Practise Of Deploying Uniformed Personnel Outside Police, Prison Authorities' Homes Not Done Away With: Madras HC Directs State To Enquire

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman emphasized that police authorities and prison authorities were public servants who were paid decent salary from tax payer's money and they were expected to effectively perform their public duty. The bench added that the Government should take stringent action to ensure that public servants were utilized only for the welfare of the public and not to perform household works in the residence of officers. It said,

“Even after several instructions and/or orders from this Court, the practice of deploying the uniformed personnel in the residences of higher police authorities and prison authorities are not completely washed away. Therefore, stringent actions are required to be taken by the Government so as to ensure that the public servants are utilised only for the welfare of the public and not to perform household works in the residences of the authorities,” the court said.

The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition ad Excise Department to conduct an inquiry with the assistance of CBCID and the intelligence wing and initiate appropriate actions against the prison authorities who were engaging uniformed personnel for their residential works.

“In view of the above situation, we direct the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, the first respondent to conduct an eloborate enquiry either with the assistance of CBCID police or by getting necessary inputs from the Intelligence Wing and initiate all appropriate actions against the prison authorities, who have engaged the uniformed personnel/public servants for their residential works or personal works, in all the prisons across the State. On such identification, suitable orders are to be passed by the first respondent withdrawing all those uniformed personnel and deploy them for prison duties as per the prison rules and the Government Orders in force,” the court added.

The court was hearing a petition bringing to light the inadequate facilities in the prisons across the State. The petitioner informed the court that though as per norms 20 prisoners were to be lodged in a cell, at present around 60 prisoners were being lodged in a cell which increased risk of infection amongst prisoners among other issues.

The petitioner also informed the court that as per the Model Prison Manuals, there should be one guard for every 6 prisoners but in Puzhal Prison, 15 warders were available per shift as opposed to the allotted 60 warders per shift. The petitioner argued that the long working hours of the prisoner warders often led to frustration which in turn led to frequent rifts between the warders and the inmates. The court was also informed that the remaining sanctioned guards were often deployed to work at the residence of the prison authorities including DGP, IG, DIG, SP, Addl SP and three Jailors.

The court noted that while it had called to ensure abolishment of orderly system in 2022, and the Additional Chief Secretary had issued instructions to the Director General of Police, such similar instructions needed to be issued to the Director General of Prisons also to ensure that the orderly system being followed by the prison authorities was abolished forthwith.

"Deployment of uniformed personnel in the residences of the prison authorities are resulting in dereliction of duty and/or lapses in prison administration...Large number of Warders are deployed to perform household works in the residences of the jail authorities. The colonial practice of abuse of public servants at no circumstances be tolerated by the Constitutional Courts," it underscored. 

The court added that the authorities, being public servants were expected to serve the public and not engage in the unconstitutional practice of an orderly system. The court remarked that by committing such unconstitutional acts, they were committing an offence against the public for which they were liable to be prosecuted under the service laws and rules.

The court thus asked the Additional Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry and take suitable actions within 3 weeks.

Case Title: Sujatha v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Radha Krishnan For Mr.P.Pugalenthi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

Case No: W.P.No.31526 of 2024