# RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 295
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-03-17
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. Shah, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranbir-singh-sehgal-v-state-of-punjab-2421
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Jail
Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular
confi.nemen,,_V f!l•d_•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement
by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894),
Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India,
Art. 14.
ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as
an undcrtrial prisoner.
9n account of certain jail offences
alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent
of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a
separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was
1961
In flie matter of
Mr. 'A' An Advocate
Sinha G. J,
1961
November 2.
1961
"aohir Singh Sthc.J
v.
,,.,, •f Pwi}d
296 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (11162) SUPP.
not alleged to be guilty of any jail offence or indiscipline
af1er this date he was still confinea in a separate cdl wil.hout
being allowed to communicate 'With other prisoners;
he was
only allowed to come out in the compound attachd to the
cell for one hour in the morning and for one hour in the
evening. In December, 1960, the Governor ordered that the
appellant be treated .;.is a "li" class prisoner.
Even after thi.,
he was still kept in a separate cell with this difference that he
locked up only at night aud was allowed to move in the
compound attached to the cell during the day.
But he was
still not allowed to communicate with others.
The Prisons
Act provided for the separation of prisoners and s.2!l thereof
permitte<l convicted criminal prisoners to be confined in cells
citl:cr in association or individually.
Paragraph 57 l of the
Punjah .Jail Manual provided that so far as possible all convicts shall be kepi separate both hy day and by night.
Paragraph 575 provided that a convict who could not be confined
in a cdl by day by reason that he was required for some jail
service shall be confined in a cell uy night.
The appellant
contended that his confiuc1nent \va.s under para
575, that
para 575 offended Art. 14 of the Cons<itution and that the
Superintendent of .Jail acted ma/a fide and
discriminated
against him by keeping hin1 in solitary confinement.
llfld, tha1 para 575 of the Punjab .Jail Manual did not
offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. This parab>"faph was a
part of an integrated sche1nc for the maintenance of discipline
of prisoners by providing for their separation. The classification was n11dc on the basis of sex and the nature of the prisoners and depended on the availability of cells;
it had a
reasonable relation to the objcc< sought to be achieved.
The
power to separate was entrusted to the highest officer in the
Jail \vho " .. <ls ordinarily expected ro act reasonably, objectively and without bias.
Hr.Id, further (p<r Sinha, C . .J ., SuLba Rao, Shah and
Mudholkar, JJ.) that the confinement of the appellant in a
separate cell in the manner it was being done was illegal.
The separation of the appellant so as to seclude him from
com1nunicating \\'ith or from the sight of other prisoners
certainly a1nountcd to cellular confinement if not to solitary
confinement.
This could only be done as a
measure of
punishment, and even then the prjsuncr was entitled to have
one hour's exercise every
day an<l to have his meals in
association with one or more prisoners.
The appellant was
discriminated from other prison err.: and, under the colour of
the rules for separatiori, \vas illPgally confined in a manner
not authorised by law.
Per Dayal,J.-There was no discrimination or illei:alitv
in keeping the petitioner in a separatr
<.~ li.
l"l:c mrrc f.,ct
,.
( l) S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'l' REPOR'fS
297
that a person was kept in a separate cell did not m~ke his_
confinement solitary, ceilular or separate.
Paragraph ;,71 . of
the Jail Manual provided that subject to cell accomodat10n
and requirement of labour all convicts be kept separate b?th
by day and by night. Paragraph 575 provided an excepuon
that where the convict could not be kept separate by day he
could be kept separate by night. The entire scheme of the
Prisons Act and the rules was that ordina

## Text

_Characters 0–39,697 of 40,661. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39697 for what follows._

(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
295
rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education
befitting a member of the profession of law. If he
knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief
and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he
is a very unworthy mem her of the learned profession. In any view of the matter, he does not
appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre,
which is essential for a member of the legal profession. If anything, by adopting the attitude of
denial which has been demonstrated to be falEe in
the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal,
he has not deserved well of the Court even in the
matter of amount of punishment to be meted to
him for his proved misconduct. In our opinion, he
fully deserves the punishment of suspension from
practice for five years. This punishment will give
him enough time and opportunity for deciding for
himself, after deep deliberation and introspection,
whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the
legal profession. In our view he is not. Let him
learn that a lawyer must never be a liar.
RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH,
RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Jail
Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular
confi.nemen,,_V f!l•d_•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement
by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894),
Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India,
Art. 14.
ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as
an undcrtrial prisoner.
9n account of certain jail offences
alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent
of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a
separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was
1961
In flie matter of
Mr. 'A' An Advocate
Sinha G. J,
1961
November 2.
1961
"aohir Singh Sthc.J
v.
