JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J.: This writ application, which is in the nature of a public interest litigation, raises questions relating to solitary confinement of persons convicted of murder and under sentence to death. 2. The immediate cause of action for this writ application is the case of two teenagers, Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mandal, who have been kept in solitary confinement after they were sentenced to death by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. 3. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Advocate, submitted that while sentencing the said two persons to death, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, had not also sentenced them to be kept in solitary confinement and their incarceration in solitary confinement after they were sentenced to death, was, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. 4. Mr. Ghosh urged that the sentence of death handed out to Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mandal was subject to confirmation of the High Court under s. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Ghosh urged that till such time as their sentence was not confirmed by the High Court and such confirmation was not made final by the Supreme Court, it could not be said that the convicted persons were under sentence of death. 5. Mr. Ghosh contended that the expression "prisoner under sentence of death" used in s. 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, could only mean a prisoner whose sentence of death has become final and conclusive and is no longer capable of being set aside or interfered with by judicial or constitutional procedure. 6. Referring to Ss. 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. Ghosh submitted that no separate sentence had been awarded to the two convicted prisoners under the said provisions and hence their incarceration in solitary confinement was without the authority of law and was liable to be revoked and/or cancelled. 7. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the identical questions had been considered in great detail by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC at page 1675. Mr. 7. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the identical questions had been considered in great detail by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC at page 1675. Mr. Ghosh urged that while considering the provisions of s. 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that a person is not under sentence of death even if the Sessions Court has sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by the High Court and that he is not under sentence of death even if the High Court imposes, by confirmation or in appellate jurisdiction, the death penalty, so long as an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely to be or has been moved or is pending. The Supreme Court was also of the view that even if it uphold the death penalty, the provisions of s. 30 do not come into play so long as the condemned person's petition for mercy to the Governor and/or the President permitted by the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prisons Rules, is not disposed of. 8. Mr. Ghosh contended that since the matter was at the stage of confirmation of the death sentence by this Court, it could not be said that the two convicted persons were under sentence of death, having regard to the findings of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case (supra). 9. Mr. Ghosh urged that appropriate directions should issue to respondents not to keep Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mondal in solitary confinement, but to proceed in the matter in the manner indicated in Sunil Batra's case (supra). 10. Opposing the writ application and the prayers made therein, the learned Government Pleader urged that while deciding Sunil Batra's case, the Supreme Court did not have occasion to consider paragraph 980 of the Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in West Bengal, forming part of the West Bengal Jail Code, which provides as follows:- "980. Every prisoner sentenced to death shall, from the date of his sentence, and without waiting for the sentence to be confirmed by the High Court, be confined in some safe place, namely a cell, within the jail, apart from all other prisoners. Every prisoner sentenced to death shall, from the date of his sentence, and without waiting for the sentence to be confirmed by the High Court, be confined in some safe place, namely a cell, within the jail, apart from all other prisoners. The cell or room in which a convict condemned to death is confined shall, before he is placed in it, be invariably examined by the Jailer, who shall satisfy himself or its fitness and safety, and shall record the result of the examination in his report book." 11. The learned Government Pleader urged that the said paragraph made it quite explicit and clear that a condemned prisoner was to be segregated from the other prisoners, without waiting for the death sentence to be confirmed by the High Court, and was to be kept in a cell apart from all other prisoners for his own safety. The learned Government Pleader urged that since the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the specific and unambiguous provisions of paragraph 980 of the above Rules, the decision in Sunil Batra's case, would have to be considered in the light of the said provisions and accordingly, the present application was liable to be dismissed with costs. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also carefully gone through the decision in Sunil Batra's case, since the question involved is of some moment and will have certain far reaching consequences. 13. All the questions raised in this writ application were considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case. Although, the provisions of paragraph 980 of the above-mentioned Rules, forming part of the West Bengal Jail Code, did not fall for consideration in Sunil Batra's case, provisions similar thereto under the Punjab Jail Code, were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court can be said to cover the said provisions as well. 14. Although, the provisions of paragraph 980 of the above-mentioned Rules, forming part of the West Bengal Jail Code, did not fall for consideration in Sunil Batra's case, provisions similar thereto under the Punjab Jail Code, were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court can be said to cover the said provisions as well. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made an in-depth study of the provisions relating to solitary confinement even to the extent of visiting the jail and finally came to the conclusion that upon a true construction, sub-s. (2) of s.30 of the Prisons Act, 1894, does not empower a prison authority to impose solitary confinement upon a prisoner under sentence of death and that to be under sentence of death means to be under a finally executable death sentence. 15. In the instant case, the death sentence awarded to Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mondal is yet to be confirmed by this Court. Applying the ratio of the decision in Sunil Batra's case, it must be held that the two condemned persons, Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mondal, cannot be kept in solitary confinement until and unless their sentence becomes finally executable and beyond judicial and constitutional interference. 16. Having regard to the views expressed by the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case, there is no other scope for further deliberation even in the light of paragraph 980 of the Rules forming part of the West Bengal Jail Code. The elaborate discussions embarked upon by the Supreme Court in the said case cover in detail all the points raised in this writ petition and no further deliberation by this Court is called for. 17. The writ application, accordingly succeeds. In keeping with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Batra's case, the respondents are directed to see that the convicted persons who have been sentenced to death, but where such sentence has not reached finality beyond judicial and constitutional interference, are not kept in solitary confinement. The respondents will be entitled to separate such persons from the rest of the prison community during hours when prisoners are generally locked in. The respondents will also be entitled to post special guard watch, day and night, in respect of such prisoners. The respondents will be entitled to separate such persons from the rest of the prison community during hours when prisoners are generally locked in. The respondents will also be entitled to post special guard watch, day and night, in respect of such prisoners. Such prisoners shall not, however, be denied any of the community amenities, including games, newspapers, books, meeting other prisoners and visitors, subject to reasonable regulation of Prison Management. 18. If the prisoner himself deserves to be kept segregated or wishes to meet family members and friends, such facilities should be granted. Once, however, the death sentence imposed on such prisoner passes beyond the pale of Judicial and/or constitutional interference, and the sentence actually becomes executable, the respondents, and more particularly the prison authorities, will be entitled to apply the rigours and restrictions indicated in S. 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and in paragraph 980 of the Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in West Bengal, forming part of the West Bengal Jail Code. 19. By necessary implication, this order will have application as far as Sajal Barui and Ranjit Mondal are concerned. 20. The writ application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 21. Let the application be sent to the Central Section (Filing) for numbering, and thereafter, be sent to the department. 22. Having regard to the nature of the order passed, let plain copies of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be made available to the learned Advocates-on-record for the respective " parties. Application disposed of with directions.