Judgment : T. Jayarama Chouta, J. .1. This petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed by one K.Sugirthakumar, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction; (a) directing the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner herein by name Sugirthakumar, son of Krishna Pillai, now confined in Central Prison, Madras, before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forth-with; (b) directing the respondents to pay a just and reasonable amount as compensation to the petitioner herein; (c) directi ng the Central Bureau of Investigation, the fourth respondent herein, to investigate the incident on 22. 1995 in Central Prison, Madras, when the petitioner and others were attacked and proceed against the offenders as per law; (d) directing the respondents to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner herein in any of the private Hospitals in Madras having the required facility at the cost of the State; and (e) Pass such further or other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and this render justice. 2. In support of the said petition, the petitioner — K.Sugirthakumar, has filed an affidavit, wherein he has stated that he is a Sri Lanka Tamil. Following the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka in 1983, he entered India in 1986 and got married in 1989 in Madras. On 2. 1991, he was arrested along with some others on charges under the National Security Act, 1980 at his residenter in Adyar, Madras. Since then, he continued to be detained in the Central Prison, Madras and the matter is pending for disposal before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. So far, the prosecution has not filed the chargesheet in the said case. 3. He has further stated that he was under detention under the National Security Act, 1980. He was also implicated in Cr.No.350 of 1991 on the file of the M.1, Harbour Police Station, North Madras, in what is known as ‘TONGNOVA CASE’, in which, he was arrayed as twelfth accused and that matter is pending before the Designated Court No.II, Madras. On 22. 1995 at about 11.00 P.M., the staff of the third respondent entered the jail and started beating the petitioner and his cell-mate one Muralidharan with i ron rods and pipes enquiring the where abouts of the escapees. On 22. 1995 at about 11.00 P.M., the staff of the third respondent entered the jail and started beating the petitioner and his cell-mate one Muralidharan with i ron rods and pipes enquiring the where abouts of the escapees. He came to know that some nine prisoners had escaped from the Central Prison, Madras, early that night and for that purpose, the staff of the third respondent were beating them to ascertain the whereabouts of the escaped prisoners. The petitioner came to know later that several Prisoners have also been injured like him. 4. According to the petitioner, on 3. 1995, Mr.Radhakrishnan, Judge of the Designated Court No.II, Madras, visited the Central Prison and took out a list of the injured due to the savage ill- treatment meted out to them at the hands of the Prison staff. Later he came to know that the said Judge had visited the Central Prison as per the direction of the High Court, in W.P.No.3221 of 1995, filed by the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties. The Judge noted down the injuries and their nature. He further stated that the wound and the injuries put him in untold physical and mental pain. On 3. 1995, the Jail doctors provided him some treatment. However, his middle finger in the right hand could not be used. He has complained about this to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on 3. 1995, explained his problem to the Medical Officer, Madras on 20.3.1995, and on 23. 1995 and 23. 1995 when the Chief Medical Officer, Police Hospital, Madras, visited the Prison, he has complained to him of the delay in providi ng treatment. On 23. 1995, the x-ray equipment was brought into the prison and an x-ray was taken of his right hand middle finger and the Medical Officer, spedialised in orthopaedics, diagnosed that there was a grave fracture in his right hand middle finger and opined that the injury could not be so easily cured with the facilities available in the Government General Hospital, Madras. He has complained that inspite of his representations and the Medical Officer’s recommendation for proper treatment, he has been denied proper treatment of his injury. On 4. 1995,some physiotheraphic exercises were given. However, the condition was not improving. He made a representation to the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.II, Madras. On 4. He has complained that inspite of his representations and the Medical Officer’s recommendation for proper treatment, he has been denied proper treatment of his injury. On 4. 1995,some physiotheraphic exercises were given. However, the condition was not improving. He made a representation to the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.II, Madras. On 4. 