,,.,, •f Pwi}d
296 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (11162) SUPP.
not alleged to be guilty of any jail offence or indiscipline
af1er this date he was still confinea in a separate cdl wil.hout
being allowed to communicate 'With other prisoners;
he was
only allowed to come out in the compound attachd to the
cell for one hour in the morning and for one hour in the
evening. In December, 1960, the Governor ordered that the
appellant be treated .;.is a "li" class prisoner.
Even after thi.,
he was still kept in a separate cell with this difference that he
locked up only at night aud was allowed to move in the
compound attached to the cell during the day.
But he was
still not allowed to communicate with others.
The Prisons
Act provided for the separation of prisoners and s.2!l thereof
permitte<l convicted criminal prisoners to be confined in cells
citl:cr in association or individually.
Paragraph 57 l of the
Punjah .Jail Manual provided that so far as possible all convicts shall be kepi separate both hy day and by night.
Paragraph 575 provided that a convict who could not be confined
in a cdl by day by reason that he was required for some jail
service shall be confined in a cell uy night.
The appellant
contended that his confiuc1nent \va.s under para
575, that
para 575 offended Art. 14 of the Cons<itution and that the
Superintendent of .Jail acted ma/a fide and
discriminated
against him by keeping hin1 in solitary confinement.
llfld, tha1 para 575 of the Punjab .Jail Manual did not
offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. This parab>"faph was a
part of an integrated sche1nc for the maintenance of discipline
of prisoners by providing for their separation. The classification was n11dc on the basis of sex and the nature of the prisoners and depended on the availability of cells;
it had a
reasonable relation to the objcc< sought to be achieved.
The
power to separate was entrusted to the highest officer in the
Jail \vho " .. <ls ordinarily expected ro act reasonably, objectively and without bias.
Hr.Id, further (p<r Sinha, C . .J ., SuLba Rao, Shah and
Mudholkar, JJ.) that the confinement of the appellant in a
separate cell in the manner it was being done was illegal.
The separation of the appellant so as to seclude him from
com1nunicating \\'ith or from the sight of other prisoners
certainly a1nountcd to cellular confinement if not to solitary
confinement.
This could only be done as a
measure of
punishment, and even then the prjsuncr was entitled to have
one hour's exercise every
day an<l to have his meals in
association with one or more prisoners.
The appellant was
discriminated from other prison err.: and, under the colour of
the rules for separatiori, \vas illPgally confined in a manner
not authorised by law.
Per Dayal,J.-There was no discrimination or illei:alitv
in keeping the petitioner in a separatr
<.~ li.
l"l:c mrrc f.,ct
,.
( l) S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'l' REPOR'fS
297
that a person was kept in a separate cell did not m~ke his_
confinement solitary, ceilular or separate.
Paragraph ;,71 . of
the Jail Manual provided that subject to cell accomodat10n
and requirement of labour all convicts be kept separate b?th
by day and by night. Paragraph 575 provided an excepuon
that where the convict could not be kept separate by day he
could be kept separate by night. The entire scheme of the
Prisons Act and the rules was that ordinarily a prisoner was
to be kept separate and that only in cases of limitation of
providing separate cells were prisoners to be kept together.
There was no provision that a prisoner kept in a cell was to
be specially allowed to associate or mix with other prisoners.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 120 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order <lated March 17, 1961 of the Punjab
High Court in Criminal Writ No. 2 of 196 l.
WITH
Petition No. 147 of 1961.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Righ.ts.
The appellant/petitioner in person.
H. S. Doabia,
AdditiOMl
Advocate-General,
P·unjab, Gopal Singh and P. D. Menon, for respondent (in the appeal and the petition.)
.
1961. November 2. The Judgment of Sinha,
C. J., Subba Rao, Shah and Mudholkar, JJ., was
delivered by Subba Rao, J. Dayal, J. delivered a
separate Judgment.
SunBA RAo, J.-Both these matters
are
connected and raise the same questions and they
may be disposed of together.
'
Ranbir Singh Sehgal, the petitio)ler in the
writ petition, is now a prisoner in the Central Jail
.Ambala, in the State of Punjab. He was prosecuted
for committing offences in different places.
On
June 13, 1961, he was convicted by the Additional
District Magistrate, Amba.la, under s. 5 of the
In~ Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to
Jil61
Ranbir Singh lithtal
v.
State of PunjtJb
Subba Rao J.
19CI
/,'111;.'1ir Si11gh Sth$ol
v.
S1,,1r flj P1111jab
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962) SUPP.
5 years rigorous imprisonment and to p&y & fine of
Rs. 2,000/·. The petitioner has preferred an appeal
against the said conviction an-1
~en~nce, and the
said appeal is now pending in tl1c High Court of
Punjab. On January :m, 1!161,
the Additional
Sessions Judge (II), Ambala, convicted the petitioner
Wlder ss. 120-B and 399 of the Indian Penal Code
and sent.~mced him to 7 years rigorous impri~onment
and a fine of Rs. 2,000i- under the former section,
and to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine cif
Rs. 2,00'.l/- under the latter section. Tlw petitioner
preferred an appeal against this conviction and
sentence to the High Court of Pm1jab and the same
is now pending there.
