Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
V. Venkataswara Reddy
Vs
State of W.B.
CRR 463 of 2012 With CRR 1312 of 2012 With CRR 4000 of 2011
Decided on : 08.08.2012
For the petitioners: Mr. Subhasish Roy.
For the State: Ms. Anusuya Sinha.
Political prisoners, including those who use violence for political objectives, are entitled to the rights and conveniences provided under the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992.
Headnote:
POLITICAL OFFENCES - WHO ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS - ROLE OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE - TREATMENT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE PRISONERS - STATE'S OBLIGATION - PRISON CONDITIONS - PRISONER'S RIGHTS - JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Fact of the Case:
Revision petitions filed by three petitioners, claiming to be Maoists, challenging the denial of their classification as political prisoners under Section 24 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992.
Finding of the Court:
1. Petitioners are Maoists or Naxalites, interchangeable terms referring to those who take up arms to dislodge the existing system due to socio-economic disparities. 2. Petitioners' applications to be classified as political prisoners were dismissed by trial courts. 3. The court analyzed relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities Act, the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, and various judgments on political offenses and prisoners. 4. The court held that the petitioners, as members of a banned organization engaged in terrorist activities, are political prisoners within the meaning of the Correctional Services Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, as members of a banned organization engaged in terrorist activities, can be classified as political prisoners under Section 24 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992? 2. What are the rights and conveniences extended to political prisoners under the Correctional Services Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Political offenses are defined as those committed with the object of changing or inducing a change in the government of a state or its policy. 2. Political prisoners are those who commit political offenses. 3. The use of violence for achieving political goals does not exclude a person from being considered a political prisoner. 4. The Correctional Services Act provides for the classification of prisoners, including political prisoners, and specifies their rights and conveniences. 5. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act liberally, in favor of the petitioners, to recognize them as political prisoners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and declared the petitioners as political prisoners entitled to the rights and conveniences specified in the Correctional Services Act.
1. What are political offences? Who are political prisoners? What is the role of political violence for achieving the political goal professed by its believers? What is the treatment which State should administer to those who use political violence/activities to terrorize others for achievement of their objective? Should means defeat the end? What is the state of affairs in prison? and How the prisoners should be dealt within socio-economic realities of our nation? are a few questions which, being unpalatable, have been thrown as dice on the board of this Court.
2. These questions also test the ability of the believer of liberty and democracy to keep his prejudices and bias at bay to strictly confine to the provisions of the statute believing in the maxim “those who believe in the system, it is their duty to ensure fairness to those who question the system”.
3. Before a humble effort is made to answer these questions, it will be appropriate to divide this judgment into five parts,
(a) Facts, (b) Broad background, (c) Provisions of the West Bengal Correctional ServicesAct, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Correctional Services Act’); its classification of political prisoners; their rights and the conveniences extended to them, (d) Remedial measures which this Court propose as recommendations, and (e) Conclusions and the prayer clause.
(a) Facts
4. By this common judgment, three petitions, viz. (1) Criminal Revision No.4000 of 2011, (2) Criminal Revision No.463 of 2012 and (3) Criminal Revision No.1312 of 2012 shall be decided together.
The petitioners herein, at one point of time, claimed themselves to be Maoists and are dubbed by the State as Naxalites. Maoists or Naxalites, being interchangeable words, are to be broadly understood in reference to those persons who take up arms to dislodge the existing system being aggrieved of socio-economic disparities prevailing in the State.
The petitioners in all the three revisions petitions have assailed the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby their prayer to be declared as political prisoners has been declined. They have approached this Court with a prayer that they be treated as political prisoners within the meaning of Section 24 of the Correctional Services Act and a few conveniences which the Correctional Services Act ensures to the political prisoners be granted to them over and above the ordinary prisoners.
Criminal Revision No.4000 of 2011
5. Gaur Narayan Chakraborty, petitioner to Criminal Revision No.4000 of 2011 was named as an accused in Shakespeare Sarani Police Station case No.286 of 2009 dated 23rd June, 2009 under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Unlawful Activities Act’) and is being tried by the NDPS City Sessions Court, Calcutta at Bichar Bhavan in Sessions Case No.111 of 2009. As per the averments made in this revision petition, he is aged 67 years. In the report lodged by Debashis Dutta, Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, it is alleged that on 23rd June, 2009 at around 19:05/10 hours, the petitioner was giving an interview to a local TV Channel named “Channel 10”. In the interview, the petitioner is alleged to have introduced himself as an official spokesperson of Communist Party of India (Maoist). This organization was banned by the Central Government on 22nd June, 2009. While the petitioner was leaving the office of the TV Channel, he was intercepted by the police officials and during interrogation he admitted that he had been in close contact with the top leaders of CPI (Maoist). Some leaflets were also found in his possession which contained seditious material.
Criminal Revision No.463 of 2012
6. V. Venketeswara Reddy, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, petitioner to Criminal Revision No.463 of 2012, was arrested by the police in Thakurpukur Police Station case No.98 of 2010 dated 3rd March, 2010 registered for an offence punishable under Section 20
