Judgment :- All these writ petitions, which are more or less similar though by different individuals, and which are for the same reliefs, were heard together, and are being disposed of together 2. One Valambal has filed W.P. No. 4623 of 1979 on behalf of seven persons : Kaliaperumal, Valluvan, Nambiar, Masilamanani, Ananthanayaki, Rajamanickam, and Arumugham, who are all life convicts. W.P. 766 of 1980 is by one Kandaswami, who is a life convict. W.P. 767 of 1980 is by one Gopal, a life convict, W.P. 768 of 1980 is by one Panchalingam, a life convict, W.P. 769 of 1980 is by Valluvan the life convict covered by W.P. 4623 of 1979 filed by Valambal, as aforesaid, W.P. 770 of 1980 is by one Krishnaveni, a life convict. W.P. 771 of 1980 is by one Kumarakuppan who has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. W.P. 772 of 1980 is by one Thiagarajan, a life convict. W.P. 773 of 1980 is by one Tamilarasan who has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and also for 30 months' rigorous imprisonment. They had been convicted of offences under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced therefor and are serving the sentences in one or other of the Central Jails at Madras, Vellore, Salem and Coimbatore. The petitioners in W.Ps. 766 to 773 of 1980 have preferred their petitions from jail through the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Coimbatore. Where they are serving the sentence. For purpose of convenience, these convicts would be referred to in this judgment as the 'petitioners' 3. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions are :- A. That the three purported Government Orders (which will be noticed in the succeeding paragraphs) with regard to lock-up and the Q Branch Police, interference and making for a list of the petitioners convicts' close relative and bona fide legal advisers to struck down as null and voidB. That an end be put to the day and night solitary confinement of the petitioners and the status quo ante be restored in the matter so that the petitioners are not locked up in their cells during day time; C. (a) That the Q Branch police or any other branch of the police be restrained from interfering in any way at any time in any affair connected with the petitioners' jail life (b) That the Q branch or any other branch of the police be not allowed to censor the mail of, and monitor in interviews with, the petitioners; D. (a) That the petitioners be allowed to meet their relatives, friends and legal advisors without any discrimination (b) That the jail authorities be restrained from asking the petitioners for a list of their close relatives and bona fide legal advisers for verification and approval by the Q branch police in order to confine the interview with the petitioners to those approved by the Q branch police; (c) That the petitioners' named relatives who were refused permission to meet the petitioners, be paid due compensation for being put to unnecessary loss of time and money; E. And the respondents be restrained from maltreating and discriminating against the petitioners in the abovesaid manners 4. By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 1009 of 1979, dated 20-12-1979 (Sunil Batra v. Delhi AdministrationMohan J. before whom these petitions were posted regarding maintainability as habeas corpus petitions, after observing that if redress could be afforded to the petitioners there should be no difficulty in entertaining petitions filed by them, as petitions for the issue of writs of habeas corpus, directed the office to number the petitions as petitions for the issue of writs of habeas corpus. Accordingly the above petitions have come up before us 5. Mr. K. V. Sankaran, learned counsel, appears for the petitioners in W.P. 4623 of 1979 and 766, 767, 770 and 771 of 1980. Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai learned counsel, appears for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 768, 769, 772 and 773 of 1980 6. The respondents in these petitions are the Superintendents of Central Jail at Madras, Coimbatore, Salem and Vellore; the Inspector General of Prisons of Tamil Nadu, the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police Tamil Nadu 7. 768, 769, 772 and 773 of 1980 6. The respondents in these petitions are the Superintendents of Central Jail at Madras, Coimbatore, Salem and Vellore; the Inspector General of Prisons of Tamil Nadu, the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police Tamil Nadu 7. The representation and the allegations contained in the petitions filed on behalf of all the petitioners inter alia are to the effect that the petitioners are kept in solitary confinement all the day and night except for an hour a day, that the jail authorities have informed them that this is done in accordance with a Government Order, that in respect of correspondence and mail, in respect of interview and in respect of getting legal advice the jail authorities insist upon the petitioners to give the particulars before hand for the purpose of getting them passed through the Q branch police and that the Q branch police are illegally interfering with the administration in the jails in relation to the petitioners herein 8. The petitioners further contend that jail authorities cited three Government Orders without giving copies of the same to them and state that the three orders deal with lockup, the Q branch police interference in interviews, letters and transfers, and with obtaining list of close relatives and bona fide legal advisers from the petitioners. These Government Orders, according to the petitioners, cannot be valid and have to be struck down as unconstitutional. It is further stated that the petitioners are ill-treated by branding them as 'nexalites'. Once a person is convicted for an offence by an established Court, the further classification as 'nexalite prisoner' is unknown to any canons of jurisprudence. If the petitioners are discriminated on the ground that they are nexalites, when especially there is no ban on any of such categories imposed by the Government established in a State, it will definitely be against the constitutional provisions and will amount to discrimination between the petitioners and the other prisoners who have been convicted for similar offences. According to the petitioners, the purported Government Orders do not at all cite any section of law in support of their legal validity. According to the petitioners, the purported Government Orders do not at all cite any section of law in support of their legal validity. The jail authorities on the strength of the said Government Orders meet out ill-treatment to the petitioners branding them as nexalites and also have informed the petitioners that they are acting on the strength of the three Government Orders. There cannot be any Government Orders