1995 and the learned Judge has passed an order to the effect that he should be given proper medical treatment for his injury. In the second week of July 1995, he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras, and he was informed that it will take two years to cure his right hand middle finger. Due to the said injury, he could not write letters to his parents and sisters, who are in Sri Lanka and he has left at the mercy of somebody to get written his personal letters and his pathetic situation is nothing but the result of the brutal attack. .5. The affidavit further reads that even in the Judicial custody, his rights are infringed and the Jail authorities keep on turning deaf ears to his humanitarian pleas, his personal liberty and fundamental rights have been affected and when there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees every person’s life and personal liberty. His right to live and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated, since he was injured while in the State Custody and the State has failed in his duty to protect his liberty and safety. While confining in Judicial custody, such failure is demonstrative of the fact that his life and liberty and safeguard enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India are in Peril., and hence the State cannot be permitted to keep him in custody, which amounts to illegal custody and he is entitled to be released forthwith. The petitioner after quoting some portion of the decision of the Supreme Court, has prayed for the reliefs claimed in the petition, which have been referred earlier. 6. The matter came up for admission before us on 110. 1995 and on that day, we heard the matter for admission. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued by citing some authorities for admission of the case and for the grant of the relief claimed in the petition. We will consider the submissions of the learned Advocate at a later stage. 1995 and on that day, we heard the matter for admission. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued by citing some authorities for admission of the case and for the grant of the relief claimed in the petition. We will consider the submissions of the learned Advocate at a later stage. .7. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we passed the following Order : .“At this stage, we are not satisfied that this Habeas Corpus Petition deserves admission on prayers (a), (b) and (c). We may state at once that these prayers are still pending decision in W.P.No.3221 of 1995 on the file of this Court. As far as prayer (d) is concerned, We are anxious to satisfy ourselves that the petitioner — Sugirthakumar, S/o. Krishna Pillai, is given proper medical attention at Government General Hospital, Madras. The concerned Prison authorities shall produce K. Sugirthakumar before Chief Orthopedic Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Madras, on or before 19th October, 1995. The Orthopaedic surgeon shall assess the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the right hand middle finger, the treatment afforded and the present condition of that finger. The said Expert will also furnish information to this court as to whether further treatment would be required and if such treatment can be provided in the Government General Hospital, Madras, or the said Hospital does not have such facility. In the event of the Government General Hospital not having such facility, the Expert shall indicate the hospital in Madras which has such facility. The report of the Chief Orthopaedic Surgeon shall be placed before us on 210. 1995; Detailed order in this Habeas Corpus Petition will be passed on that day.” 8. On 210. 1995, a letter received from Thiru. C.Rajkumar, Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Madras-3, addressed to the Registrar, High Court, Madras, along with the report of Prof. CT. Alagappan, M.S.Orth., M.S. (GEn)., Additional Professor of Orthopaedic surgery, Madras Medical College and Government General Hospital, Madras-3 has been placed before us. The said report reads as follows:- “With reference to the above, Mr.Sugirthakumar, 35 years male, TADA Prisoner reported to our hospital on 4. 1995 with Complaints of deformity of the right proximal phalanx of middle finger with memo from Medical Officer, Central Prison on 4. 1995. SAs per his statement he had injury on 22. 1995. He reported to our hospital after 35 days of Injury. 1995 with Complaints of deformity of the right proximal phalanx of middle finger with memo from Medical Officer, Central Prison on 4. 1995. SAs per his statement he had injury on 22. 1995. He reported to our hospital after 35 days of Injury. He was seen on the same day and x-ray taken. The x-ray showed Fracture shaft of Prosimal Phalanx of middle right finger with angulation, as it was malunited, we suggested physiotherapy asking to review in Ortho O.P. Subsequently, he was not reviewed in this department. He attended Plastic Surgery Department, G.H.on 7. 1995 and 29. 1995. The plastic Surgeon also assessed the condition of his finger and given the opinion as “Malunited Fracture Proximal Phalanx of right middle finger as remodelling is expected, no active surgical intervention necessary at present” and the functional deficit is minimal.” He reported to our hospital on 110. 1995 with a memo from a Superintendent, Central Prison. He is examined today (110. 1995). There is malunited fracture shafts of Proximal Phalanx of right middle finger. X-ray taken and shows Malunited Fracture Proximal Phalanx of right middle finger with callus. At present, he is having minimal angulation of Proximal Phalanx of right middle finger. He has movement of 20 to 90 of the Proximal interphalangeal joint of the right middle finger. He has shown improvement in the range of movement. Hence, he is advised to continue practicing active movement of the finger for another four months by which time the process of remodelling will be over. No Surgical intervention is contemplated now. He has to be reassessed after four months for further treatment if necessary .” 