Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- This writ petition is based on a letter addressed by Sheela Barse, a journalist, complaining of custodial violence to women prisoners whilst confined in the police lock up in the city of Bombay. The petitioner stated in her letter that she interviewed fifteen women prisoners in the Bombay Central Jail with the permission of the Inspector General of Prisons between 11 and 17th May, 1982 and five out of them told her that they had been assaulted by the police in the police lock up. Of these five who complained of having been assaulted by the police, the petitioner particularly mentioned the cases of two, namely, Devamma and Pushpa Paeen who were allegedly assaulted and tortured whilst they were in the police lock up. It is not necessary for the purpose of this writ petition to go into the various allegations in regard to the ill-treatment meted out to the women prisoners in the police lock up and particularly the torture and beating to which Devamma and Pushpa Paeen were said to have been subjected because we do not propose to investigate into the correctness of these allegations which have been disputed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. But, since these allegations were made by the women prisoners interviewed by the petitioner and particularly by Devamma and Pushpa Paeen and there was no reason to believe that a journalist like the petitioner would invent or fabricate such allegations if they were not made to her by the women prisoners, this Court treated the letter of the petitioner as a writ petition and issued notice to the State of Maharashtra, Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra, Superintendent, Bombay Central Jail and the Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra calling upon them to show cause why the writ petition should not be allowed. It appears that on the returnable date of the show cause notice no affidavit was filed on behalf of any of the parties to whom show cause notice was issued and this Court therefore adjourned the hearing of the writ petition to enable the State of Maharashtra and other parties to file an affidavit in reply to the averments made in the letter of the petitioner. This Court also directed that in the mean while Dr. (Miss) A. R. Desai, Director of College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, Bombay will visit the Bombay Central Jail and interview women prisoners lodged there including Devamma and Pushpa Paeen without anyone else being present at the time of interview and ascertain whether they had been subjected to any torture or ill-treatment and submit a report to this Court on or before 30th August, 1982. The State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons were directed to provide all facilities to Dr. Miss A. R. Desai to carry out this assignment entrusted to her. The object of assigning this commission to Dr. Miss A. R. Desai was to ascertain whether allegations of torture and ill-treatment as set out in the letter of the petitioner were, in fact, made by the women prisoners including Devamma and Pushpa Paeen to the petitioner and what was the truth in regard to such allegations. Pursuant to the order made by this Court, Dr. Miss A. R. Desai visited Bombay Central Prison and after interviewing women prisoners lodged there, made a detailed report to this Court. The Report is a highly interesting and instructive socio-legal document which provides an insight into the problems and difficulties facing women prisoners and we must express our sense of gratitude to Dr. Miss A. R. Desai for the trouble taken by her in submitting such a wonderfully thorough and perceptive report. We are not concerned here directly with the conditions prevailing in the Bombay Central Jail or other jails in the State of Maharashtra because the primary question which is raised in the letter of the petitioner relates to the safety and security of women prisoners in police lock up and their protection against torture and ill-treatment. But even so we would strongly recommend to the In