Judgment :- Raman, J. 1. This is a suo motu proceeding initiated upon a complaint petition submitted by a prisoner in the Central Prison, Kannur. 2. In the written complaint made by him, it is alleged that prisoners in the Kannur Central Prison are subjected to physical abuse by other persons as a result of the political rivalry among the prison population. It is alleged that the staff in the Kannur Central Prison are not doing anything to stop this abuse and the failure on the part of the authorities is partly due to the sympathy for the faction belonging to the political party in power and partly because of the inadequate number of prison staff to maintain control over the population. Before the matter was referred considered on the judicial side, the learned single judge, before whom the complaint was received, called for a report from the District & Sessions Judge and the report substantially shows that the complaint alleged is true. Some of the instances of assault in the Central Prison, Kannur were also reported. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge placed the matter to be considered in the judicial side and that is how the matter came up before us. 3. Taking note of the serious allegations as substantiated by the report of the District & Sessions Judge and to prevent such recurrence in future, we appointed Advocate Sri.Sahasranaman as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court and to file a detailed report after making an on-spot inspection of the jail. Accordingly, the Amicus Curiae has submitted a detailed report and made his valuable suggestions as a measure to prevent recurrence of such incidents. As the law on the subject is very clear that whether inside prison or outside, a person shall not be deprived of his freedom, right just and fair methods as held by the apex court in Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1579). It is equally true that Article 21 of the Constitution ensures that convicts - both prisoners and under trials can be subjected to only such restrictions as permitted by law. (See Nilabati v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960). It is equally true that Article 21 of the Constitution ensures that convicts - both prisoners and under trials can be subjected to only such restrictions as permitted by law. (See Nilabati v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960). Therefore, we find that the allegations raised in the complaint regarding assault among the prisoners belonging to different political parties itself is a serious matter which has to be stopped and the recurrence of which are to be prevented by taking appropriate measures in this regard. Solutions as suggested by the Amicus Curiae as contained in his report in paras 10 to 15 are as follows:- 10. To uphold the rights of the prisoners of the Central Prison, Kannur it is essential that there shall be a continuous monitoring of what is happening inside it. Even a surprise check is not possible inside the prison for the reason that prisons are normally locked from outside and entry is restrained. Only by catching these corrupt persons red hand such incidents can be avoided. For that the new inventions of electronic equipments can be made use of. 11. If there is fear of being caught on tape it will ensure both the decline of prisoner abuse, and that prison staff are doing their job properly. In order to be effective in a prison setting, a surveillance system must be discrete, though prisoners must be made aware that they are being monitored, and strong enough to withstand damage from persons attempting to tamper with the system. The implementation of a closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance system to monitor the prison population and prison staff will give evidence of what happened at the spot. But the CCTV has certain inherent defects while installing in a prison:- · The monitoring cannot be done from outside the prison or from a far away place like Thiruvananthapuram or Kochi. · The camera can easily be destroyed, even by a stone's throw. · There is every possibility of snapping the wires or the system is possible so as make it non workable. · The recording of the data and its storage of the same is costly and difficult. 12. The best solution is to monitor the working of the prison through rugged web-cameras backed up by wireless technology. Such cameras of the size of a matchbox, can be installed in common places where surveillance is required. · The recording of the data and its storage of the same is costly and difficult. 12. The best solution is to monitor the working of the prison through rugged web-cameras backed up by wireless technology. Such cameras of the size of a matchbox, can be installed in common places where surveillance is required. The said cameras send live video with sound through the internet to a web browser to anywhere in the world. The camera lets you keep track of the prison and what is happening inside it. With the help of broadband internet technology it can be monitored by any person who is having the necessary password from any place in the country. Dozens of cameras placed at strategic locations can be monitored with a relatively small number of monitors because the cameras can be fitted with motion sensors, that is, they will trigger an alarm only when there is movement in front of the camera. Also since the network is wireless, there is not need lay miles of cables which can be cut or sabotaged. The wireless technology used to link all the cameras to the observation station is called WiFi (technical name 802.11 a/b/g) which is widely used in India to provide Wireless access to Internet in airport lounges, hotel lobbies etc. The advantage is that the information from the cameras can be monitored via internet even outside the prison -- indeed any place on earth equipped with a PC and provided with the authorization via password. A technology called Virtual Private Network (VPN) is also available to provide solid security features so that unauthorised persons cannot hack into the network. Indian companies are already proficient in providing such networks: Two such firms are listed below:- · M/s Tulip IT Services of Delhi (who has done the networking for Akshaya project of Kerala State IT Mission in Malapuram District). · Convergent Communications (of Bangalore) who have networked a large number of wireless hotspots in India. 13. Such systems are installed in UK, USA, Singapore and in some parts of Delhi. It is with the help of such camera's the culprits who are responsible for the London blast has been caught in the year 2005. 14. · Convergent Communications (of Bangalore) who have networked a large number of wireless hotspots in India. 13. Such systems are installed in UK, USA, Singapore and in some parts of Delhi. It is with the help of such camera's the culprits who are responsible for the London blast has been caught in the year 2005. 14. Kerala Government has allowed laying of cables by the broadband service providers like, Asianet, BSNL, Airtel, Reliance, etc on condition that five percentage of their networking systems should be allowed to be used by State Government free of cost. The said system can be used free of cost by the State Government which will reduce the cost of the project. Compared to CCTV the cost of these online monitoring is very cheap. 15. Considering local political realities, it would be naive to expect even the most upright police/jail officers to be able to stand up to invariable political pressures and do a straightforward job in that Prison. The best option would be to replicate what has been done in Tihar Jail in New Delhi, where all local jail/police officials have been taken off and the entire security and administration (except overall supervisory roles) handed to external police forces that have no local stake and no reason to go under any local political pressure. At present, the Tihar Jail is being run by the Tamil Nadu Special Police (TSP).” 4. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that except the suggestions made under Para 15 of the report of the Amicus Curiae, the State will take all earnest measures to implement the same. However, as regards the suggestions made in para 15, it is contended that entrustment of security of jail to external police forces will not be practicable or a viable solution. Instead it is suggested that the peripheral security of jails can be entrusted with the Armed Police Batalline of the State to ensure batter security of jails and the same can be handled by engaging police personnel in the three Central Prisons at Thiruvananthapuram, Viyyur and Kannur. A statement is filed on behalf of the Government dated 20th October, 2006 in this behalf. 5. A statement is filed on behalf of the Government dated 20th October, 2006 in this behalf. 5. Having heard both sides and considered the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae as also the suggestions put forth by the State in substitution of the suggestion contained in para 15 of the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae we find that the suggestion so made will, to a great extent, prevent recurrence of the untoward incidents inside the jail, as put forth by the Amicus Curiae in Para 10 to 14 of his report as extracted above and the suggestions put forth by the State that peripheral security at the entrance of the jails he entrusted with the Armed Battalions of the Police of the State to ensure better security of the jails. The same can be handled by the police officials engaged in the three central prisons in Thiruvananthapuram, Viyyur and Kannur and the above suggestions are made as an order of this Court to be implemented by the State in all earnest efforts and expeditiously. With the above direction, the writ petition stands closed.