9. The above report from the Additional Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery shows that the petitioner is being attended for his injury on the finger and he has been properly advised by the doctor and his condition has to be reassessed after four months for further treatment if necessary. .10. It is noticed that some writ petitions have been filed for identical reliefs and we had asked the office to put up those writ petitions along with this Habeas corupus petition. Accordingly, three writ petitions were placed before us. The W.P.No.3221 of 1995 is filed by one Mrs. .10. It is noticed that some writ petitions have been filed for identical reliefs and we had asked the office to put up those writ petitions along with this Habeas corupus petition. Accordingly, three writ petitions were placed before us. The W.P.No.3221 of 1995 is filed by one Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, General Secretary, People Union for Civil Liberties and the prayers are to issue orders direction or writs, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate prosecution against the concerned Police Officials is who have assaulted the Prisoners in Central Prison, Madras, provide adequate protection to the prisoners in Central Jail, award compensation and pass all such further or other orders as are necessary in the interest of justice, award exemplary costs and render justice. 11. W.P.No.3260 of 1995 is filed by one Mr.E.F.Simon on behalf of his son Fabion @ Fabion Simon to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner” s son for medical treatment and admit him in the Government General Hospital and return the belongings of the petitioner’s son and by permitting Petitioner’s family members to meet their son on all working days excepting the government holidays appointing a panel of lawyers mainly concerned with human rights and investigate into the Prison torture and atrocities unleased on the TADA Prisoners and file their report and to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner’s son, in this regard and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper and render justice. .12. W.P.No.3270 of 1995 is filed by one S.Xaviour Felix, a Practising Lawyer of Trichy, a Social Worker and a trustee of a registered trust “Solidarity” a voluntary organisation. .12. W.P.No.3270 of 1995 is filed by one S.Xaviour Felix, a Practising Lawyer of Trichy, a Social Worker and a trustee of a registered trust “Solidarity” a voluntary organisation. The reliefs prayed for in that Writ petition are to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction of writ, directing the respondents 1 to 4, herein to provide immediate and adequate medical treatment to the injured persons numbering 21 and all other detenus of TADA and one Mohan Auto Mohan through the p anel of Doctors unattached with the service of the Jail department, the panel of doctors consisting of Neuro Surgeon, Orthopaedatrician, Radiologist, and General Medicine and handover the belongings taken by the Jail Wardens during the attack to the respective persons and to pay compensation for damages caused to the injured persons as well as to their properties and appoint a panel of Advocates mainly concerned with the violation of human rights and permit the family members of TADA accused to meet them as usual and provide them with same facilities so far given in accordance with Jail Manual and render justice. 13. Now let us consider the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. P.Rathinam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He has invited out attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalitha Behera v. State of Orissa and others (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1960). he took us to paragraph 16 of the said decision, which reads as follows:- “It follows that a claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contraventi on of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this Principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported ex ercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the constitution by recourse to Arts 32 and 226 of the Constitution. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah ( AIR 1983 SC 1086 ) and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Arts. 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights.” In that decision the Supreme Court entertained a letter dated 19. 1988 sent by Smt. Nilabati Behere alias Lalita Behera and treated the Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for determining the claim of compensation made therein, consequent upon the death of petitioner’s son Suman Behera, aged about 22 years, in Police custody. We have no doubt in our mind that a writ petition either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for the said re lief. In fact, the writ petitions for the said reliefs have been filed and the Court has entertained the matters by a admitting them and issuing rule nisi and the matters are pending for final hearing. Under those circumstances, we feel it proper to consider those requests in those writ petitions and not in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 14. The learned Advocate has further invited out attention to a decision reported in R.Parvathi, v. State of Tamil Nadu (ILR. (1994) 3 Madras, 813) and took us to the paragraph 17 of the said decision, which reads as follows:- “Petitioner herein has asked for compensation for herself in a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs for what she has been made to suffer, the sufferings of her husband her two sons and her brother-in-law. Instead of the body of the petitioner’s