Courts should prevent misuse and abuse of the court process and require specific particulars and evidence before entertaining petitions alleging human rights violations.

N.K. Jain, J.

1. This matter filed on the basis of the telegram, has been placed before the Division Bench during vacation and has come up before us today.

2. It is alleged in the telegram that prisoners in the Palayamkottai central Jail are agitating with indefinite fasting from 29.5.2000, human rights are denied by jailers, dictatorship and arrogant activities are imposed on the prisoners by the Jailers, lakhs and lakhs of rupees are swindled by the jailers in distributing the food to the prisoners and basic hygiene and needs are demanded by the prisoners.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, on the face of it, such a telegram should not be entertained. He relied on a decision of this court in M.G.Shivaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Thuraipakkam, Police Station, 1993 LW (Cri) 656 wherein this court, while deciding HCP registered on the basis of telegram as writ, observed that the practice of sending telegrams is not only misused, but is grossly abused. It was further observed that telegram not to be registered as HCP unless it contains relationship of the sender to the person in custody and full particulars and dismissed the petition. It is also submitted that the telegram neither contains the name of the sender nor relevant particulars for any follow-up action.

According to him, such telegram without proper disclosures, may mislead the court in exercising the writ jurisdiction. He points out that in the garb of public interest litigation, some persons tend to misuse the process of court. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the abuse of process of Court, should be deprecated and no direction can be issued on such telegram. He also submitted that some of the 15 prisoners were transferred to other person. On account of that, the remaining 5 persons along with others created problem. A hunger strike was confined to 20 prisoners, who instigated 189 remand prisoners and 76 detenu (totalling 268) lodged in Central Prisons, Palayamkottai, to resort to hunger strike demanding immediate release on bail.

4. On the directions of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that no such Sangam as alleged, is in existence and there is no follow-up action. He listed out as to how jail rooms are provided, as to how prisoners were separated, as to how food is served, as to how higher officials are making frequent visits. It is pointed out that the Joint Director of Medical Services Visits the jail once in 3 months and superintendent of prisons, District Collector and advocates from Legal Aid are visiting jail in regular intervals. He submitted that no official has filled any such complaint. He also brought to the notice of this Court even in the suggestion/complaint box, no complaint has been found. He pointed out that no prisoner has lodged any complaint before the officers, who visited the jail, at any time during their respective visits as mentioned above.

5. At the request of the Court, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel, consented to act as Amicus Curiae. He submitted that the matter needs urgent action.

6. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned Amicus Curiae and persued the case law cited. Prima facie, we are of the view that no case is made out. The telegram so sent is bereft of any particulars to warrant to issue any notice. It is settled that Courts are mandated to see that human rights are not violated. At the same time, it should check that on the basis of bald allegations, the process of court should not be misused or abused. A discrete enquiry has been made by learned Public Prosecutor and found no sangam is in existence, and considering the counter affidavit, we feel no direction is necessary in this PIL. However, if any prisoner is aggrieved, he is having all sorts of fora to agitate his rights. When nothing is placed on record, this Court is of thee firm view that issuance of a notice is to justifiable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismi