Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) The moral of this case is poignant. So long as an iron curtain divides the law set by the Constitution and lit by the Supreme Court from the minions of the State, so long shall this Court's writ remain a mystic myth and harmless half-truth making law in the books and law-in-action distant neighbours. This shall not be.
(2.) The sombre scenario unfurled by this habeas corpus proceeding begins with a telegram (dated 3-10-1980) on behalf of the prisoners-the petitioners-to one of us, complaining, manu brevi, of insufferable, illegal solitary confinement punctuated by periods of iron fetters, a lot shared by two others with him in Jaipur Central Jail. This trauma-laden message read: "Convict Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev Pareek Surjeet Singh Central Jail Jaipur confined in cells with fetters illegally unconstitutionally more than eight months habeas corpus writ prayed order enquiry, and save Daulat Singh" This grievance of the prisoners in 'twisted gyves triggered off judicial. action with telegraphic speed, as it were, and the Bench directed that the prisoners be forthwith liberated from solitary confinement and freed from fetters in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra's case (supra). That order dated October 6, 1980 reads: "We appoint Shri P. H. Parekh as amicus curiae. If the petitioner is in solitary confinement, he will be released from solitary confinement forthwith in the light of the decision of this Court in Sunil Batra's case. The Superintendent of the Central Jail concerned will report to this Court on 21st October, 1980 the number of cases with particulars of persons. in solitary confinement in that prison. He will appear in person on that date. Notice to Shri B. D. Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan." Counsel's services, under our litigative, process are a necessary facility for remedial justice and so we took this step of appointing Shri P. H. Parekh as amicus curiae. The whole bar, if it has a larger dedication, is amicus curiae, because no cause should be dearer to a people-oriented, justice-centred profession, despite its esoteric genes, elitist strands and lucrative slant, than to be a decisive actor in the democracy of judicial remedies so that no man- be he poor man or prisoner, dissenter, delinquent, eccentric or extremist - shall suffer what the law forbids. In this court, the members of the bar, whenever called up by the bench have kept the door ajar and unfailingly helped the Court as free janitors of justice and free forensic functionaries at the service of any one aggrieved by injustice and seeking legal justice. After all, the great proposition that inspires the calling of justicing - by the Bench and the Bar alike - is best expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr) in his letter from Alabama Prison. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.
(3.) We must, even here, record our appreciation of Shri Parekh's the prisoners' cause coupled with painstaking presentation of the grievances they had. So too Shri B. D. Sharma's commitment to jail justice, beyond jailor's injustice i. e. his clients brief. In retrospect, we feel it was right that we took action to liberate the three prisoners their callously lonely barbarously fettered solitary custody. Justice must be instant and it has been wisely said: "Caution, caution, sir! It is nothing but the word of cowardicel John Brown:quoted by Bruce Catton, Life, Sept. 12, 1955. Where human bondage and personal torture are involved, to wait is to defeat. In personal liberty jurisprudence, this court has not tarried or teetered and shall not. The reason is clear. The writ must right the wrong forthwith or must stand self-condemned as make-believe. Where justice is in jeopardy or freedom is in fetters the court is not non-aligned and acts with sensitive speed. Time is of the essence where otherwise torture is the consequence.;