husband alive, brought before the Court, the information received is that he has been done to death by the fourth respondent and his men. Instead of the body of the petitioner’s husband alive, brought before the Court, the information received is that he has been done to death by the fourth respondent and his men. In Padmini’s case (1993) Writ L.R. 798) the Court has gone into the circumstances under which the Court exercises power under Article 226 of the Constitution and grants compensation subject to the right of the person aggrieved to seek further compensation in a properly constituted suit. After the Judgment in Padmini’s Case, the Supreme Court has stated in the case of custodial death in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1960) that when a claim for monetary compensation is made, the Court has an obligation to grant the relief and defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the State Agency. In the words of the Supreme Court, “A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a Constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is distinct from and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right.” The Power under Articles 32 and 226 is exercised not as a remedy available only in cases of damages that affect any individual but of damages which cause serious injury to the society and when policemen are found to have acted in contravention of law, their offence is more serious than that of any layman.” In the above decision, the prayer of the petitioner was for the production of the body of one Rajakannu and for compensation as a consequence of the alleged detention, injuries and disappearance of the said Rajakannu at the hands of the respondents therein and others as well as for the misbehaviour of the respondents with the petitioner and others. As we have already decided earlier, since the prayer of the petitioner is already pending consideration in the writ petitions referred to above, it may not be proper for us to consider the said reliefs in this petition. 15. As we have already decided earlier, since the prayer of the petitioner is already pending consideration in the writ petitions referred to above, it may not be proper for us to consider the said reliefs in this petition. 15. The other decision, on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate was reported in Y.Krishnappa v. State by S.I. by police (1992 (3) Crimes, 64). In the said decision it was observed that the Court can grant compensation to an accused who had suffered physical and mental agony for over six years because of the inaction of the investigating agency inspite of orders of High Court. That was a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Court was pleased to award compensation for the inaction. on the part of the investigating police. The said decision will not help the petitioner in any way. 16. The last decision, on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate is reported in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1987, S.C.1086). In the said decision, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “Where during the pendency of a writ petition filed by Legal Aid and Advice Board and Bar Association for Closure of certain units of a company on ground of health hazard, there was leakage of oleum gas, the Supreme Court could entertain applications for compensation for damage even though the writ petition did not amend the writ petition to include the claim for compensation. The applications for compensation are for enforcement of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Art 21 of the Constitution a nd while dealing with such applications, a hyper-technical approach which would defeat the ends of justice could not be adopted. If the Court is prepared to accept a letter complaining of violation of the fundamental right of an individual or a class of individuals who cannot approach the Court for Justice, there is no reason why the applications for compensation which have been made for enforcement of the fundamental right of the persons affected by the oleum gas leak under Art.21 should not be enterai ned. The Court while dealing with an application for enforcement of a fundamental right must look at the substance and not the form.” In the above decision the Supreme Court observed that while dealing with the application for enforcement of a fundamental right, the Court must look at the substance and not the form. 17. As far as the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner in any one of the private hospitals in Madras having the required facility at the hands of the State, we have already called for the report and the report received by us clearly complies with the said requirement of the detenu — Petitioner as he being treatment properly and he has been further asked to reassess after four months for further treatment if necessary. Hence, the s aid prayer has been complied with. As far as the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner are concerned, those reliefs have already been claimed in the writ petitions, a reference to which have been made earlier, which are pending for final hearing and hence we are not considering those prayers in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Without expressing our view one way or others, whether the reliefs could be granted in a petition filed for Habeas Corpus, we refused to consider the said reliefs, since the subject matters are pending in other writ petitions. 18. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we dispose of this Habeas Corpus Petition.