Judgment

PATHAK, J.:- The petitioner, who is the wife of Simanjit Singh Mann, a detenu detained in the District Jail, Bharatpur, has filed this Writ Petition praying that the detention of the detenu in preventive custody may be located in the State of Punjab or at a place not far off, that the detenu should be provided with appropriate amenities and facilities, that he should not be kept in solitary, confinement, and should be allowed interviews with his relatives and friends and his legal adviser from time to time. It is further prayed that certain provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984 be declared ultra vires.

2. The petitioner is represented by Mr. Hardev Singh, the State of Punjab by its Advocate General and the State of Rajasthan by Shri B. D. Sharma. We have heard them at length on this petition. At the outset, it may be stated that Mr. Hardev Singh did not question the validity of the provisions of the National Security (Rajasthan Conditions of Detention) Order, 1984. We propose to consider only those points on which submissions were made by him.

3. Mr. Hardev Singh contends that the detenu should have been detained in preventive custody in the State of Punjab, which is his home State, or in any event at a place not far off from that State. We have given the matter careful thought. While it is ordinarily desirable that a detenu should be detained in an environment natural to him in point of climate, language, food and other incidents of living, in the actual decision concerning the place of detention these considerations must yield to factors related to, and necessitated by, the need for placing him in preventive detention. While we maintain that the conditions imposed upon a detenu held in preventive detention must not be punitive, they must nevertheless be such as to secure the effectiveness of his incarceration. The respondents have given reasons for detaining the detenu at Bharatpur, and we are not persuaded that the law allows us to interfere in the matter: The place of detention is a matter for the administrative choice of the detaining authority, and a Court would be justified in interfering with that decision only if it was in violation of any specific provision of the law or was vitiated by arbitrary considerations and mala fides. No such material has been placed before us. On the contrary, the affidavits filed by the respondents on the record indicate that the mind has been applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and that it was felt necessary to effect the detention at Bharatpur. It may be observed that the city of Bharatpur, although situated in the State of Rajasthan is not very distant from the States of Punjab and Haryana. In the circumstances, we find ourselves unable to grant the relief sought by Mr. Hardev Singh in respect of the place of detention.

4. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu should be provided with various amenities and facilities necessary for a proper and decent human existence, and among them are mentioned good food, furniture and proper lighting, the supply of linen including pillows, bed-sheets and a mosquito net, adequate medical attention, as well as recreational amenities such as a radio. It is also prayed that the petitioner should be entitled to have his religious symbols near him to enable him to observe his religious practices. A counter-affidavit filed by Mr. K. P. Upadhyay, who was Superintendent of the District Jail at Bharatpur up to May 23, 1985 has enumerated on oath that the detenu has been provided all the necessary amenities and facilities. He has specifically mentioned that a suitable, diet, recommended by the doctor on duty, is being supplied to the detenu, and that the detenu is allowed to supplement the food at his cost or by food supplied by his family. Besides, it is averred, the detenu has been allowed religious books appropriate to his faith as well as books on philosop