categorising certain prisoners according to their political views, and if so, the said Government Orders have to be struck down as being discriminatory. The petitioners further submit that by effecting solitary confinement of the petitioners, the jail authorities are imposing a punishment over and above the punishment awarded by the Court of law. It is stated that the Jail Manual does not lay down day and night solitary confinement for an indefinite period. There is a definite allegation in the petitions that the purported Government Order with regard to the lock-up allows that petitioners only one hour a day out of the cell within the yard and that too singly. It has been further stated that the petitioners who are legally entitled to play games and have entertainments like cinemas, are denied these rights on the basis of the purported Government Orders. There is a specific allegation by the petitioners that they are lawfully entitled to be interviewed by their friends as well as their relations and that the authorities have no legal locus standi to ask the petitioners to give a list of close relatives and bona fide legal advisers for the purpose of having the same verified and approved by the Q branch police and confining the interviews to only those endorsed by the Q branch police. Such restrictions stated to be made on the basis of the Government Orders, according to the petitioners, are not only illegal but are unreasonable and inhuman. The petitioners further state that they have no objection to their letters being censored by the jail authorities and their interviews being conducted in the presence of, and monitored by, the jail authorities. It the Government finds these legal and usual methods to be inadequate. it can very well make better and more foolproof arrangements without infringing upon the legitimate rights of the petitioners. It the Government finds these legal and usual methods to be inadequate. it can very well make better and more foolproof arrangements without infringing upon the legitimate rights of the petitioners. But to allow the Q branch police or, for that matter, any other branch of the police, to look into the mail of, and monitor the interviews with the petitioners, is a clear infringement upon their legal rights. There is no provision in law for police people to scrutinise the letters of an monitor the interviews with a convict, just because he happens to belong to a particular political party. Finally the petitioners have condemned the interference by the Q branch police in every walk of life within the jail premises in relation to the petitioners including their interference with the jail authorities' rights in affording medical treatment to the petitioners. In short, the petitioners submit, though they are to be de jure in jail custody, they are de facto in Police custody, and this state of affairs really make a mockery of the independence of the Jail department from the police department 9. With the abovesaid allegations, the petitioners have come forward for the reliefs which we have mentioned in paragraphs supra 10. Mr. K. V. Sankaran, learned counsel, and Mr. With the abovesaid allegations, the petitioners have come forward for the reliefs which we have mentioned in paragraphs supra 10. Mr. K. V. Sankaran, learned counsel, and Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned counsel, have given to us an extract of the substance of the petitioners' prayers, which runs thus - (a) That the three purported Government orders with regard to lockup, Q branch police interference and asking for a list of the petitioners' close relatives and bona fide legal advisers be struckdown as null and void; (b) that an end be put to the day and night solitary confinement of the petitioners and the status quo ante be restored in this matter so that the petitioners are not locked-up in their cells during day time (c) That the legitimate rights of the petitioners to play games and have entertainments like cinema be restored; (d) That the legitimate rights of the petitioners to utilise in full the educational facilities available in jail be restored (e) That the Q branch police or any other branch of Police be restrained from interfering in any way at any time in any affairs connected with the petitioners' jail life (f) That the Q branch police or any other branch of the police be not allowed to censor the mail of, or monitor the interviews with, the petitioners; (g) That an end be put to the arbitrary jail transfers of the petitioners at police instance and they be kept in a jail nearer home, so that they can meet their family people often and arrange for their defence in the pending cases; (h) That the petitioners be allowed to meet their relatives, friends and legal advisers without any discriminations; (i) That the jail authorities be restrained from asking the petitioners for a list of their close relatives, bona fide legal advisers, for verification and approval by the Q branch police in order to confine the interviews with the petitioners to those approved by the Q branch police 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions submitted that they are confining their arguments only with reference to the above reliefs which they have stated before this Court 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions submitted that they are confining their arguments only with reference to the above reliefs which they have stated before this Court 12. The Inspector General of Prisons, who is the second respondents, has filed a counter-affidavit in W.P. 4623 of 1979 on behalf of all the respondents denying ill-treatment alleged to be meted out to the petitioners and has inter alia stated that the petitioners are nexalites, that nexalite prisoners are treated on par with other classes of prisoners except in the matter of confinement, interviews, transfers and the privilege of letters writing for which the Government have issued separate guidelines for adoption, and that though the petitioners have political affiliation they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for criminal offences of murder etc., committed by them. It has been further averred that the petitioners will not come under the definition of 'political prisoners' that the interviews were conducted in the presence of Officers of the Q branch police C.I.D. that the petitioners refused to furnish list of those persons who wanted to interview them and that was why the interviews sought for were refused. The counter-affidavit further states that the Government in G.O. No. 1067 Home dated 24-4-1979, have issued guidelines for conducting interviews to nexalites prisoners and that interviews of nexalite prisoners should be confined to close relations and bona fide legal advisers. It has also been stated that their interviews must be conducted in the presence of the Q branch CID officials. As regards the confinement of the petitioners, the second respondent has stated that they are kept in a separate block having single cell as per G.O. No. 825 Home dated 28-3-1971. This is done in order to prevent the nexalite prisoners from indoctrinating the other prisoners. As there is no separate prison for confining extremist prisoners in the State, they are at present being kept in separate block having single cells in the existing Central Prison and not in the condemned cells. It has been further stated that legitimate requirements are being provided to these respondents. They are taken out in the morning for ablutions, morning meals, etc., and, in the noon, for mid-day meal, and, in the evenings, for evening meals. Further, as per G.O. Ms. It has been further stated that legitimate requirements are being provided to these respondents. They are taken out in the morning for ablutions, morning meals, etc., and, in the noon, for mid-day meal, and, in the evenings, for evening meals. Further, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1503 Home dated 18-6-1979, they are allowed to come out to their cells during daytime for strolling and doing exercise for one hour daily within their enclosures. Regarding threat of hunger-strikes, it has been submitted that all reasonable requirement have already been provided even originally and the strikes were uncalled for. Convict No. 5150 Vathiar alias Kaliaperumal (concerned in W.P. 4623 of 1979) now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, attempted to escape from the Central Prison Tiruchirapalli, on the night of 20/21-4-1979 along with four other nexalite and hence a case was registered against him and he was sent to court on several occasions in connection with the case. Their is no information or complaint about the hand cuffing of the nexalite prisoners in the convict wards attached to the Government Head quarters hospitals, as escort is being provided by the police department. As regards interviews, the second respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the jail authorities strictly follow the instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1067 Home dated 24-4-1979 and G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 3-1-1980. Restricted interviews and monitoring of the same are done by the Q branch police officials in the interest of security. As regards the specific allegations regarding convict Kaliaperumal, the second respondent has stated that no compound wall has been erected in the cell to prevent him from seeing any body passing by the block in which the nexalites are confined in Central Prison, Vellore, is adjacent to the kitchen and opposite to the firewood godown. Hence it is not true to say that they cannot see any body, as prisoners will be working in the firewood godown and going to tower and kitchen often. It is not true that food is supplied in mud pots used for cleaning latrines and sometimes phenyle is also added to the 'sambar', as alleged in the petition. The second respondent has reiterated that the prisoners involved in these petitions, though nexalites, are treated on par with other convict prisoners except in the matter of confinement, interviews, transfers and the privilege of writing letter to their relations. The second respondent has reiterated that the prisoners involved in these petitions, though nexalites, are treated on par with other convict prisoners except in the matter of confinement, interviews, transfers and the privilege of writing letter to their relations. Restriction on these matters is being made in obedience to the separate guidelines issued by the Government. It has been submitted by the second respondent that nexalites are supplied with newspapers and magazines at Government cost as the case of other convicted prisoners. The second respondent has admitted that the view of the serious nature of offence in which the nexalite prisoners are involved and their adherence to the policy of violence, mis-behaviour and indiscipline and annihilation of class enemies, the incoming and outgoing letters of the nexalite prisoners are censored by an officer from the District Social Branch City in co-ordination with C.I.D. branch/special branch at the prison premises itself to facilitate speedy censorship before they are sent to the addresses. As regards medical treatment accorded to the prisoners, the second respondent has definitely stated that proper treatment is being given to all the prisoners and wherever necessary they are referred to the headquarters hospital. The same treatment was also done for convict Nambiar. As regards entertainment, the second respondent has stated that a radio set has been installed in all the prisons in such a manner that programmes can be heard by all the prisoners confined. Film shows are conduced in the prisons at regular intervals. However, film shows for nexalite prisoners are governed by the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 92 Home dated 21-1-1976, as modified in Government Memo No. 27336/Pr. III/76. The second respondent has further stated that according to instructions, nexalite prisoners may be permitted as far as possible to witness film shows from their cells and in other cases where such facilities are not available, they may be brought to the vicinity where film show is conducted and kept at a distance having no contact with other prisoners and under special guard subject to the condition that the Superintendents of Prisons may use their discretion according to the facilities and security arrangements available in the respective prisons. It has been further averred that from the security point of view these prisoners are kept at different places irrespective of their relations and that nexalite prisoners are treated on par with other prisoners and clothing, bedding, reading facilities and diet are given as per the rules in force as in the case of other convict prisoners. The second respondent has further stated that these petitioners are allowed for strolling and doing exercises with proper securityguard, that they are provided with flush out latrines, that they are provided with good food, that except that they are exclusively kept not allowing them to mingle with the other prisoners, they are treated well strictly in accordance with the rules contained in the Tamil Nadu Prison and Reformatory Manual, Volume II, and that they are all treated as B class prisoners and that such treatment is given uniformly in all the prisons where nexalite prisoners are confined. Finally, the second respondent has stated that there is absolutely no harassment or illtreatment of any kind and that as such the writ petitions have to be dismissed with costs 13. For this counter affidavit, the petitioners have filed a common reply affidavit,