Judgment : P. MURGESEN, J. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents to provide compensation to the prisoners who are victims of the torture committed at Madurai Central Prison on 9.6.2005. 2. Thepetitioner is a lawyer by profession and he is the Managing Trustee of a trust called ‘Society for Community Organization (SOCO) Trust’ based in Madurai. He was appointed twice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an Advocate Commissioner in Kodaikanal Bonded Labour case and in Tamil Nadu Bidi Workers’ case. According to the petitioner, the prisoners should be treated like human beings and any inhuman treatment rendered to them, will not bring the desired effect of making them reformed and bringing them back to the mainstream. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 9.6.2005 at about 8.00 a.m., there was some trouble in the Central Prison, Madurai. At that time, few prisoners and a warden were injured. It is the stand of the petitioner that the prisoners objected to the quality of the food supplied and hence, they were assaulted by the jail authorities. 4. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the prison authorities vehemently through the learned Government Advocate. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the prison official Subbiahsamy searched one Venkatesh @ Mustafa, a prisoner and found that Mustafa was found in possession of Ganja. Immediately, this was intimated to the higher officials on 5.6.1995. On 9.6.2005, the date of occurrence, when Subbiahsamy was on duty, the prisoner, Venkatesh @ Mustafa attempted to attack him and therefore, he blew the whistle to safeguard him, because of which, the trouble started. Learned Government Advocate has also submitted that only minimum force was used to control the prisoners. 5. The Principal District Judge, Madurai, was directed to inspect the prison and he has also inspected the prison and recorded the statements from the prisoners, viz., Mani @ Manivannan, Ramachandran @ Mattaikan Ramachandran, Kannan @ Kattari Kannan, Suriya Boomi, Thavakumar, Saravanan and Bankali Murugan. He has also examined some jail wardens, viz., Nagarajan, S. Balamurugan, Palanikumar, Rames, Gomathinayagam, Saravanakumar, Suresh, Ramakrishnan, Subbiahsamy and Deputy Jailor, Alexander. Further, he has examined some of the accused, viz., Ibrahim @ Rayakili, Muthumari, Vasu, Rafiq and Venkatesh @ Musthaba. He has also examined some jail wardens, viz., Nagarajan, S. Balamurugan, Palanikumar, Rames, Gomathinayagam, Saravanakumar, Suresh, Ramakrishnan, Subbiahsamy and Deputy Jailor, Alexander. Further, he has examined some of the accused, viz., Ibrahim @ Rayakili, Muthumari, Vasu, Rafiq and Venkatesh @ Musthaba. The statements of Subbiahsamy, jail warden and Ibrahim, remand prisoner, would disclose that there was a scuffle between the warden Subbiahsamy and the prisoner, Venkatesh @ Mustafa, which prompted to blow the whistle and many wardens came there and attacked Venkatesh @ Mustafa. 6. The occurrence took place on 9.6.2005, but nothing was reported to the duty counsel. However, when the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, inspected the jail, this incident was reported to him. As per the directions of the High Court in R.O.C. No. 3616 of 1996-F1, dated 4.10.1996, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, inspected the jail and submitted his report on 13.6.2005. In the report, he has stated that he has noticed some prisoners with injuries, which is noted below: 1. Arumugam S/o. Krishnan R.P.No. 1306 • 1. Bruise on the right chest below the shoulder. • 2. Linear bruises five in number on the back. • 3. A bruise on the inner side of upper portion of the right thigh. • 4. A bruise on the back side of right forearm. • 5. A linear bruise on the right shoulder. 2. Muthumari S/o. Rajuthevar R.P. No. 7596 A linear bruise on the left hand. 3. Kattari Kannan S/o. Mahalingam A contusion on the left wrist. 4. Vasu S/o. Alagarsamy • 1. A contusion on the lower side of right shoulder. • 2. Two contusion on the back side of left forearm. • 3. Three linear bruises below left elbow. 5. Easwaramoorthy S/o. Kamaraj A contusion on the left elbow. 7. The doctor of the prison was also examined on 4.8.2005. During examination, he has given a statement that six prisoners were brought to him viz. Ibrahim, Kattari Kannan, Muthumari, Easwaramoorthy, Suubbiahsamy (jail warden), Rafiq, Mari and he gave treatment to them. He found Kattari Kannan, Eswaramoorthy, Muthumari and Ibrahim with serious injuries and that they have been referred to Rajaji Medical Hospital, Madurai. 