The other cases ar" not
disposed of and they are still pending in various
courts. The petitioner was arrested by the Ambala
police on September 14, 1958, and was detained in
police custody for a period of about 8 months, and
on. May 'i, l!l59, he was transferred to judicial
custody at Ambala. On June 13, l!l60, he was
convicted under the Indian Arms Act, and from
that date he is in the Central Jail, Ambala, e.s a
convicted prisoner. On December 15, 1960, the
Governor of Punjab ordered that the petitioner
should be ~reated as a 'B' class prisoner.
On
February 9, 1961, he filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab at
Chandigarh, questioning inter ali11 bis confinement
in that prison on the ground that para. 575 of the
Punjab Jail Manual whereunder he was confined to
a separate cell in the prison, offended Art. 14 of the
Constitution, and that in fact discriminatory treatment was meted out to him not for the maintenance
of disr.ipline but for extraneous reasons.
That
petition was dismissed by the said High Court on
March l 7, llIBI, and Criminal Appeal No. 120 of
1961 was filed against the said order by special
leave granted by this Court. That a.part be also
filed the
present writ petition (Writ Petition
No. 147 of 1961) in this Court under Art. :l2 of the
Constitution oovering the same ground. The prisoner
•
(l) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT R.EPOR'rS
299
argued his own case. He raised before us two
points, namely, (I) para. 575 of the Punjab Jail
Manual offends Art. 14 of the Constitution in
asmuch as it confers arbitrary power on the Superintendent of Jail to deal with a prisoner under the
colour of the said provision in a brutal way circum- ,
venting other stringent provisions of the Prisons
Act and other paragraphs of the Punjab Jail Manual
conceived in the interest and fair treatment of
prisoners, (2) the Superintendent of Jail,
for
extraneous reasons, on the pretext of disciplinary
action, gave him solitary confinement in a cell since
the date he was tmnsfcrred to that Jail, and thus
acted with rnala /ides: th11.t apart,. he discriminated
him in the matter of treatment from other prisoners
and even from the co-accused, who were convicted
along with him, and t.hus offended Art. 14 of the
Constitution.
The first quest.ion falls to be decided on the
relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, tl;o
Prisons Act, and the Punjab Jail Manual. There
are three types of punishment, namely, (i) solitary
confinement, (ii) cellular confinement, and (iii) separate confinement. Solitary confinement means such
confinement with or without labour as entirely
secludes the prisoner both from sight of, and
communication with, other prisoners. The punishment of solitary confinmcnt can be imposed by a
court only, and, in view of its dangerous potentialities, stringent conditions are imposed thereon. No
person can be sentenced to undergo solitary confinement for more than three months. There is a limit
prescribed on the punishment of solitary confinement
that can be imposed on a prisoner: it shall not
exceed (a) one month, ifthe term of imprisonment
does not exceed six months, (b) two months, if the
term of imprisonment exceeds six months, but does
not exceed one year, and (c) three months, if the
term exceeds one year: (vide s. 73 of the Indian
Penal Code), Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code
says,
1961
Ra11bir Stngh Sehgat
Y.
Stale of Punjab
Subha Rao J.
1961
},'c;1.lir Singh ._'-'thJ;al
"
St11le of P1mjab
Subba Rae J.
300 SUPREME C'OURT REPOHTS [1962) SUPP.
"In executing a sentence of solitary cun·
fiuement, such confinement hall in nu C"ase
exceed fourteen days at a tim<.• with intervals
beteen the periods of solitary eo11fincmC'11t ,,f
not less duration than such periods, and when
the imprisonment
;iwarded
shall exceed
three months, the solitary ''onfinement shall
not ex<'.eed seven days in any one month of
the whole imprisonment awarder., with intervids between the periods of solitary confinement of nut less dumtion than such periodF."
Section 2!) of the Prisons Act reads,
"No cell Rball be user! for solitary con·
finement unles8 it is
furnished with the
means of enabling the prisoner to communicate
at any time with an officer of the prison, and
every prisoner 80 confined in a cell for more
than twenty-four hours, whether as a punishment or otherwise, shall be
visited at
least once a day by the Medical Officer or
Medical Subordinate."
Ctillular confinement
is
a
punishment
which
can be imposed on n prisoner by a Superintendent
of Jail.
A Superintendent of Jail cnn punish in
a suitable ca.ee a prisoner by imposing on him cellular confinement for a period not exceeding fortee_n
<lays, provided that after each period of ecllnfar
confinement an interval of not
leSB than such
period must elapse before the prisoner is again sentenced to cellular or solitary confinnment. Cellular
confinement ia·defincd to mean such confinement
with or witout labour as entirely secludes a prisoner
from communioation with, but not from sight of,
other prisoners. Sepamto confinement is defined
to mean such confinement with or without labour
as secludes a prisoner from communication with, but
not from sight of, other pri1011ers, and allows him
not less than one hour's exercise per diem and to
have his meals in association with one or more
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
301
other prisoners. Separate confinement for a period
not exceeding three months can be imposed on a
prisoner in a suitable case by the Sup• intemlent
of Jail. (Vide s. 46(8) of the Prisons Act).
Section 47 of the Prisons Act prohibits the
combination of cellular confinement with separatn
confinement so as to prolong the total period of
seclusion to which a prisoner shall be liable. Solitary confinement can be giYen only by a court
and the other two by a Superintendent of Jail for
jail offences. The provisions concfived in the interest of the physical, moral and mental health of
prisoners impose stringent conditions in carrying
out those senten~es in urder to prevl'nt their abuse.
But in the interest of maintaining diseipline among
the inmates of jail, the Prisons Act and the Jail
Manual prescribe rules for a separation of prisoners.
The separation of prisoners depends upon t.he
nature of the prisoner, the class to which he belongs aml the availability of adequate number of
cells.
Section 27 of the Prisons A•"t provides that,
(1) in a prison containing female as well as male
prisoners, the females shall be imprisoned in separate buildings, or separate parts of the same building, i11 such manner as to prevent their seeing, or
conversing or holding any intercourse with the male
prisoners; (2) in a prison where male prisoners
under the age of twenty-one are confined, means
shall be provided for separating them nltogether
from the other prisoners an<l for separnting t.hcse
of them who have arrived nt the age of puberty
from those who have not ; (3) unc0nvictcd criminnl prisoners shall be kept apart from convicted
criminal prisoners ; and ( 4) civil prisoners shall
be kept apart from criminal prisoners. Section :!H
of the said Act says,
"Subject to the requirements of the last
foregoing section, convicted criminal prisoners may be confined either in association or
1961
Ranbir Sineh Se\gal
v.
State of P1mjab
Subha Rao ,f,
1961
Ra11bir Si11gh S1li_,al
Y.
Statt of Punjab
Subha Ra" J.
302 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1!!62) SUPP·
individually in cells or partly in one way and
partly in the other".
Presumably in exercise of the power conferrPd
on tho State Government by s. 59 of the Prisons
Act, certain rules were framed for the separation
of prisJners >ind they arc contain Pd in the Jail
l\fanual.
Under para. 571 of the Jail Manual,
"all convicts shall, so far as thn requirements of
labour and the cell accommodation of the Jail will
allow, be kept separate both by day and by night."
Paragraph 572
dee.ls
with the occupation of
vacant cells, and para. 573 says that "convi0ts of
the habitual class shall be subjected to the system
of separation prescribed in the preceding rulPs, in
rotation." Paragraph 574 provides. "Jf, at any
time, there a.re more cells in any jail than suffice
for thP separation of all convicts of the habitual
class, prisoners of the c.MJual class shall be confined
in cells, both by day and night, in rotation.'' Then
comes the impugned provision, namely, para. ;37 5,
which reads :
"A convict who would ordinarily CC;m<>
under the operation of any of the preceding
rules relating to the separation of prisoners,
hut cannot be confined in a cell by day, by
reason that he is required for some jail service, Rha.11 bP. confined in a cell by night.''
These mies, along with the provisions of the
PJ"iaous Act, furm an integrat1;rl scheme r,onceived
for the maintenance of discipline of prisoners, and
tho preforcntial treatment in the allotment of cc lls
is b.asod upon sex, age, nature of the crime committed and the naturfJ of the prisoners, and also the
nvaila.bility of cells.
Tho question is whether para.. 575 of the Jail
Manual offends Act. J 4 of tho Constitution.
The
said provision is only in a group of rules providing for the separation of prisoners and it only says
that if a prisoner to whom any of the prison rules
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
303
applies oa.nnot be confined to a cell by day Bhall
be confined in a cell by night. It pre-supposes that
the prisoner concerned belongg to the category
to whom a separate cell is allotted and, by reason
of his being required for jail service, cannot be
confined to the cell by day : in such a case it says
that he shall be confined to the cell by night.
It
is only a rule providing for a contingency when a
prisoner who should be so confined in a cell both
by day and night cannot be confined by day in
such a cell. But the objection may be taken to
mean that the other rules, along with this rule
enable a Superintendent of Jail to put a prisoner in
a cell offends Art. 14 of the Constitution.
It is settled law that Art. 14 of the C'onstitu·
tion permits classification, and the said classification
must bear just and reasonable relation to the object
of the legislation. The object of the said provision
is to maintain discipline among the inmates of jail.
The classification is made on the basis of sex and
the nature of the prisoners and also on the availa·
bility of cells. The cla.ssifioation has certainly a
reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the 'legislation; nor can . the power
conferred on the
Superintendent to separate
pr.isoners be said to be arbitrary. The object of
the conferment of the said power is very limited,
and the provisions clearly lay down the conditions
for separation.
The power to separate is entrusted
to the higheat officer in the jail premises, who may
. ordinarily be expected to act reasonably, objecti·
vely and without bias. In these circumstances, we
must hold that para. 57 5 of the J11.il Manual in its
setting_ does not'offend the provisions of Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
The next quostion is whether in purported
exercise of the ea.id power the ~uperintendent in
the present case acted with ma/,a .fidea and meted
out discriminatory treatment to the petitioner and
thus offended Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the
1161
Runbir Singh Sehgal
..
Stole of Punjab
Subba Rtlo J.
1M1
Ranhir Singh Sthtal
v,
SltUt of Pl»tjah
S11bhE1 Rr.n J.
304 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, the petitioner
made certain allegations against the Superintendent
in respect of his treatment in jail. The aaid allegations may be summarized thus : The petitioner wM
transferred to the judicial oustody at the Central
.Jail, Ambala, on May 7, 1969, after protracterl
p0Jic3 custody of over eight months. On the very
day of his arrival in the Jail, the petitioner was
locked up in solita.ry confinement in a cell in the
condemned prisoners block and "a lock up period
of 24 hours inside the cell was clamped." Though
~overal representations were made b,v the relatives
of the petitioner to the higher authorities, no
redrnss was given to him. He waJ sought to be
kept in the cell for 13 months till June 13, Hl60
when he was convicted in one of the cases filed
against him. On June 14, 1960, the Superintendent
of the Jail again ordered the petitioner to be locked
up in complete solitary confinement under para.
575 of the Punjab Jail Manual, and again a confinement of 24 hours inside the cell was "clamped".
On December le, 1960, the Governor of Punjab
ordered that the petitioner should be treated as a
'B' class prisonE1r, and even thereafter he was not
transferred to the general ward of the prison where
other 'B' class prisoners were kept confined, but
he was kept in the same condemned prisoners ward.
Though the lock-up period of 24 hours inside the
cell was considerably reduced the ban imposed on
his aR~ocin.tion with other pris0ners had not been
relaxed. The petitioner was not allowed even to
meet his co-accused who were in the general ward
of the prison. While the other prisoners in the jail
including the petitioner's co-accused were given
numerous facilities i.o. of association work and
recreation he was completely segregated in a cell
without any such facilities. The jail authoritiea
adopted this methorl of torture for ulterior pur·
poses.
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
305
The Superintendent of the Jail filed a counter
affidavit. His answer to the grave allegations may
be stated thus : On the very day of his arrival in
the jail the p~titioner behaved rudely and impertinently towards the jail staff and in a defiant 'way
tried to undermine jail discipline. He was not kept'
in solitary cell for ulterior motives. He committed
12 jail offences and he was punished for them.
After he was convicted he was put in a separate
cell and that he was allowed one hour in the morning
and one hour in the evening for exercise and also
to have his bath outside the courtyard. After he
was classified as a 'B' class prisoner, he was given
amenities to which a 'B' class prisoner was, entitled
under the rules, but in the interest of jail discipline
he was segregated from other prisoners. The cell
in which the petitioner was kept was one of the
cells in block of 32 cells out of which only 8
were allocated for condemned prisoners and the
rest were utilized for separate confinement for the
segregation of hardened and troublesome convicted
criminal prisoners. The petitioner was confint>d in
the cell only for the night and he could move
about in the o~n compound of the cell throughout the day.
The affidavit and the counter-affidavit disclose the following admitted facts : The cell in
which the petitioner was and is confined is one of
the cells in the block of 32 cells out of which 8 cells
are used for condemned prisoners. The cell has
a small separate enclosure of its own. From the
date the petitioner entered the prison, that is, on
Ma.> 7, 1959, till he was convicted, that is, on June
13, 1960, when he was an under-trial prisoner, he
was separately confined to a cell. Though the
Superintendent 'Vaguely
says
that the
petitioner was not looked-up fu a. solitary cell,, he
practically admits that the petitioner was given
separate confinement in a cell as punishment
for jail olfenoes committed by him. Though he
'
1'61
Ranbir Singh 81h1•I
••
Stall of Punj•b
8u6ba Ruo J.
1961
llanhi' SV.gh SJital
..
Staie of Pwnjah
Sub/xi R.. J.
3~ SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
denies that the petitioner was kept in a cell for 24
hours, he doE.18 not say what facilities \Vere provided
for him to move a.bout or mix with other prisoners .
The statement of off'ences
committed by the
petitioner and the punishments inflicted on him
filed by the Superintendent does not contain any
details and is thus vague. Section 12 of the
Prisons Act enjoins on a. Superintendent to maintain a punishment book, ands. 51 thereof l't'quires
him to enter tho details therein. But the statement before us does not strictly comply with that
section; and it is represented in court that no other
register is maintained in the jail. The statement,
vague as it is, shows that even on the first day of
imprisonment, the petitioner was kept in a. separate
cell and the offence alleged to have been committed
by him is that he was rude and impertinent. The
subsequent entries show that the petitioner attempted to break articles and even ~ruck his head
against wall or door. These a.ots of the petitioner
appear to us to be more due to the effect of the
inhuman and discriminatory treatment given to
him even when he was an under-trial prisoner
rather than a conscious attempt on his pa.rt to
commit any jail offenoos. Be that as it may, we
are not concerned at this stage whether the petitioner had committed those offences, for those were
committed at a time when he was an under-trial
prisoner with which we are not now directly concerned. The facts remain that even as an under-trial
prisoner from the date he entered the premises of
the jail, he was segregated from other prisoners
and kept in a. separate cell.
Now coming to the second period, that is
the period commencing from the date he waa con:
victed till be was classified as a • B' class prisoner,
that is, from June U, 1960 to December 15, 1960,
the petitioner alleges that he was kept in solitary
confinement a.s before throughout 24 hours of the
day. In the counter-affidavit of the Superintendent
I
•
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
307
it is not denied that the petitioner was kept in a
separate cell, but it is stated therein that he was
given one hour in the morning and one hour in the
evening for exercise and also he was allowed to
have his bath outside the courtyard of the cell.
The Superintendent does not sta,te that he allowed
the petitioner to communicate with others or to
talk to other prisoners. It is not stated whether
he was allowed for exercise to go out of the
separate enclosure of the cell or whether he was
allowerl. to mix up with other prisoners or to talk
to them. During this period, the petitioner did
not commit any jail offences and, therefore, his
separate confinement in a cell could not be a
punishment for an offence, but only for the maintenance of discipline in the jail and for convenience
of accommodation. There is nothing on the record
1 o suggest that he was guilty of any indiscipline
during this period. If so, his confinement in a
separate cell for a period of six months without
allowing 'him to communicate with others is a
punishment of either cellular confinement, separate
confinement or solitary confinement. The restrictions imposed on the prisoner on the pretext of
separate allotment of a cell ignored even the
limitations on the said confinements prescribed by
s. 73 of the Indian Penal Code or s. 46 of the
Prisons Act. The confinement of the prisoner in a
separate cell in the manner it was done was cer·
tainly illegal.
·
Coming to the third period after he was
classified as a •B' class prisoner, the petitioner says
that he was kept in the ea.me.condemned prisoners'
bloQk with the ·exception that the lock-up period of
_24 hours inside t1!e cell was considerably reduced,
but the ban imposed_ on his association with other
prisoners . was not relaxed.
The Superintendent
does not say that the petitiOner was allowed to
·communicate or t<i speak with other prisoners. He
also admits that the petitioner was confined to the
1961
Ranbir Singh Sehgal
v.
Btat1 "f Punjab
Subba Rao J.
1'61
~bir Singh S.hgo/
v.
!'tall of Punjab
S•ll>a RaoJ.
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
cell only in the night and that he can move a.bout
within the open compound of the ooll throughout
the day; to put it in other words, the Superintendent admits that the petitioner is confined in a cell
with a. small separate .. enclosure and tba.t the prisoner oan only move in that enclosure in the mom.
ing. This kind of 9oniinement is either a. solitary
confinement or cellular confinement, for it secludes
the prisoner from communicating with or from the
sight of other prisoners. If it is not a. aolit!l.ry
confinement, it would certainly be a cellular confinement. Even in a. separate confinement as a
punishment the prisoner should be allowed to have
one hour's exercise per diem and to have his meals
in a.ssoGia.tion with one or more prisoners. The
Superintendent, therefore, acted illegally in confining the prisoner in the manner he did, and be is
not entitled to do so under the rules prescribed for
separation of prisoners. It ma.y also be mentioned
that during this period, there is no
allegation
that the petitioner' a conduct was otherwise bad.
It is said that thti confinement is neither
solitary, cellul11r or separate, for he is allowed to
go to courts. The fact that a prisoner is to be sent
to a. court on summons ha.a no bearing on the
question whether the confinement is legal or not.
On the facts disclosed in the case, we have no doubt
that, for one reason or other, which is not clear
from the record, the petitioner- was discriminated
from other prisoners and, under the colour of the
rules for separation, was illegally confined in a
manner not authorized by law.
Before closing we would like to make some
general remarks. The
modem development of
criminology has revolutionized the system of treatment of convicted prisoners. The old brutal treatment has given place to more humane: one. The
concept of vengea.noo by society e.nd of the deterrenoe is fa.st dise.ppearing e.nd is being replaced by
the concept of oorreotion a.nd rehabilitation.
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
309
Though our jail administration is moving with
times, it is not keeping pace with advanced
countries. A statute may reflect the modern trend
and.may contain salutary provisions for fair treatment of prisoners; but in practice much depends
upon the Superintendent, who is expected to implement them in the spirit in which they are conceived.
A Superintendent of a jail may be a good disciplinarian, but it is not enough: he should also be
a humanitarian possessing conscience and having
an awareness that to his care is entrusted an
abnormal class of society deserving more a sympathetic approach and sincere attempt at rehabilitation
than that of vindictiveness. In this case, the Superintendent, as we have already stated, not only did
not carry out the spirit of the rules but also broke
the letter of the law and illegally placed the petitioner practically in solitary confinement from May 7,
1959 up to date.
In the result we hold that the confinement of
the petitioner in a separate cell in the manner it is
being done in this case is illegal and we direct the
respondent to confine the petitioner in the prison in
strict compliance with the provisions of the Prisons
Act and the rules made thereunder. It is for the
Government to consider, in the circumstances of
this case, whether it is a fit case for transferring the
petitioner to some other jail.
Writ Petition No. 147 of 1961 is allowed to
the said extent, and there will be a similar order in
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1961.
1961
Ranbir Singh Sehgal
v.
Slate of Punjab
Subha Rao J.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-I have had the advantage Raghubar DaJ<ll J.
of perusing the jndgment prepared by my learned
brother, Subba Rao J., and agree with him that
paragraph 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual does not
offend the provisions of the Constitution.
I however do not agree that there had been
any illegal confinement of the appellant.
1~61
Ra1ibir Si'I.:.:~ S1hgal
v.
Sr1:t •'.! P1qjrib
Rag.'mhar Dnyal J.
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
Tho appellant wafi admitted to the jail as an
uu<lertrial prisoner for offences under s. 19 of the
Indian Arms Act and un<ler s. 5 of Indian Explosive Suhstan()(•s Act and the allegation was .that
he was conocrned in a conspiracy with others to
mudrr certain persons and to create disorder and
anarchy in India. He behaved rudely and impertinently on admission into jail and showed a defiant
attitude. In these circumstances, according to the
affidavit of the Superintendent of the Jail, tlie appel·
lant was ordered to be kept in cell under paragraph
569-A of the Jail Manual to maintain jail discipline. The entry in the punishment register, in
this connection, states in the column meant for
noting the offences: 'He is very rude and impertinent. He has defiant attitude and tries to undermine the jail discipline.' I am of opinion that it
was not necessary for the jail authorities to make
a more detailed note in the register with respect to
the various acts committed or words spoken by the
appellant on the occasion.
Section 51 of the Prisons Act provides what
is to be recorded in this punishment book and requires to be recorded, among other matters, the
prison-offence of which the prisoner is guilty. It
does not require a detailed account of the actions
of the prisoner which constituted the prison-offences.
The <lesoription of the offences committed, suffices
for the purpose of this register. The entry is not
made for the purpose of adjudication of the offences
or for the purpose" of the appellate authority, if any.
It is just a record of the conduct of the accused and
the action taken. The Superintendent, in this case,
did not inflict any punishment of solitary confinement or separate confinement on the appellant for
his conduct. He simply ordered that the appellant
be kept in a cell under paragraph 469-A of tho Jail
Manual.
There had been eleven other occasions when
tho appellant committed prison offences. Those
(1) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOitTS
311
offences and the action taken there are also mentioned in the punishment register and a copy of
those entries has been filed in Court. What I have
said in connection with the nature of the entry in
connection with the incident on the day of admission, applies equally to the other entries mentioned
above.
The Superintendent has denied the allegations
made by the appellant that he was kept in a separate cell, not in the interests of the jail discipline,
but for ulterior motives or under orders of a vindictive Government. There is no material on the record to suggeat that the Superintendent of the jail
was actuated, in passing the order for keeping the
appellant in a separate cell, by any consideration
other than that of the interests of jail discipline.
Therefore, the mere fact that the appellant was
kept in a separate cell from the moment of his admission in jail does not indicate malafides on the
part of the jail Superintendent.
The appellant was
kept segregated in a
separate cell after his conviction as well, in view
of paragraph 575 of the Jail Manual. He was
allowed an hour in the morning and an hour in the
evening for exercise. He was allowed to have a
bath in the court-yard outside the cell. The fact
that the Superintendent did not state in his affidavit
that he allowed the petitioner to communicate with
others or to talk to other prisoners or that the
appellant was allowed to mix up with other prisoners or to converse with them, does not necessarily
mean that he disallowed any such thing or that,
if he did so, the Superintendent acted against rules
of faw.
The Superintendent denied that the
appellant's request to meet Hari Das was disallowed.
There is no allegation that he had not been afforded
the facilities .which are to be provided to a prisoner
or to a B.cJass prisoner kept in a cell and therefore
there was no occasion for the Superintendent to
state about matters not complained of.
1961
Ronhir Singh Sehgal
v.
State of Punjab
Raghubar Da;'ai J
1961
Rc 11bir Sinth St~gal
v.
Suitt of Punjab
Rog/nJa. D'.1"1 J.
:ll2 SUPltEME COURT REPORTS (1962') SUPP.
The mere fact tha.t a person is kept in a
separate cell will not ma.ke his confinement solitary,
cellular or separate, though the difference between
it and any of them be not appreciable.
Section 27 of the priaous Act provides for
separation of prisoners. If there happens to be
only one prisoner of a particular category, he is
necessarily to bn kept separate from others.
His
being kept alone from other prisoners and his not
being allowed to mix with other prisoners will not
be called solitary or cellular or separate confinement. It is just a.n incident that he happens to be
the only prisoner of a particular category and had
therefore to be kept separated
from
all other
prisoners in the jail.
Section 28 allows convicted criminal prisoners
to be confined either in association or individually
in cells or partly in one way and partly in the other.
The diseretion is with the Superintendent of the
J a.ii.
The Act contemplates an individual prisoner
to be kept in a cell.
It is clear from the provisions of paragraphs
5i l to 575 of the Jail :llanua.l that the rules contemplate convicted prisoners to be kept separate.
Paragraph :3i I of the Jail Manual provides that all
convicts, subject to cell accommodation
and
requirements of labour, be kept separate both by
clay and by night, and justifies the segregation of
the appellant as a convicted criminal in a B<'parate
cell.
Paragraphs 5i2, 573 and 574 lay down the
order in which convicted prisoners a.re to be selected
for being kept separate in cells when ea.ch of them
cannot be so kept.
All these provisions a.re
consistent with what is enacted in s, 28 of the
Prisons Aci ..
Paragraph 5i5 rea.ds:
"A convict who would ordinarily come
wider the opl'rntion of any of the preceding
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
313
rules relating to the separation of prisoners,
but cannot be confined in a cell by day, by
reason that ho is required for some jail service,
shall be confined in a cell by night.
Note 1-Separation under paragraphs 571
to 575 is distinct from 'solitary' confinement
and 'separate' confinement inflicted as a punishment under section 46 of the Prisons Act,
and is restricted merely to the separation of
individual prisoners either by day or night
for purposes of jail management; such separation is not to have any irksome conditions
attached to it.
Note 2-Paragraphs 571 to 575 are of
general application. If, in the opinion of the
Superintendent, the presence of any convict in
association with others, is detrimental to good
order and discipline or is likely to encourage
or lead to the commission of any offence, such
convict should be kept separate, in preference
to others of his class."
These provisions provide an exception to the provisions of paragraphs ,571 to 574 and allow the
convicted prisoner to be kept in a cell during night
only instead of both by day and by night, in case
he cannot be confined in the cell by day for reasons
that he be required for jail service. Note 1 makes
it clear that keeping prisoners separate in view of
the provisions of paragraphs 571 to 575 is not
'solitary' or 'separate' confinement which can be
inflicted as punishment and is merely separation of
the prisoner for purposes of jail management.
Further, Note 1 enjoins that no irksome
conditions be attached to such separation. We are
not shown that any such conditions were attached
to the order for keeping the appellant in a cell.
Note 2 further empowers the Superintendent
of the Jail to keep a convict separate i£ hr be of
opinion that his association with others of his class
1961
R anbir Singh Sehtal
v.
Stttte of PwVab
Raghubar Dayal J.
1961
Ranbir Singh Sthgal
Y.
S1at1 r>.f PllnjaL
Raghubar Da;"O/ J,
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
is detrimental to good order and discipline in tho
jail. The Superintendent stat('S in his affidavit
that he was of such op in ion.
The entire scheme of tho Act and the rules is
that ordinarily a prisoner should be kept separated
from others and th'\t it is only in view of limitations of providing separate c~lls for <>ach prisoner
that prisoners of a particu Jar category are kept
together in a large hall. The order classifying the
appellant as a B-claBB prisoner further necessitated
his being kept separate from other prisoners.
There is no provision in the Act or the rules
that a prison<>r kept in a cell be specially allowe<l
to associate or mix with other prisoners.
The main grievance of the appellant is that
he was not allowed to associste with his co-accused,
even for purpose of consultation wil h respect to the
defence to be put up and the grounds to be taken
in the appeal.