either cellular confinement, separate confinement or solitary confinement. The restrictions imposed on the prisoner on the pretext of separate allotment of a cell ignored even the limitations on the said confinements prescribed by s. 73 of the Indian Penal Code or s. 46 of the Prisons Act. The confinement of the prisoner in a separate cell in the manner it was done was cer· tainly illegal. Coming to the third period after he was classified as a •B' class prisoner, the petitioner says that he was kept in the ea.me.condemned prisoners' bloQk with the ·exception that the lock-up period of _24 hours inside t1!e cell was considerably reduced, but the ban imposed_ on his association with other prisoners . was not relaxed. The Superintendent does not say that the petitiOner was allowed to ·communicate or t<i speak with other prisoners.

He also admits that the petitioner was confined to the Ranbir Singh Sehgal Btat1 "f Punjab Subba Rao J. 1'61 ~bir Singh S.hgo/ !'tall of Punjab S•ll>a RaoJ. cell only in the night and that he can move a.bout within the open compound of the ooll throughout the day; to put it in other words, the Superintendent admits that the petitioner is confined in a cell with a. small separate .. enclosure and tba.t the prisoner oan only move in that enclosure in the mom. ing. This kind of 9oniinement is either a. solitary confinement or cellular confinement, for it secludes the prisoner from communicating with or from the sight of other prisoners. If it is not a. aolit!l.ry confinement, it would certainly be a cellular confinement. Even in a. separate confinement as a punishment the prisoner should be allowed to have one hour's exercise per diem and to have his meals in a.ssoGia.tion with one or more prisoners.

The Superintendent, therefore, acted illegally in confining the prisoner in the manner he did, and be is not entitled to do so under the rules prescribed for separation of prisoners. It ma.y also be mentioned that during this period, there is no allegation that the petitioner' a conduct was otherwise bad. It is said that thti confinement is neither solitary, cellul11r or separate, for he is allowed to go to courts. The fact that a prisoner is to be sent to a. court on summons ha.a no bearing on the question whether the confinement is legal or not. On the facts disclosed in the case, we have no doubt that, for one reason or other, which is not clear from the record, the petitionerwas discriminated from other prisoners and, under the colour of the rules for separation, was illegally confined in a manner not authorized by law. Before closing we would like to make some general remarks. The modem development of criminology has revolutionized the system of treatment of convicted prisoners.

The old brutal treatment has given place to more humane: one. The concept of vengea.noo by society e.nd of the deterrenoe is fa.st dise.ppearing e.nd is being replaced by the concept of oorreotion a.nd rehabilitation. Though our jail administration is moving with times, it is not keeping pace with advanced countries. A statute may reflect the modern trend and.may contain salutary provisions for fair treatment of prisoners; but in practice much depends upon the Superintendent, who is expected to implement them in the spirit in which they are conceived. A Superintendent of a jail may be a good disciplinarian, but it is not enough: he should also be a humanitarian possessing conscience and having an awareness that to his care is entrusted an abnormal class of society deserving more a sympathetic approach and sincere attempt at rehabilitation than that of vindictiveness.

In this case, the Superintendent, as we have already stated, not only did not carry out the spirit of the rules but also broke the letter of the law and illegally placed the petitioner practically in solitary confinement from May 7, 1959 up to date. In the result we hold that the confinement of the petitioner in a separate cell in the manner it is being done in this case is illegal and we direct the respondent to confine the petitioner in the prison in strict compliance with the provisions of the Prisons Act and the rules made thereunder. It is for the Government to consider, in the circumstances of this case, whether it is a fit case for transferring the petitioner to some other jail. Writ Petition No. 147 of 1961 is allowed to the said extent, and there will be a similar order in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1961. Ranbir Singh Sehgal Slate of Punjab Subha Rao J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-I have had the advantage Raghubar DaJ<ll J. of perusing the jndgment prepared by my learned brother, Subba Rao J., and agree with him that paragraph 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual does not offend the provisions of the Constitution.

