- (1.) The lament of the petitioner, Gopalanachari, a septuagenarian languishing in a Kerala prison, is that in his case the law has become lawless and justice has fallen as the first casualty, a lot shared by several other prison-mates. He wrote a letter dated nil to one of us (Krishna Iyer, J.) complaining of illegal detention under S. 110, Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) whereupon the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked and the following order was made : Shri M. M. Abdul Kader, Senior Advocate with Mr. E. M. Sadrul Enam, Advocate-on-Record will be appointed as amicus, curiae, for the petitioner. Issue show cause notice to the respondent State with a direction that the State shall furnish the total number of .prisoners in the Sub-Jail Kottayam, who are now kept in custody under S. 110, Cr. P. C. and give further particulars as to how long they have been in prison on this score and whether the hearing of the cases under S. 110, Cr. P. C. is over. The Superintendent of the Jail will further furnish the number of prisoners in prison who are above seventy years old and below 25 years. Copy of the notice will be served on advocate amicus curiae as well as on Shri V. J. Francis, Advocate for the State. Order will also be issued to the Superintendent of the Jail apart from the State. Post the matter on 2nd April, 1980.
(2.) Even here we may state that Shri M. M. Abdul Kader, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri E. M. Sadrul Enam, Advocate-on-Record, has rendered help as amicus curiae and enabled the court to set human rights in perspective in a S. 110 situation. Shri Tarkunde also, as intervener, has helped the court which, incidentally, strengthens the current of participative justice since leading members of the bar and public organisations in the field taking part in the court process in the shape of assistance in the cause of justice lends reality to the democracy of judicial remedies.
(3.) The State, in response to the notice, put in a statement that in the Sub-Jail at Kottayam there are as many as six prisoners detained under S. 110 of the Code. Apparently, they have been suffering incarceration for several months, the petitioner himself having been in jail from 23-2-1980. It is added by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, that the petitioner "is well known habitual prisoner of the Kerala State ............ he is known as 'Kallan Gopalan' " i. e., thief Gopalan. In pathetic contrast to this stigmatising generalisation that the petitioner is a wellknown 'habitual' we find the averment in the petition of the detainee that he has been falsely implicated without any regard for human rights. His averments which have not been specifically contested may well be extracted : The case charged against me by the Kottayam Arpukkara Police in the Ettumanur Court is on night patrol, found hiding in the varanda of a shop, on asking the name and address; answered the name as Shankunni of Pala; on again questioning answered as Krishnan Kutty of Pankunnari and again on questioning, arrested on doubt as a "K.D." on the Pathanam Thitta Police Station and on enquiry it is found that the person is an ex-criminal and not to be let free; and for that, to obtain bail for two years, this is the charge against the person, submitted by the Police before the court. I am 71 years old. My native place is Pathanamthitta of Kottayam District. While I was living in my house having loss of eyesight and hearing power due to old age, a Police man known to me earlier, saw me on a road near my house, saying that he has to enquire something, taken me in a van to Arpukkara Police Station, after putting me in the lock-up for ten days produced me before the Court after making the record as having arrested me on the previous night of producing me before the Court. But, it is such a position that if the bail along with the bond as aforesaid is not furnished for a period of two years, I have to be inside the jail for the said period. I submit before your Honour that I have much pain and agony that without considering that I am 71 years old and have difficulties due to that, and without seeing or giving remedy keeping me in the jail on such a fabricated case. There is no indication even in the statement put in by the Superintendent that there has been any conviction by a criminal court as yet. The cases are pending, apparently without any sense of urgency and oblivious to the fact that for several months the petitioner has been deprived of his personal liberty even at the advanced age of 70.;