The Court in its observation observes that prison KIOSKS have to come to the aid of such citizens, who are not even aware of their basic rights and thus they must be accessible in all languages. The court considered the recommendations the counsel gave for the petitioner, including installing a KIOSK machine in every prison, which will enable the prisoners to know the status of their case.
Brief Facts:
A man asked for temporary compensation in court for keeping his son in illegal custody for more than eight months. The lower court found the son Chokkar, who was the second accused in a murder case, guilty. However, the conviction was overturned, and the first accused was cleared when he filed an appeal. Despite not filing an appeal, the court noted that Chokkar was entitled to an acquittal because he was also found guilty on identical charges. Chokkar was ordered to be released from custody by the court as a result.
However, Chokkar remained in police detention for nine months before his father filed a high court petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner submitted that his son's detention from 31.10.2019 to 14.07.2020 is due to the negligence and dereliction of duty of the prison officials. Therefore, the petitioner's son is entitled to compensation for the illegal detention. He has consequently prayed for interim compensation.
It further submitted that the second respondent had fairly conceded that two officials were responsible for gross dereliction of duty, and action had been initiated against one official. The effort was being contemplated against another official. Given the admission made by the second respondent about the dereliction of duty and gross negligence, the State is bound to compensate the convict.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contended that the officials had not released the petitioner's son because this Court had referred to him as A2, and his name was not found in the judgment.
However, they fairly conceded that the prison authorities should have released the petitioner's son on receipt of the directions issued by this Court. Hence, the State has initiated action against the concerned officials. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the State would pay such interim compensation as may be awarded by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Observations of the Court:
It is observed that this Court while acquitting A1, Mayilraj, had explicitly directed the release of A2 in the case. The respondents cannot say they did not release the petitioner's son as he was only referred to A2, and no name was mentioned.
When this Court has given such a specific direction, it is the bounden duty of the prison officials to verify who is A2. In any event, if they had any doubt, they should have immediately obtained clarification from this Court. Therefore, that cannot be an excuse for not releasing the petitioner's son under the direction issued by this Court on 31.10.2019. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the detention of the petitioner's son from 31.10.2019 to 14.07.2020 is illegal.
It was further observed that this Court has to come to the aid of such citizens, who are not even aware of their basic rights. These are the citizens who have to be compensated adequately. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the State must pay to the petitioner's son a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.
The court considered the recommendations the counsel gave for the petitioner, including installing a KIOSK machine in every prison, which will enable the prisoners to know the status of their case. The court observed that had recorded the fact that the KIOSK machine was available only in Hindi and English. This Court, therefore, directed the respondents to install user-friendly software so that the prisoners could access the machine in their language.
Decision:
The court decided that the respondent authorities are bound to install the KIOSK machines, including the Tamil language, and no cause for the delay can be accepted. Further, the court ordered interim compensation to Chokkar.
Case Title: Rathinam vs State
Coram: Justice Sunder Mohan
Case No: W.P.(MD). No.10524 of 2020
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr.Henri Tiphagne
Advocate for Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments