Holding

The suspension was not passed to defeat the Court’s direction; therefore the petition to quash it was dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined petitions filed by the Superintendent of Bhagalpur Central Jail, who claimed his suspension by the Bihar Government was a mala fide attempt to prevent him from complying with the Court’s order to file an affidavit regarding the blinding of under‑trial prisoners. The Court noted that the suspension was based on documented dereliction of duty under Rule 474 of the Bihar Jail Manual, not on any motive to frustrate the Court’s direction. Evidence showed the State was already investigating the blindings and that the petitioner filed the required affidavit after his suspension. Consequently, the Court held that the suspension could not be said to have been intended to defeat the Court’s order. The petitions seeking to quash the suspension were dismissed, with the petitioner free to challenge the suspension in a proper proceeding if desired.

Issues considered

Whether an order of suspension can be challenged in an incidental proceeding.
Whether the suspension of the jail superintendent was mala fide, intended to prevent compliance with the Supreme Court’s direction to file an affidavit.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.19, s. Art.21, s. Art.32

Subjects

suspensionmala fideincidental proceedingArticle 32habeas corpusprisoner rightsblinding of prisonersjail manualaffidavitgovernment orderchallenge of suspension

Judgment

. •• f

533 ·A
.. ANIL · YADAV. & _ORS.'

·.'_;--;:.I ·.·'
'· v.· l·. · ...
• . STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. B
'/ . •, ,,- .•..
. } ., .·.· , , March 23, 1982; ·-; ..
,
,"-;.·· ".-· .. V'.

[Y.V. CJIANDRACHUD, C.J., A.' vARADARAJAN AND
• ; j"
A!llARENDRA
-. NATH. .SEN, JI.]
_, .. _·.. c
. __ . · ConJt/tullon oflmlia 1950, Art.32-Habea• CorpuJ petltlon-&•pondmt a
go1ernment official directed tO file Oj/idarit..:...OffiClal' 1usp•nded by; government-
Susptn1/011 Order whether Can be challenged in /11cldental Proceedt,,Z8. · · · -

The second respondent who was the Superintendent or the BbagaJpur
Central Jail was suspended by the State Government on ·the groand that he was
negligent in providing~ propel- -medicai aid to the blinded undertrial prisoners D
inside the jail and that he bad failed to make entries in the jail register as reg~rds
the physical condition or the ui:tdeririat prisoners.': ~
I
In a Mlscellaneous Petition ·filed by him he claimed ·that bis order of
suspeOsion be quashed as it·was passed ma/a fide. with the object ol preventing
him from tiling the affidavit as directed by the cOurt. · ; ..

·The. State GovemiDent contestedthe petitiO~ cOntendi.iig that the respon-
dent was suspended for his ·failure to Comply with the requirements of Rule 474
(1) of the Bihar Jail Manual in that he - did iiot scrutinise and sign the entries
made in the Admission Register maintained at the jail to satisfy himself whether
those entries were correct and whether the relevant rules in regard to the admis-
sion of the prisoners were complied with.· He_ did_ not. aJso record any 'special" F
. ofdei under Rule 474 (2) regarding the medical treatmeiit given or to be given to
~-- the blinded prisoners with the reslllt that they were not sent for examination to
any eye specialist. He did ... not make 3. report on the blindings of the prisoners
and. he ~~pplied .to newsP_aper_s bis own version of the blindings•
., .
Dismissing the petitions;-,
' ,--. : ", G
HELD: .OrdinarilY 30: older ·or
sus~D.Sion cailliot be ~·hau~nied i~. I.a ·
inCideiltal proceeding but it ·was heaid Since the allegation was th3t the petitioD.Cr
was suspended in order 10 defeat the order passed _by this Court. [539 E] · · , ·:
< - ' ~

~ . . · .. 2. The Order of, suSpension. was -not._ passed: by the GoveiUment ·ma/a H
J;j~ as a
couuter·blast to
the order passed b)' this Coor! on December l, 1980
lliid 10 c!efc~t it. (540 FJ ·· ·
S34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( l 982J '3 S.C.R.

A. 3. The allegation that the motive behind the order was to frustrate the
purpose of the Court's direction calJing upon the petitioner to file an affidavit is
not proved. The evidence on record indicates that the State Government officials
were enquiring into the blindings of the under-trial prisoners and there is a report
in the- Government files recommending that the petitioner be suspended for dere-
liction of duty, It cannot be said that this report was prepa1ed later and ante-
dated to justify the order of suspension. [540 G-H; 541 A-BJ
8
4. By placing the petitioner under suspension the State Government
could not prevent him from filing an affidavit in Court. He was free to file bis
affidavit and in fact he filed an affidavit after suspension. [541 CJ

S. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order of suspension in
c a properly constituted proceedings on such grounds as may be open to him
including the ground that the order was passed ma/a fide. [541 Fl

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 8774
of 1980 & 2581of1981. ~-,

0 IN

Writ Petition No. 5352 of 1980.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)

E B.L. Das Petitioner-in-person.

K.G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent (State).

R.N. Poddar for the Res,Pondent (CBI).

F The Order of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, CJ. These Misc. Petitions are an off-shoot
of the blindings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State
of Bihar. Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite
of the veil of secrecy behind which the blindings of those prisoners
G lay concealed or suppressed, this Court and the country awoke one
day to the incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial 'prisoners
were subjected to the most inhuman torture imaginable : their eyes
were pierced with needles and acid poured into them. Whether
these barbarous acts were committed by members of the public after
H the prisoners were caught or by the police after they were arrested,
is not a matter directly in issue before us. The greater probability
i' th11t thes~ a~\s mat have been ~ommitted mostly by the poli~.
ANIL YADAV v. BIHAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 535

But this much is certain, that six prisoners were thus blinded between .A
October 1979 and May 1980 and twelve between lune 11 and
July 25, 1980. The petitioner Bacbcho Lal Das, who has filed the11e
Misc. Petitions, had assumed charge as the Superintendent of the
Bhagalpur Central Jail.on April 19, 1979.

On October 26, 1979 a prisoner by the name of Arjun
B
Goswami was sent to the Bhagalpur Central Jail. On November 20,
1979 he addressed an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhagalpur, asking that an inquiry be held into the torture infticted
upon him, especially the blinding of his eyes. That application
was forwarded by the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Later, eleven prisoners made similar complaints which were for-
C.
warded by the petitioner to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur,
on July ~O, 1980. The complaints made by these prisoners unques-
ionably demanded the most prompt and careful attention. But,
instead of directing a full and proper inquiry into the allegati-Ons
matle by the undertrial prisoners, the learned Sessions Judge, on
D
August 5, 1980, sent a cold and indifferent reply to the petitioner's
covering letter, saying that "there is no provision in the Cr. P.C.
to provide a lawyer to any person for prosecuting a criminal case as
a complaint" and that the petitions of the prisoners Were forwarded.
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhargalpur, "for needful in accnr-
dance with Jaw." E

On October 9, 1980, ten blinded prisoners filed a Habeas
Corpus petition in this Court (Criminal Writ Petition No. 5352 of
1980) asking that : (I) they should be produced in the Court, (2)
they should be examined by a Medical Board, (3) they should be
paid compensation for the damage done to their eyes and that (4)
.the police officers guilty of committing atrocities upon them should
be suitably punished. On October 10, 1980 a Bench 'of this Court
'
consisting of one of us, (the Chief Justice), and Justice A.D. Koshal
passed the following order in that petition :

"We direct that the petitioners shall be. examined. by
G·
the Jail Doctor forthwith and a report shall be submitted
to this Court expeditiously in regard to the allegation in
the petition that their eyes haye been damaged by certain
police officers by putting acid therein. The report shall
be submitted within four weeks from today. The W.P.
H
be listed for hearing after \he report is rec;eiv~4,"
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 3 s.c.R.
A By his·JettCli,dated October 31, 1980 the petitioner, who is respon·
dent 2 in the Habeas Corpus petition, forwarded to this Court the
report of the Jai.1 Doctor on the condition of the eyes of the
prisoners. The remaining 2 prisoners were already rele.ased and
could not therefore be examined. The report of the Jail Doctor in
B regard to one of the prisoners, Anil Yadav, is representative of the
conclhion of all the eight of them and may be extracted here :

"(!) Presence of old burn scar around both the eyelids
of both the eyes and on left cheek.

c (2) Collapse of both the eye balls.

(3) Perception of light and projection of rays abseat in
;, both the eyes.

(4) Eye sight of both the eyes lost.
D The cause is perforation of eye balls by burn with some
corrosive· substance and puncture by some sharp and
pointed weapon.

From the records of Jail Hospital it is known that he
was admitted in Jail Hospital on 8. 7.1980 for acid burn
E injury of both the eyes."

On December I, 1980, the Court (the Chief Justice and
Chinnappa Reddy, J.), while directing that the prisoners be brougltt
to Delhi the following week and be examined at the Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Opthalmic Institute, New Delhi, passed the following
order :

"The report of the doctor which we had called for by
our Order dated October 10, 1980 shows that eight out of
the ten petitioners before us have lost their eye-sight totally
or partially. The· report submitted by Dr. K.S. Roy in
each individualcase shows that :

(i) most of the petitioners are suffering from collapse of
one or both of the eye-balls ;

(ii) the sighi of one or both of their eres is lost ;
ANIL YADAV v. BIHAR (Chandrachud, c. J) 537

(iii) there is perforation of .their eye-balls by burn with A
a corrosive substance and that

(iv) their eyes have been punctured by some sharp and
pointed weapon.

The remaining two petitioners have been released B
and therefore no report could be sent regarding them.

The report of the doctor will shock the conscience of
mankind. There has been the most flagrant violation of
the safeguards provided by Articies 19 and 21 of the Cons-
titution. There is ndthing that the Court can do to c
restore the physical demage, which seems irreparable.
But the offenders must at all events be brought to book, at
least in the hope that such brutal atrocities will not be
committed again.

With that end in view, we direct the Superintendent D
of the Bhagalpur Central Jail to file an affidavit in this
Court within two weeks from to-day stating :

(a) the names of convicts and nndertrial prisoners in the
jail whose eyes have been damaged or impaired b~fore
or after their lodgement in Jail ; E
(b) the names of policemen, police officers and the
members of the.jail stJff who were in charge of those
prisoners at the relevant time ;

(c) the names of doctors who were in charge of the jail
·dispensary or hospital at the relevant time ; and

(d) the names of doctors who have examined, from time
to time, the petitioners and other prisoners whose eyes
have b.een damaged or impaired after their lodgement
in jail: G
We direct that the Registrar of the Supreme Court and
one other officer of ·the Court shall visit the Bhagalpur
Central Jail during this week and obtain first-hand the
version of the petiticiners and other prisoners similarly ff
situated as regards the impairment or blinding of their eyes.
The two. officers of the Court ~hall. be ~anted everr facilit¥
•,
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 S.C.R.,

A to meet the prisoners, to talk them beyond the hearing of
any jail officer or police officer and to record the state-
mepts of the prisoners. We direct the Jail Superintendent
4
to ensure due and full complince with these directions.

B Issue notice to the State of Bihar asking it to show
cause on the petition as also as to why the petitioners
should not be released on bail on their personal recogni-
zance."

Shri R. Narasimhan, Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Y. Lal, ·
c Assistant Registrar of this Court visited the Bhagalpur Central Jail
on December 3 and 4, 1980 and recorded the statements of 17
prisoners who were blindeg. These statements show ·that 15 out of
the 17 prisoners were blinded by the police and the remaining 2,
whose names appear at Serial Nos. 14 and 15 of the report of the
Registrar, were blinded by the members of the public. The method
D
adopted for blinding the undertrial prisoners, as described by the
prisoners themselves, was that a 'takwa' (a long· needle used for
stitching gunny bags) or a barber's nail-cqtter or a cycle spoke was
poked into tb&ir eyes and acid was poured into the eyes, sometimes
with the help of a dropper, sometimes with a syringe and some-
E times directly from a bottle. It is alleged that the prisoners were
held firmly on the ground by policemea who either pulled the ropes
tied to their feet or sat upon their feet.

The Registrar questioned the Petitioner, Bachcho Lal Das, in
Delhi. The petitioner stated to him that as many as 31 blinded
F prisoners were brought to the Jail under orders of remand issued by
the Magistrate and that they were given medical treatment by the ·;,.t
. . \.
Jail Doctor. According to the petitioner, he got a blinded prisoner
Umesh Yadav examined by the Jail Doctor, since the report of }..
the doct<•r was required by the learned District .and Sessions Judge, '
G Bhagalpur, in connection with a bail application filed by the pri-
soner. The petitioner disclosed to the Registrar that be bad made
inquiries from Umesh Yadav, who told him that V.K. Sharma,
D.S.P., had thrust a long needle in both of his eyes and had poured
acid into the eyes. The other blinded persons appear to have taken
H a cue from Umesh. Yadav and submitted similar petitions for being
forwarded to the District and ~essions Judge. The petitioner dis-
closed to the Registrar the names of the police officer3 ·who
ANIL YADAV V. BIHAR (Chandrachud, c. J.) 539

were involved by the prisonem as being responsible for their A
blindings. ·

It may be recalled that thi.s Court by its order dated December
I, 1980 had directed the petitioner, who was then the Superintendent
of the Bhagalpur Central Jail, to file an affidavit within two weeks B
on Points (a) to (d) mentioned in that order. On that very day, the
petitioner was suspended by the Government of Bihar on the grour,d
the he was negligent in providing proper medical aid to the blinded
nndertrial prisoners inside the Jail and that . he had failed to make
proper entries in the Jail Register as regards the physical condition
of the undertrial prisoners. On December 10, 1980 the petitioner
filed the main Misc. Petition in this Court in the Writ Petition
c
••
filed by the blinded prisoners. He prays that the order of' sus-
pension dated December I, 1980 l!e quashed, since at was passed by
the State of Bibar mala fide with the object of preventing him from
filing an affidavit in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court
on December I, 1980. D

We would not have entertained I\ petition of this nature in the
normal circumstances, because an order of suspension cannot be •
challenged in this manner in an incidental proceeding. We,

..
however, decided to hear the Misc. Petitions filed by the petitioner
for quashing the order of suspension, since he alleged which, at first E
blush, seemed plausible, that he was suspended in order to defeat the
order passed by this Court on December I, 1980.

.. The petitioner appeared in person before us and argued his
case at great length. We gave him all reasonable facilities to sub-
stantiate his contentions, which he did with the help of the
F
voluminous record prepared by him. Having considered the sub-
missions of the petitioner and .those of Shri K.G. Bhagat, who
appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar, we are of the opinion that
there is no merit in the complaint of the petitioner that he was
suspended on ·December l; 1980 in order to prevent him from G
complying with the order passed by this Court on that day and
with the ulterier object of defeating that order.

Shri Ambik. .iasad Poddar, Assistant Inspector General of
Prisons, Bihar, has filed an affidavit in this Court, settling out the H
circumstances in which and the reasons for which the petitioner was
suspended by the Government Qf :Qihar. The ca~e ma,ge 011t in tha,t
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 S.C.R.

A affidavit is that the petitioner failed to discharge his official func-
tions enjoined upon him by Rule 474 (I) of the Bihar Jail Manual,
in that he did not scrutinise and sign the entries made in the
Admission Register maintained. at the Central Jail, in order to satisfy
himself whether those entries were correct and whether the relevant
rules in regard to the admission of the prisoners were complied
B with. It is stated in the affidavit that contrary to Rule 474 (2), the
petitioner failed to record any 'special order' regarding the medical
treatment given or to be given to the . blinded prisoners, with the
result that they were not sent for examination to any eye specialist
either in the Jail or at the Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital.
Though the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, had given· his approval
c on October 21, 1980 to the proposal for sending the blinded
prisoners for specialised treatment at the Bhagalpur Medical College
Hospital, the petitioner;· it is alleged, neglected to discharge his duty •
and sent the prisoners f9r medical .treatment to the Hospital ten days
later on October 31, 1980. According to Shri Ambika Prasad,
Poddar, the petitioner omitted to make a report on the blindings
D of prisoners lodged in the Jail which was under his charge, he did
not hold a parade of the prisoners nor did he make the weekly
inspection of the Jail, and on the top of it all, he supplied to news-
• papermen his own one·sided •version of the blindings. The sus-
pension order, according to Shri Poddar, was passed on the basis
of the various rules and notifications governing the conditions of
E
the petitioner'sservice and was not passed in order to frustrate or

•
defeat the order passed by this Court on December 1, 1980,

On a careful consideration of the aforesaid affidavit and the
arguments advanced before us by the parties, we find it difficult to
F accept the petitioner's contention that the order of suspension was
passed by the Government of Bihar ma/a fide, that is· to say, as a
counterblast to the order passed by this Court on December I, 1980
and to defeat it. The question for inquiry in these Miscellaneous
Petitions is very narrow and limited. The question is not even
whether the order of suspension is ma/a fide in a broad and general
G sense, covering the entire gamut of extraneousness. The question
before us is whether the motive behind the order was to· frustrate
the purpose of our direction calling upon the ·petitioner to file an
affidavit, That charge is not substantiated and is difficult to accept.
It. appears that officers of the State Government91e enquiring into
H the blindings of the undertrial prisoners at least from November 27,
1980, There is a report <late<l Peceml;>er 1, 1980 in the Govermen~
I
Aidt YADA'v v. BillAR (Chandrachud, t.J.), 54!
A
files, which was produced before us by Shri K,G. Bhagat, by which
• Shri L.V. Singh, Deputy I.G.P. (Prisons), recommended that for
reasons of dereliction of duty the petitioner should be suspended.
We find it quite difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that the
report of Shri Singh was prepared later and was antedated in order
•
to justify the order of suspension. B

We are also unable to appreciate how the State Government
could prevent the petitioner from filing an affidavit as directed by
this Court, by placing him under suspension. The petitioner would

11,
be free to file his affidavit in spite of the order of suspension and in
fact he has filed an affidavit in this Court after he was suspended.
c
During the course of arguments before us, he produced photostat
copies of quite a few documents, which also show: that the order of
suspension is not calculated to interfere with the direction given by
this Court, asking the petitioner to file his affidavit. If we had found
that by reason of the order of suspension the petitioner was D
prevented from filing his affidavit, we would not have hesitated to
ask the Government of Bihar to supply copies of necessary docu-
ments to the petitioner in order to enable him to file a full and
complete affidavit in compliance with our order.

E
The Miscellaneous petitions have therefore to be dismissed. We
would, however, like to state that we are not called upon to consi-
der in tbe,se incidental proceedings, and we have in fact not con-

.. sidered, the question of the validity of the order of suspel.li!on dated
December I,1980. The petitioner will be at liberty to cb!lenge that
order, if so advised, in a properly constituted proceedings, on such
grounds as may be open to him including the ground that the order '
was passed ma/a fide. We have only dealt with the narrow question
as to whether the order of suspension was passed with the object of
preventing the petitioner from filing an affidavit in this Court and on
that question we have rejected the petitioner's contention that the
order of suspension was passed for that purpose. We have not G
inquired into the question whether the order of suspension is vitiated
by ma/a fa/es for any other reason,

It ls desirable and but proper that the State Government ought
not to visit the petitioner with any penalty or punishment for app- H
542 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS (1982) 3 S.C.R.

A roaching this Court or for having attempted to lay before this Court,
what according to the petitioner, was the truth of the matter in
regard to the bizarre blindil)gs of the under trial prisoners.

Order accordingly.
B
N.V.K. Petitions dismissed.

- ----

• -