The Superintendent of Jails has the statutory discretion to allow or deny interviews with prisoners and cannot act under the dictation of a superior officer. Restrictions on the right to interview prisoners must be reasonable and justified.

In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the circulars dated 19.2.91 and 26.3.91 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam.

2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The petitioner No. 1 Shri Zoii Nalh Sarmah is an Advocate of this Court and is one of the political leaders in Assam. He was also a Minister. He along with the petitioner No. 2 Shri Imran Shah, who is also a politician, went to the District Jail at Mangaldoi on 19.3.91 to meet his clients who were under trial prisoners. The petitioner-1 Shri Zoii Nath Sarmah made an application on 19.3.91 to the Superintendent of District Jail, Mangaldoi for allowing him in his capacity as an Advocate to interview his clients named in his application. But the Superintendent refused him permission in view of a circular issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam on 19.2.91. The circular runs as follows:

"It has been reported to me that groups of Politicians have been visiting the Jails to meet the Extremist Prisoners arrested under TADA (P) or such other Act. In this connection, I am to state that Government do not consider this to be a healthy practice in view of the present law and order situation of the State. You are therefore, directed that no such visit should henceforth be allowed in violation of the provisions of Acts and Rules incorporated in the Assam Jail Manual. Any political leader/leaders, who desire to meet such extremist prisoners must first obtain permission from competent Court and an officer from the District Special Branch should be present at the time of meeting.

Violations of these instructions shall be viewed seriously.", (emph­asis added)

The circular was, however, modified by another circular dated 26.3.91 in which it is stated :

"...l am to say that if an Advocate wants to interview his clients (who may be Extremist Prisoners) in connection with Court case, he may be allowed to interview the prisoners even if the Advocate happens to be a political leader. But you must satisfy yourself (on the basis of Vakalatnama, etc.) that the said person is meeting his client in the capacity of a lawyer and not as a political leader.", (emphasis added). The petitioners have challenged both the circulars as already stated.

2. The circulars relate to a class of prisoners detained under the Terro­rist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or such other Act. Such prisoners have been designated as the "Extremist Prisoners". Under the circular political leaders who desire to meet the "Extremist Prisoners" must obtain permission from a competent Co art and an officer from District Special Branch should be present at the time of meeting. Under the subse­quent circular, an Advocate who happens to be a political leader has been allowed to meet with 'the Extremist Prisoners" in the capacity as an Advocate not as a political leader.

3. Clause (1) of Rule 472 of the Assam Jail Manual provides: "Unconvinced criminal prisoners and civil prisoners shall be granted all reasonable facilities at proper times and under proper restrictions for interviewing or otherwise communicating either orally or in writing with their relatives friends and legal advisers", (emphasis added)

4. Political leader is not exp easily referred to in clause (t) of Rule 472. Be that as it may, in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, the Supreme Court has held s

"We see no reason why the right to be visited under reasonable restric­tions, should not claim current constitutional status. We hold, subject to considerations of security and discipline, that liberal visits by family members, close friends and legitimate callers are part of prisoner's kit of rights and shall be respected." (emphasis added)

5. Rule 467 of the Jail Manual provides :

"A Superintendent may refuse to allow any interview to which a prisoner would ordinarily be entitled under these rules but in every such case, if in his opinion it