Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–Prayer of the petitioners, who are incarcerated in Central Jail, Ajmer, for transfer to the Open Air Camp was rejected on the ground that they are above 60 years of age. Since, relief sought in these petitions is identical, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2). As per the facts stated in Writ Petition No.3480/2004, as many as thirteen members of petitioners family, including Jagan Nath, the son of the petitioner were convicted and sentenced. They subsequently were transferred to Sampurna Nand Open Air Camp Sanganer, Jaipur, Jagan Nath, the son of the petitioner, is willing to take the responsibility of the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by Jagan Nath in the form of undertaking. Similarly in Writ Petition No.3481/2004 petitioners son Jagdish and in Writ Petition 3482/2004 petitioners son Ram Dayal have filed affidavits to the same effect.

(3). In the returns to writ petitions, the respondents averred that in view of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (for short, `1972 Rules), the petitioners are not eligible to be transferred to Open Air Camp. Since, the petitioners are infirm persons and incapable of doing daily work in order to earn their livelihood.

(4). Pursuant to directions of this court the petitioners appeared in person on 17.8.2004 and expressed that they can work in kitchen garden, look after the cattles and effectively sue the brooms in cleaning the area.

(5). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

(6). In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (18) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, the State of Rajasthan enacted 1972 Rules for sending convicts to Open Air Camps with a view to encourage good conduct, satisfactory performance of work and a life of self-discipline among the convicts of Rajasthan and to provide these convicts with a pre-release opportunity to learn social adjustment and economic self dependence. As per Rule 3(h) prisoners who are below 25 years and above 60 years of age shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp. Rule 7 provides that out of agriculture work, manufacturing or industrial work, work in any farm, any work of public utility and construction work, digging of canals or dams, the prisoner will get one or more work in the open camps. According to Rule 10 the prisoners can keep their families in the open camps with the permission of Inspector General of Prisons. The wages earned by the prisoners shall be utilised by them for the use of themselves or their family (Rule 8). The prisoners shall be allotted suitable accommodation and they shall have to make their own cooking arrangement for their food from their own earning within the Camp (Rule 9).

(7). A travel through the case law relating to prisoners demonstrates that big void exists in the legal remedies for prisoner injustices. In such a situation the Courts have to be dynamic and diversified in meeting out remedies to prisoners. Reformation, not vindictive suffering should be the purpose of the penal treatment of prisoners. The prisoner should be made to realise that his destiny is in his own hands. Prison discipline should be such as to gain the will of the prisoner and conserve his self respect. The aim of the prison should be to make industrious free men rather than orderly and obedient prisoners. Urgent requirement of Indian prisons now a days is to be reduce tension and raise the pace of rehabilitation. It is only the `Judicial Watchtower that can control `Prison power.

(8). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra IIs case (1980(3) SCC 488), had considered the aspect of visit to prisoner by family and indicated thus:-

``Visits to prisoners by family and friends are a solace in insulation, and only a dehumanised system can derive vicarious delight in depriving prison inmates to this humane amenity. Subject, of course, to search and discipline and other security criteria, the right to soc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document