Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 8
More than a decade has lapsed since the Punjab and Haryana High Court called for “futuristic concepts of ensuring security” after taking suo motu cognisance of escape by eight prisoners from a jail in Haryana.
Apparently, it seems that no steps are likely to be taken by the state in the future as well. Security measures in prisons of Punjab are urgently required to be taken by the state government. — HC Bench
Yet, the state of Punjab has failed to place before the Bench concrete solution regarding the installation of jammers and adoption of other safety steps in the jails. It has now compelled a Division Bench of the High Court to say apparently steps are unlikely to be initiated by the state in the future as well.
Admonishing the state, the Bench asserted that security measures in the prisons were urgently required to be taken by the government. As the “court on its own motion” or suo motu case against the state of Punjab and other respondents came up for resumed hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli asserted that the petition had been pending since 2011.
The Bench also took note of submission by an Assistant Advocate-General for the state of Punjab that a decision had been taken for requesting BSNL to install jammers in 13 prisons, subject to the proposal being allowed by the Union of India and “the functionality of the project being assessed by the state of Punjab as well as availability of budget”.
The Bench added: “Apparently, it seems that no steps are likely to be taken by the state in the future as well. Security measures in prisons of Punjab are urgently required to be taken by the state government. It is in the given circumstances that the state is required to take urgent measures to procure and install jammers in prisons.”
The Bench also granted two weeks to the state to seek instructions and to place on record time-specific plan for implementing the necessary security measures. The case will now come up for further hearing on September 5. The Union of India was represented by Arun Gosain.
Taking cognisance of the jailbreak, Justice Mahesh Grover — the then Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court — had made it clear that the Bench was in favour of “futuristic concepts” of keeping the inmates behind bars, including laser locking and e-surveillance.
Justice Grover had added: “In my opinion, the matter deserves to be taken up on the judicial side so as to prompt the state to take effective measures such as e-surveillance, laser locking and other such futuristic concepts of ensuring security rather than falling back on the age-old method of raising more walls and recruiting more manpower.”
State prisons need urgent security measures, says HC
{$excerpt:n}