8. In the counter, it is stated that the following remand prisoners have sustained injuries: • (1.) R.P. No. 1306 Arumugam. • (2.) R.P. No. 7596 Muthumari. • (3.) R.P. No. 8103 Kattari Kannan. • (4.) R.P. No. 1271 Vasu. 8. In the counter, it is stated that the following remand prisoners have sustained injuries: • (1.) R.P. No. 1306 Arumugam. • (2.) R.P. No. 7596 Muthumari. • (3.) R.P. No. 8103 Kattari Kannan. • (4.) R.P. No. 1271 Vasu. • (5.) R.P. No. 8458 Easwaramoorthy. • (6.) R.P. No. 4732 Rafiq. • (7.) R.P. No. Mari. • (8.) R.P. No. 3603 Ibrahim. • (9.) R.P. No. Manivannan. From the above noted prisoners, four prisoners were sent to Rajaji Medical Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment. No doubt, some other prisoners were also injured. Learned Principal District Judge, Madurai recorded a statement from Manivannan and it is stated that he was assaulted by the jail authorities with stick, iron rod and pipe, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. The minimum force was used due to the scuffle between Warden Subbiahsamy and Venkatesh @ Mustafa. So, it is clear that the abovesaid nine persons sustained injuries. In view of the same, we are of the view, all the nine prisoners should be awarded compensation. 9. The officials of the Government, act in the name of and for and on behalf of the State. It is but just that the State is made liable for their acts and defaults. It is no answer to say that aggrieved person can proceed against the officials concerned, that is neither a practical nor efficacious remedy. The official does not act in his individual capacity but as an agent or representative of the state. Where the officials abuse their powers and act with gross negligence resulting in deprivation of right and liberty of the citizens, the State becomes liable for compensation. This Court can intervene in the prison administration when constitutional right or statutory prescriptions are transgressed to the injury of the prisoner. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority within the four walls of a prison, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police officials is a matter of deep concern in a free society. The prisoners are still persons entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed by the procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police officials is a matter of deep concern in a free society. The prisoners are still persons entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed by the procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process. The custodial torture is held in naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. 10. After this incident, some of the wardens viz. Tr.A. Abdul Sarthar Sait (Grade I Warden), Tr. K. Nagarajan (Grade II Warden), Tr. C. Suresh (Grade II Warden) and Tr. A. Gurusamy (Grade II Warden), who are responsible for the incident, were proceeded with departmentally and punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect was imposed on them. A case has been registered against Venkatesh @ Mustafa, who is the root cause for this incident, in Cr. No. 1425 of 2005 under Sections 307 and 332, I.P.C. The case was committed from the Judicial Magistrate No. V to the Principal Assistant Sessions Court Madurai on 19.12.2005. So, there is no doubt that disciplinary action was taken against the concerned officials. 11. Learned Government Advocate fairly submits that nominal compensation may be awarded to the injured prisoners. 12. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, we are of the considered view that a sum Rs. 500/- each can be awarded to Kattari Kannan, Easwaramoorthy, Muthumari and Ibrahim, the prisoners who suffered serious injuries and a sum of Rs. 250/-each can be awarded to Arumugam, Vasu, Rafiz, Manivannan and Mari, the prisoners who suffered minor injuries. The said amount of compensation shall be paid by the Government initially and later the same shall be recovered from the concerned prison officials, who are responsible for the incident. 13. Further, the Principal District Judge was directed to conduct inspection on the second and the fourth Saturday of every month as per the directions of the High Court in R. O. C. 3000-A/2003-F1 dated 16.9.2003. The learned District Judge along with the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be, is directed to find out the condition of the prison to ensure the minimum standard of maintenance in respect of health, hygiene, discipline and also the expeditious enquiry of the grievance of the prisoners. 14. The learned District Judge along with the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the case may be, is directed to find out the condition of the prison to ensure the minimum standard of maintenance in respect of health, hygiene, discipline and also the expeditious enquiry of the grievance of the prisoners. 14. If inspection is pre-determined, the atmosphere in the prison will be shown as good and there is every possibility of screening the defects. So, we are of the view that the Principal District Judge may be permitted to inspect the prison, surprisingly, without intimating the date of inspection to find out the real condition prevailing in the prison. 15. With the above observations, this petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.