Suspension of the Superintendent during the Bhagalpur Blindings case

Shaunak Choudhury | SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 14^th May 2020

Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1982 (1982) 2 SCC 195; 1982 SCC (L&S) 194

Facts

This judgement is an off shoot of the Bhagalpur Blindings case. An Habeas Corpus writ petition was sent by ten prisoners (Anil Yadav being one of them) in the Bhagalpur Central Jail, Bihar, on 9^th October 1980, in light of them being allegedly blinded by policemen and the public. In the petition they demanded, 1) they should be produced in the Court, 2) they should be examined by a Medical Board, 3) they should be paid compensation for the damage done to their eyes and that 4) the police officers guilty of committing atrocities upon them should be suitably punished. The Supreme Court ordered for the Jail Doctor examine the patients and then ordered that the petitioners be moved to Delhi so that they can be examined by a doctor at the Dr. Rajendra Prasad ophthalmic institute, New Delhi. Both the Jail Doctor and the doctor at the Delhi institute gave harrowing details of the condition of the prisoners.

The Supreme Court, on 1^st December, ordered the Superintendent of the Bhagalpur Central Jail, Bachcho Lal Das (the Petitioner), to file an affidavit containing information regarding the blindings. The State of Bihar (the Respondent) suspended the Petitioner on the same day as he was ordered by the court to file the affidavit. Thus, a miscellaneous petition was filed by the Petitioner claiming that his suspension was passed mala fide with the motive to defeat the purpose of the Supreme Court’s order.

Issues

1. Whether the Bihar Government suspended the Petitioner so that he is unable to file the affidavit.
2. Whether the Petitioner can file an affidavit during his term of suspension. 

Judgement

1. The Court only judged upon whether the State suspended the Petitioner on the grounds of trying to defeat its order, it did not dive into the question about whether the State suspended the Petitioner with any mala fide intent. The Respondent argued that it had suspended the Petitioner because he had not followed Rule 474 (1) of the Bihar Jail Manual, that required him to scrutinise and sign the entries in the Admission Register. He had also failed to adhere to Rule 474 (2) of the Bihar Jail Manual that required him to record a ‘special order’ for medical treatment of prisoners in the Bhagalpur Central Jail. His ignorance of Rule 474 (2) lead to the blinded prisoners not receiving any medical treatment in the jail. The Respondent established that it did not wish to go against the will of the Court through the suspension of the Petitioner. The Supreme Court opined that it was difficult to believe that the Respondent had acted towards preventing the petitioner from filing the affidavit as sufficient evidence had been presented to prove that the order of suspension had a valid reason behind it. 
2. There was nothing preventing the Petitioner from filing the affidavit as he had previously, during his suspension, produced photostat copies of several documents which clearly showed that the suspension order did not interfere with the proceedings of the court. Thus, the Petitioner, even after being suspended could have filed the affidavit ordered for by the Supreme Court. 

All things considered the Court had only judged upon whether the Respondent had the intent of preventing the Petitioner from filing the affidavit, not upon the order of suspension being impaired by mala fide intent or any other reason. So, the Petitioner may pursue that question in another case. The court also requested the Respondent to not penalise or punish the Petitioner for approaching the Court with what he believed to be the truth of the matter behind the blindings.