Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.-Petitioner is a Bombay-based freelance journalist who had sought permission to interview women prisoners in the Maharashtra jails and on May 6, 1982, the Inspector General of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female prisoners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail, the Yerawada Central Jail at Pune and the Kolhapur District Jail. When the petitioner started tape-recording her interviews with the prisoners at the Bombay Central Jail, she was advised instead to keep notes only of interviews. When the petitioner raised objection on this score, the Inspector General of Prisons orally indicated that he had changed his mind. Later, the petitioner was informed that grant of permission to have interview was a matter of discretion of the Inspector General and such interviews are ordinarily allowed to research scholars only. Petitioner has made grievance over the withdrawal of the permission and has pleaded that it is the citizens right to know if government is administering the jails in accordance with law. Petitioners letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

2. Return has been made to the rule nisi and the Inspector General of Prisons in his affidavit has pleaded that the petitioner is a freelance journalist and is not employed by any responsible newspaper. The permission issued in favour of the petitioner was under administrative misunderstanding and mistaken belief and was in contravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual. When this fact was discovered the permission was withdrawn. It has been pleaded that interview with prisoners is governed by the rules made in the Maharashtra Prison Manual and the petitioner does not satisfy the prescription therein so as to justify grant of permission for having interviews with prisoners. The Inspector General wrote a letter to the petitioner on May 31, 1982, explaining therein that normally the prison authorities do not allow interviews with the prisoners unless the person seeking interview is a research scholar studying for Ph.D. or intends to visit the prison as a part of his field work of curriculum prescribed for postgraduate course etc. The letter further indicated that there were no rules for permitting interviews except to the relatives and legal advisers for facilitating defence of prisoners. The Inspector General further indicated in his letter that there was no inherent right of journalists to elicit information from prisoners.

3. The counter-affidavit further indicated that the State Government has prescribed a set of rules known as the Maharashtra Visitors of Prisons Rules, 1962. A Board of Visitors is constituted for every jail and the Board consists of both ex-officio visitors and non-official visitors appointed by the State Government. The members of the Board are expected to inspect the barracks, cell wards, work sheds and other buildings ; ascertain or make enquiries about the health, cleanliness, security of prisoners and examine registers of convicted and undertrial prisoners, punishment books, other records relating to prisoners, attend to representations, objections etc. made by prisoners, make entries in the visitors book about their visits. It was finally indicated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was an amateur journalist and had published certain articles in the newspapers and magazines without realising the impact thereof ; many of such allegations and the so-called hearsay stories said to have been collected from the undertrials were one-sided and nothing but exaggeration of facts. Such articles written by her were defamatory, irresponsible and no mature journalist would have published such reckless articles.

4. We have heard Mr Salman Khurshid for the petitioner and Mr Bhasme for the State of Maharashtra and have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of both in furtherance of their submissions.

5. According to the petitioner and her counsel Articles 19 (l)(a) and 2