Prison authorities must ensure unhindered access for lawyers to their clients, respecting the constitutional rights of prisoners to legal assistance without unnecessary delays.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

This is a writ petition filed by a lawyer stating that he was denied permission by respondent No-3 to get Vakalath, writ petition and affidavit signed by his client, who is a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment at Central Prison, Poojappura.

2. I am astonished to see the pleadings in this writ petition and the grievance of the lawyer. A lawyer is forced to approach this Court to obtain the signature of his client convicted in a criminal case and who is lodged at Central Prison. Usually, it is said that the Bench and Bar are the two sides of the same Coin. On some occasions, the lawyer is part of the judiciary itself. Lawyers are not only helping their clients but are also assisting the Court to arrive at the right conclusion in a lis. Therefore, the lawyers are officers of the Court. When a lawyer is going to prison to meet his client, it is the duty of the officers of the jail to give respect to the lawyer and allow him to do his official/professional duty without any delay. If any unnecessary delay is caused to a lawyer in meeting a client in jail or if there is any unnecessary detention of a lawyer at the gate of a jail, who approaches a prison after taking appointment to meet his client in connection with his professional duties, this Court will take it very seriously in the future.

3. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 09.06.2023, this Court issued the following direction:

“There will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to see that the papers submitted by the petitioner are signed by his client, who is a convict, if he is willing. The 3^rd respondent will file an affidavit about the allegation raised in this writ petition within ten days.

Post on 16/06/23.”

4. An affidavit was filed by the 3^rd respondent as directed by this Court in which the 3^rd respondent expresses regret for the inconvenience, if any caused to the petitioner lawyer. It is also stated by the Superintendent, Central Prison and Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, that the incident which gave rise to the grievance of the petitioner was not the result of any intentional act on the part of the respondents. It is also stated in the affidavit that, being a lawyer, the petitioner ought to have been treated with all respect. It is further stated in the affidavit that, it so happened that certain inconvenience was caused to the petitioner, which could have been avoided. In paragraphs 10 to 12 of the affidavit, the 3^rd respondent narrated the facts and the action taken by the 3^rd respondent in this issue. It will be better to extract paragraphs 10 to 12.

“10. It is submitted that on 31.05.2023 Adv. Thushar Nirmal Sarathy had attended the office of Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram with a request to meet C.No. 5652 Antony @ Aadu Antony, a life term convict. Accordingly he was permitted to have an interview with the prisoner by Smt. Preethi.S.S., Welfare Officer who authorized to supervise interview after due process of application.

11. It is submitted that after the interview, Sri. Thushar Nirmal Sarathy had again approached the Welfare Officer to obtain signature of the prisoner in Vakkalath, Petition and affidavit brought by him. Then the Welfare Officer requested him to approach Sri.Alshan, Joint Superintendent, Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, who was the officer in charge of Jail at the moment, with an application to get signed Vakkalath from the prisoner. Now it is seen that the way in which the Joint Superi