- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Khatri And Others (I) v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Seventeen undertrial prisoners lodged in Bhagalpur Central Jail filed two writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India, alleging that the police had deprived them of their eyesight while they were in police custody after arrest in various criminal cases. The petitioners remained in jail as their trials were pending. A previous order dated 1 December 1980 in Writ Petition No. 5352 of 1980 had already directed the Registrar of the Court and another officer to visit the jail and obtain first-hand information about the alleged blinding; that order was to cover the present petitioners as well.
During the present hearing, the Court considered interim reliefs, the need for further investigation, and the State of Bihar’s failure to appear despite service of notice in W.P. No. 5670 of 1980. Two blinded prisoners, Salig Ram Sah and Baljit Singh, were produced before the Court, prompting immediate medical and financial directions. The Court also adjourned the criminal trials of the petitioners until further orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the alleged blinding of undertrial prisoners by police in custody violates constitutional and human rights requiring judicial intervention.
- Whether the Supreme Court should order immediate medical treatment and financial assistance for the blinded prisoners at State expense.
- Whether additional investigation and documentary evidence should be gathered to ascertain responsibility for the alleged atrocities.
- Whether the State of Bihar complied with its obligation to provide legal representation to the petitioners at the time of their first production and subsequent remands, in light of the decision in Hussainara Khatoon (IV).
- Whether directions previously issued in Sunil Batra (II) have been implemented by the Bihar jail administration.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| W.P. No. 5352 of 1980, (1981) 1 SCC 622 | Earlier order directing a fact-finding visit by the Registrar and another officer to Bhagalpur Central Jail. | The Court relied on this existing order and decided not to appoint an additional investigating team, opting instead to await the Registrar’s report. |
| Hussainara Khatoon (IV), (1980) 1 SCC 98 | State’s duty to provide legal representation to undertrial prisoners when produced before the Magistrate and at remand stages. | The Court sought an explanation from the State of Bihar for any failure to provide such representation to the present petitioners. |
| Sunil Batra (II), (1980) 3 SCC 488 | Binding directions regarding jail administration and prisoners’ rights. | The Court reminded the State that these directions “represent the law of the land” and must be implemented by the Bihar jail authorities. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court condemned the alleged blinding as “barbaric” and contrary to constitutional safeguards, emphasising the gravity of human rights violations involved. Recognising that an official investigative visit was already ordered in an earlier related case, the Court chose to await that report rather than appoint a separate team.
Immediate relief was prioritised for affected prisoners. The Court:
- Directed that any blinded undertrial prisoner, including five individuals already released on bail, be transported without delay to the Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute at the State’s expense.
- Ordered the State of Bihar to pay each blinded prisoner Rs 500 for bringing a relative to Delhi and Rs 300 per month for maintenance during treatment.
- Required a medical report on the cause of blinding and prospects of restoring eyesight for Salig Ram Sah and Baljit Singh, who were produced in court.
The Court also sought detailed information from the State about arrest dates, remand history, duration of police custody, responsible police officers, and provision of legal aid, signalling potential accountability for procedural lapses. Additionally, the District Judge and Magistrates were asked to clarify whether they observed blinded prisoners during jail visits or court appearances.
Finally, the Court reinforced that directions issued in Sunil Batra (II) constitute binding law and required compliance by the Bihar jail administration.
Holding and Implications
Interim directions issued; final adjudication deferred pending further investigation and reports.
Key effects include compulsory medical treatment and financial assistance for all blinded prisoners, an adjournment of their criminal trials, and mandates to the State of Bihar to supply detailed custody records and ensure compliance with earlier Supreme Court directives on prisoners’ rights. The order is primarily remedial and investigative in nature and does not establish a new legal precedent beyond enforcing existing constitutional protections.
P.N Bhagwati, J.— These seventeen petitioners in the two writ petitions who are undertrial prisoners in the Central Jail, Bhagalpur complain that they have been deprived of their eyesight by the police while they were in police custody after their arrest in connection with certain criminal cases. These cases represent two more instances of the cruel and barbaric manner in which the administrators of law deal with persons arrested by them. The police are supposed to enforce the law and not to break it, but here it seems that they have behaved in a most lawless manner and defied not only the constitutional safeguards but also perpetrated what may aptly be described as a crime against the very essence of humanity. It is a barbaric act for which there is no parallel in civilized society and deserves the strongest condemnation from all sections of the community. It is difficult to believe how any person, much less an enforcer of law, can be so ruthless and inhuman as to deprive fellow human beings of their eyesight. It shows to what depths of depravity the administrators of law can sink in the State of Bihar. We are glad to know that public conscience has been aroused and action is being taken against the perpetrators who are responsible for this stark human tragedy. It is an act of barbarism which requires to be investigated thoroughly and we would have appointed a team of lawyers to go to Bhagalpur Central Jail and investigate the atrocities committed by the police on persons arrested and detained in police custody as also by the jail authorities on the undertrial prisoners so that a thorough probe could be conducted into these matters by lawyers who, by reason of their legal training and social commitment would be able to carry out a searching and effective investigation, but since an order has already been made by a Division Bench of this Court on December 1, 1980, in Writ Petition No. 5352 of 1980 See (1981) 1 SCC 622, directing the Registrar of this Court and one other officer to visit Bhagalpur Central Jail and obtain first-hand information from the petitioners in that case and other prisoners similarly situated which would include the present petitioners as well, as regards the impairment or blinding of their eyes, we do not think it necessary or expedient to appoint another investigating team. We would wait for the report of the Registrar and the other officer appointed to visit the Bhagalpur Central Jail.
2. We are informed that there are five undertrial prisoners who have already been released on bail and who may not therefore be able to get the benefit of this Court's order dated December 1, 1980. They are Kashi Mandal, Lakhan Lal Mandal, Umesh Yadav, Bhola Choudhary and Chamaklal Rai. Mrs Hingorani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that there may also be some other undertrial prisoners who have been treated in the same barbaric and inhuman manner and who have been released on bail. In order that these undertrial prisoners should also be able to obtain proper medical assistance, we direct that if they or any of them appear before the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and apply to him that they may be given the facility of being treated in the Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute which is attached to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, the State of Bihar will immediately, without any bureaucratic delay, take the necessary steps for bringing them to New Delhi so that they may receive prompt treatment at the Rajendra Prasad Institute at the cost of the State of Bihar.
3. The State of Bihar has been served with the notice of Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1980, but it has not appeared before us. We are unhappy to find that the State of Bihar has not chosen to appear and place the necessary facts before us which would assist us in deciding that writ petition. We hope and trust that at the next hearing of these writ petitions, the State of Bihar will appear and render necessary assistance to us.
4. We would like to know from the State of Bihar before the next hearing of the writ petitions, as to what are the dates on which the petitioners in these two writ petitions were arrested, when they were first produced before the Magistrate and what were the dates on which they were remanded from time to time. We would also like the State of Bihar to inform us as to how long these petitioners remained in police custody before they were brought to the jail and also, who were the police officers incharge at the time when they were in police custody. We would like to know from the State Government as to whether any legal representation was provided to these petitioners at the time when they were first produced before the Magistrate and when they were remanded from time to time and if they were not provided by the State with any legal representation, we would like to know the reasons why it was not so done despite the pronouncement of this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) case (1980) 1 SCC 98.
5. We would also like to be informed by the District Judge, Bhagalpur whether he visited the Bhagalpur Central Jail during the year 1980 and whether he saw any blinded prisoners at the time of his visits and if he saw them, whether he enquired of them as to how they were blinded and when. We should also like to be informed by the Magistrate before whom these petitioners were first produced after arrest as also at the time of remand from time to time, whether he saw these blinded petitioners with the scars on their eyes and enquired of them as to how they had been blinded. We are told that there are several directions given by this Court in Sunil Batra case (II) (1980) 3 SCC 488 which do not appear to have been carried out by the jail authorities in the State of Bihar. We would like to impress upon the State Government that these directions given by the Court represent the law of the land and they have to be carried out by the jail administration. We hope and trust that the needful will be done by the jail administration in the State of Bihar at a very early date so that we are not constrained to make any observations in future in regard to any defaults alleged to have been committed by the jail administration.
6. Subsequent to the dictation of the above order Mrs Hingorani has appeared before us at 2 p.m after the luncheon recess and she states that two of the persons who were blinded by the police namely, Salig Ram Sah and Baljit Singh, are present in Court. We are shocked to see the plight of these two unfortunate persons who have been the victims of the barbaric cruelty of the police. They are standing before us with their eyes corroded and destroyed and tissues around the eyes burnt and scarred. We direct that they should be immediately received at the Rajendra Prasad Opthalmic Institute and treated there at the cost of the State of Bihar. And a report may be submitted to us by the doctors who examine them as to what according to them is the cause of their blinding and whether it is possible to restore their eyesight.
7. The State of Bihar is directed to pay to each petitioner and to each of the other undertrial prisoners who have been blinded by the police, a sum of Rs 500 in order to enable him to bring his relation to New Delhi for the purpose of attending on him while he is under treatment at the Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute, and the State will also pay a sum of Rs 300 per month for the purpose of his maintenance as long as he is being treated at the Institute.
8. Mr Goburdhun has appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar at this stage and we therefore direct him to immediately send a telex to the Government of Bihar through their office in Delhi so that the Government of Bihar may forthwith instruct its official in Bihar Bhawan in Delhi to make payment of the aforesaid amounts in cash to Salig Ram Sah and Baljit Singh and those of the other blinded persons who come or are brought to Delhi for the purpose of treatment at the Institute, unless they have received such payment in Bihar pursuant to this order made by us.
9. We would also suggest that the Registrar of this Court who is going to Bhagalpur Central Jail for the purpose of investigation as directed by the order of this Court dated December 1, 1980 should inspect the entries in the jail records and other documents and papers maintained by the jail authorities in Bhagalpur Central Jail, relating to the petitioners and other blinded persons who were brought to the jail as also regarding their movements into and out of the jail and bring authenticated copies of such entries to be submitted along with their report.
10. The trials of the petitioners will in the meanwhile stand adjourned until further orders.
Alert