I however do not agree that there had been any illegal confinement of the appellant. 1~61 Ra1ibir Si'I.:.:~ S1hgal Sr1:t •'.! P1qjrib Rag.'mhar Dnyal J. Tho appellant wafi admitted to the jail as an uu<lertrial prisoner for offences under s. 19 of the Indian Arms Act and un<ler s. 5 of Indian Explosive Suhstan()(•s Act and the allegation was .that he was conocrned in a conspiracy with others to mudrr certain persons and to create disorder and anarchy in India. He behaved rudely and impertinently on admission into jail and showed a defiant attitude. In these circumstances, according to the affidavit of the Superintendent of the Jail, tlie appel· lant was ordered to be kept in cell under paragraph 569-A of the Jail Manual to maintain jail discipline. The entry in the punishment register, in this connection, states in the column meant for noting the offences: 'He is very rude and impertinent. He has defiant attitude and tries to undermine the jail discipline.'

I am of opinion that it was not necessary for the jail authorities to make a more detailed note in the register with respect to the various acts committed or words spoken by the appellant on the occasion. Section 51 of the Prisons Act provides what is to be recorded in this punishment book and requires to be recorded, among other matters, the prison-offence of which the prisoner is guilty. It does not require a detailed account of the actions of the prisoner which constituted the prison-offences. The <lesoription of the offences committed, suffices for the purpose of this register. The entry is not made for the purpose of adjudication of the offences or for the purpose" of the appellate authority, if any. It is just a record of the conduct of the accused and the action taken. The Superintendent, in this case, did not inflict any punishment of solitary confinement or separate confinement on the appellant for his conduct.

He simply ordered that the appellant be kept in a cell under paragraph 469-A of tho Jail Manual. There had been eleven other occasions when tho appellant committed prison offences. Those SUPREME COURT REPOitTS offences and the action taken there are also mentioned in the punishment register and a copy of those entries has been filed in Court. What I have said in connection with the nature of the entry in connection with the incident on the day of admission, applies equally to the other entries mentioned above. The Superintendent has denied the allegations made by the appellant that he was kept in a separate cell, not in the interests of the jail discipline, but for ulterior motives or under orders of a vindictive Government. There is no material on the record to suggeat that the Superintendent of the jail was actuated, in passing the order for keeping the appellant in a separate cell, by any consideration other than that of the interests of jail discipline.

Therefore, the mere fact that the appellant was kept in a separate cell from the moment of his admission in jail does not indicate malafides on the part of the jail Superintendent. The appellant was kept segregated in a separate cell after his conviction as well, in view of paragraph 575 of the Jail Manual. He was allowed an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening for exercise. He was allowed to have a bath in the court-yard outside the cell. The fact that the Superintendent did not state in his affidavit that he allowed the petitioner to communicate with others or to talk to other prisoners or that the appellant was allowed to mix up with other prisoners or to converse with them, does not necessarily mean that he disallowed any such thing or that, if he did so, the Superintendent acted against rules of faw. The Superintendent denied that the appellant's request to meet Hari Das was disallowed.

There is no allegation that he had not been afforded the facilities .which are to be provided to a prisoner or to a B.cJass prisoner kept in a cell and therefore there was no occasion for the Superintendent to state about matters not complained of. Ronhir Singh Sehgal State of Punjab Raghubar Da;'ai J Rc 11bir Sinth St~gal Suitt of Punjab Rog/nJa. D'.1"1 J. :ll2 SUPltEME COURT REPORTS (1962') SUPP. The mere fact tha.t a person is kept in a separate cell will not ma.ke his confinement solitary, cellular or separate, though the difference between it and any of them be not appreciable. Section 27 of the priaous Act provides for separation of prisoners. If there happens to be only one prisoner of a particular category, he is necessarily to bn kept separate from others. His being kept alone from other prisoners and his not being allowed to mix with other prisoners will not be called solitary or cellular or separate confinement.

