MADHO LIMAYE A v.

THt: SUPERINTENDENT, TIHAR JAIL, DELHI & ORS.

February 19, 1975

[K. K. MATHEW. v. K. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]

Consti1111io11 A rtide 32-Hah!'ll.1 Corpu.1-Punjab Jail Manual-Racial discrimi11atirl11 berween Indian and E11ro.nea11 p:isoners-Whet!ier quetion raised B cnn he drrennined if detenu released.

The petitioner filed the present Habeas Cot pus. etition challengig hi.s detention.

The petitioner also challenged the prov1S1ons of the p, niab Jail Manual which creates artificial discrimination between Indian and European pri)OlhTS in the matter of treatment and diet.

The resnondent contended that since the oetitioner has been released the petition ha;; become infructuous.

The petitioner cited various authorities of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court of Un;•ed States that where issues of great moment affecting liberty of the citizen are involved the decision should not be avoided even though the immediate prohibition which led to the filing of the writ pe, ition has for the time being disappeared.

HELD : The Court would not decide ihe issue fer two reasons.

Firstly, the petitioner is no longer in prison and, secondly, the Learned. Solicitor General assured the Court that he would draw attention of the Punjab Government to the need for revision of the imougned rules from the point of view of racial equality. The court hoped that the State Government would take up the reform of the law, eluminate the vice of inequality and update the regulations to be in keeping with the spirit and letter of the paramount Jaw.

[5830-E]

Petition dismi.ssed.

ORIGINAL JIJRISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 318 of 1970.

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Santok Singh, for the Petitioner.

L. N. Sinha and R. N. Sachthey, for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

KRISHNA IYER, J.-Shri Madhu Limaya, M.P. moved this petition F while he was prisoner, imbued more by the pro bona publico spirit than perhaps by his own invidious lot in jail. The gravamen of this - public grievance in that a Jong silver jubilee span of years having elap-- sed after India became a 'Sovereirrn Democratic Re;111h1ic. it is obnoxious that racial discrimination, smacking of colonial hangover, should stubbornly resist arts. 14 & 15 of the Constitution and survive in the Punjab .fail Manual. Tf it were so, it were a matter to G blush f~. but the preliminary objection raised bv the Snlicitor General is thc1t the petitioner having been freed from prison years ago, this Court should not be invited into an academic exercise on a constitutional issue. Of course, he concedes that the C-ourt is not deprived of jurisdiction by the cessation of incarceration. An inflexible rule that as soon as a custodial term or prohibitory order expires the Court will not investifl'ate its legality may well immmli:cc ephemc- H rat illcg1lity against judicial review on unwitting infraction of the amplitude of the Court's powers. But there are cases and cases.

MADHU-LIMAYE v. SUPDT. T!HAR JAIL (Krishna Iyer, ].) 583

Mr. Santok Singh, for the petitioner, has brought to our notice decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of the United States to press home his point that issues of such great moment afiecting the liberty of the citizens should not be avoided even though the immediate proh101t1on which has led to the writ pet1t10n nas, tor Ilic time being, disappeared (See Carroll v. Commissioners of Princess Anne( 1) and Umted States v. Phosphate t:xpurr Assa("); also Maanu Limaye v. Ved Mi.rti(8) and Himat Lal K. Such v. Comm1. of Police, Ahmedabad(4).

The thrust of the charge of unconstitutionality made by Sri Madhu Limaye consists in the artificial discr:mination between Indian and European prisoners in the matter of treatment and diet, gomg by t11c rules he has set out in his petition. Jt is true that many laws which do not square with the equality enshrined in Arts. l 4 and 15 die l1ard until pronounced dead by the Court Prima f acie the rules quoted are neither fair on their face nor equal in their bosom, as between Indians and Europeans. This white-complex has no right to remain extent in the rules, according to counsel for the petitioner. We have drawn the attention of the Solicitor General to what appears to be an obsolete but overlooked discrimination. We arc not incli, ned to examine this matter more indsively for two reasons. The petitioner is no .longer in prison. Even so may-be the matter can be competently scrutinised from the constitutional angle by this Court. But the learned Solicitor General assures us that he will draw the attention of the Punjab Gm'ernment to the need for rvision of the impugned rules from the point of view of racial equality. In the light of this submission we hope the State Government will tac up the reform of the law, lop off dead wood, eliminate the vice of inequality and update the regulations to be in keeping with the >.pirit and letter of the paramount law.

In view of this attitude of the Solicitor General, counsel for the petitioner himself expressed th<1t he was not kc:cn on going on with the case. We hope that the above observations would be sufficient for the high purpose the petitioner has in view. ' We accordingly dismiss the petition.

P.H.P.

Petition dismissed

(I) 21 L. Ed. 2d. 325.

(3) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2481. 6-470SupCI/75.

(2) 21. L Ed. 2nd. 344 ..

(4) [1973] I S.C.C. 227, 232