The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with prison rules and the principles of natural justice in imposing punishment on prisoners, emphasizing the detrimental effects of solitary confinement on prisoners' physical and mental health.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. T. George John, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. S. G. Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner, who is presently serving his sentence at the Central Jail, Colvale, Bardez Goa, pursuant to his conviction for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 365, 394, 201 read with 120B of IPC, seeks an appropriate writ to quash the order dated 20.04.2022, which he styles an order for his solitary confinement.

4. Mr. T. George John submits that the imposition of solitary confinement punishment is violative of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021 (the said Rules) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that practically every rule was breached in issuing the impugned order and placing the Petitioner in solitary confinement. He relies on Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev and others Vs State of Rajasthan, 1981 SCC (Cri) 191 and Sunil Batra (II) Vs Delhi Administration, 1980 SCC (Cri) 777 in support of his contentions.

5. Mr. T. George John submits that though the period in the impugned order was ultimately curtailed and the Petitioner is no longer in solitary confinement, the Petitioner is entitled to some compensation. Additionally, he submits that the Petitioner apprehends that similar orders may be passed in the future; therefore, the impugned order's validity and legality may be examined.

6. Mr. Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this was not solitary confinement but temporary segregation. He proposes that on 20.04.2022, the Petitioner assaulted Medical Officer Dilip Cuncolikar while performing his duties. He submitted that the Petitioner also abused him with filthy language and became aggressive and violent with the jail guards and two other prisoners. He offered that in such circumstances, some emergent action was called to ensure the safety of jail officials and other inmates. Mr. Bhobe submitted that though it is possible to say that there were no strict compliances with all the rules and regulations before the impugned order was issued, having regard to the peculiar circumstances where the emergent action was necessary, the impugned order was issued. He submitted that there are malafides involved, and the impugned order was issued in the best interest of all concerned and to prevent untoward incidents.

7. Mr. Bhobe submits that no sooner than the petition was filed, by further order dated 06.06.2022, the period of three months referred to in the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 was curtailed, and the Petitioner was lodged in the convict block.

8. Mr. Bhobe finally submitted that this petition may be dismissed since the impugned order was made in peculiar circumstances referred to in the returns filed. He, however, offered that the jail authorities have been advised to follow the Prison Rules strictly hereafter. He, therefore, submitted that this petition may be disposed of.

9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

10. The record bears out that the Petitioner is suffering incarceration at the Central Jail, Colvale, pursuant to his conviction in Sessions Case Nos. 9/2010 and 11/2010 for offenses punishable under Sections 302, 365, 394, and 201 read with 120B of IPC. The Petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

11. The record also bears out that the Petitioner is facing trial before the Children's Court in Special Case No.4/10 for offenses under Sections 120B, 394, 302, 201, 109 read 34 IPC. In addition, he is also facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Vasai, Mumbai, in Case No.10/2016.

12. The Petitioner's version is that for no reason or, in any case, no tangible reason, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 for the Petitioner's "separate confinement" for three months in the single cell of the punishment block. The impugned order also curtailed all the privileges for three months because the Petitioner had co