CWP No. 16020 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16020 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.3.2011 Navkiran Singh ...petitioner Versus Union of India and ors ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: - Mr. Navkiran Singh, petitioner in person Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana Ms. D. S. Brar, DAG, Punjab Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for UOI HEMANT GUPTA, J. Petitioner states that from the affidavits filed on behalf of Chandigarh Administration and State of Haryana, it is evident that the directions have been issued to comply with the mandate in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and others AIR 1978 SC 1675(1) and reiterated in Triveniben vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1989 SC 1335. It is stated that the State of Punjab is not categorical about the compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid cases in respect of the prisoners who have been awarded capital punishment. 1 CWP No. 16020 of 2006 Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra’s case (supra) observed as under: - “221. If Section 30(2) does not empower the jail authority to keep a condemned prisoner in solitary confinement, the expression ‘such prisoner shall be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners’ will have to be given some rational meaning to effectuate the purpose behind the provision so as not to attract the vice of solitary confinement.” The present writ petition is thus disposed of with the directions to the States of Punjab and Haryana and Chandigarh Administration to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Batra’s case (Supra) and reiterated in Triveniben case (Supra). Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE 1.3.2011 preeti 2