It is just a.n incident that he happens to be the only prisoner of a particular category and had therefore to be kept separated from all other prisoners in the jail. Section 28 allows convicted criminal prisoners to be confined either in association or individually in cells or partly in one way and partly in the other. The diseretion is with the Superintendent of the J a.ii. The Act contemplates an individual prisoner to be kept in a cell. It is clear from the provisions of paragraphs 5i l to 575 of the Jail :llanua.l that the rules contemplate convicted prisoners to be kept separate. Paragraph :3i I of the Jail Manual provides that all convicts, subject to cell accommodation and requirements of labour, be kept separate both by clay and by night, and justifies the segregation of the appellant as a convicted criminal in a B<'parate cell.

Paragraphs 5i2, 573 and 574 lay down the order in which convicted prisoners a.re to be selected for being kept separate in cells when ea.ch of them cannot be so kept. All these provisions a.re consistent with what is enacted in s, 28 of the Prisons Aci .. Paragraph 5i5 rea.ds: "A convict who would ordinarily come wider the opl'rntion of any of the preceding (I) S.C.R. rules relating to the separation of prisoners, but cannot be confined in a cell by day, by reason that ho is required for some jail service, shall be confined in a cell by night. Note 1-Separation under paragraphs 571 to 575 is distinct from 'solitary' confinement and 'separate' confinement inflicted as a punishment under section 46 of the Prisons Act, and is restricted merely to the separation of individual prisoners either by day or night for purposes of jail management; such separation is not to have any irksome conditions attached to it. Note 2-Paragraphs 571 to 575 are of general application.

If, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the presence of any convict in association with others, is detrimental to good order and discipline or is likely to encourage or lead to the commission of any offence, such convict should be kept separate, in preference to others of his class." These provisions provide an exception to the provisions of paragraphs ,571 to 574 and allow the convicted prisoner to be kept in a cell during night only instead of both by day and by night, in case he cannot be confined in the cell by day for reasons that he be required for jail service. Note 1 makes it clear that keeping prisoners separate in view of the provisions of paragraphs 571 to 575 is not 'solitary' or 'separate' confinement which can be inflicted as punishment and is merely separation of the prisoner for purposes of jail management. Further, Note 1 enjoins that no irksome conditions be attached to such separation.

We are not shown that any such conditions were attached to the order for keeping the appellant in a cell. Note 2 further empowers the Superintendent of the Jail to keep a convict separate i£ hr be of opinion that his association with others of his class R anbir Singh Sehtal Stttte of PwVab Raghubar Dayal J. Ranbir Singh Sthgal S1at1 r>.f PllnjaL Raghubar Da;"O/ J, is detrimental to good order and discipline in tho jail. The Superintendent stat('S in his affidavit that he was of such op in ion. The entire scheme of tho Act and the rules is that ordinarily a prisoner should be kept separated from others and th'\t it is only in view of limitations of providing separate c~lls for <>ach prisoner that prisoners of a particu Jar category are kept together in a large hall. The order classifying the appellant as a B-claBB prisoner further necessitated his being kept separate from other prisoners.

There is no provision in the Act or the rules that a prison<>r kept in a cell be specially allowe<l to associate or mix with other prisoners. The main grievance of the appellant is that he was not allowed to associste with his co-accused, even for purpose of consultation wil h respect to the defence to be put up and the grounds to be taken in the appeal. The whole object of keeping convicted prisoners segregated in jail is defeated if they are allowed to meet and discuss matters even when they are under special orders for being kept separate on D ccount of their conduct being considered detrimental to jail discipline. If it was really necessary for the appellant to have consultations with his co-accused for the purpose of the <',ase, it waa open to him to obtain orders of the Court and facilities for such consultations, if considered necessary, could hnve been given just as facilities are provided for accused to consult their counsel.

I am therefore of opinion that tho Jail authorities committed no discriminatory or illegal act against the appellant in keeping him in a separate cell. I would therefore dismiss both the writ petition and the appt•al. BY CouRT. In accordanc·e with the opinion of the majority, the Writ Petition and the Appeal are allowed to the extent indicated in the majority judgment.