JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. T. George John, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. S. G. Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, who is presently serving his sentence at the Central Jail, Colvale, Bardez Goa, pursuant to his conviction for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 365, 394, 201 read with 120B of IPC, seeks an appropriate writ to quash the order dated 20.04.2022, which he styles an order for his solitary confinement. 4. Mr. T. George John submits that the imposition of solitary confinement punishment is violative of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021 (the said Rules) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that practically every rule was breached in issuing the impugned order and placing the Petitioner in solitary confinement. He relies on Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev and others Vs State of Rajasthan, 1981 SCC (Cri) 191 and Sunil Batra (II) Vs Delhi Administration, 1980 SCC (Cri) 777 in support of his contentions. 5. Mr. T. George John submits that though the period in the impugned order was ultimately curtailed and the Petitioner is no longer in solitary confinement, the Petitioner is entitled to some compensation. Additionally, he submits that the Petitioner apprehends that similar orders may be passed in the future; therefore, the impugned order's validity and legality may be examined. 6. Mr. Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this was not solitary confinement but temporary segregation. He proposes that on 20.04.2022, the Petitioner assaulted Medical Officer Dilip Cuncolikar while performing his duties. He submitted that the Petitioner also abused him with filthy language and became aggressive and violent with the jail guards and two other prisoners. He offered that in such circumstances, some emergent action was called to ensure the safety of jail officials and other inmates. Mr. Bhobe submitted that though it is possible to say that there were no strict compliances with all the rules and regulations before the impugned order was issued, having regard to the peculiar circumstances where the emergent action was necessary, the impugned order was issued. He submitted that there are malafides involved, and the impugned order was issued in the best interest of all concerned and to prevent untoward incidents. 7. Mr. He submitted that there are malafides involved, and the impugned order was issued in the best interest of all concerned and to prevent untoward incidents. 7. Mr. Bhobe submits that no sooner than the petition was filed, by further order dated 06.06.2022, the period of three months referred to in the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 was curtailed, and the Petitioner was lodged in the convict block. 8. Mr. Bhobe finally submitted that this petition may be dismissed since the impugned order was made in peculiar circumstances referred to in the returns filed. He, however, offered that the jail authorities have been advised to follow the Prison Rules strictly hereafter. He, therefore, submitted that this petition may be disposed of. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. The record bears out that the Petitioner is suffering incarceration at the Central Jail, Colvale, pursuant to his conviction in Sessions Case Nos. 9/2010 and 11/2010 for offenses punishable under Sections 302, 365, 394, and 201 read with 120B of IPC. The Petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment. 11. The record also bears out that the Petitioner is facing trial before the Children's Court in Special Case No.4/10 for offenses under Sections 120B, 394, 302, 201, 109 read 34 IPC. In addition, he is also facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Vasai, Mumbai, in Case No.10/2016. 12. The Petitioner's version is that for no reason or, in any case, no tangible reason, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 for the Petitioner's "separate confinement" for three months in the single cell of the punishment block. The impugned order also curtailed all the privileges for three months because the Petitioner had committed a prison offense. The impugned order quotes Rule 1267(2)(e)(f) of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2021. 13. The Petitioner has pleaded that based on the above-impugned order, the Petitioner was kept in a single cell of the punishment block where he was not allowed to meet anyone. He has pleaded that he was not even removed from this cell for exercise or meals. He has claimed that this cell is approximately one meter by one and a half meters in dimension. This disabled him from breathing fresh air or basking in the sunlight. Based on these pleadings, Mr. He has pleaded that he was not even removed from this cell for exercise or meals. He has claimed that this cell is approximately one meter by one and a half meters in dimension. This disabled him from breathing fresh air or basking in the sunlight. Based on these pleadings, Mr. T. George John submitted that this was not a case of any separate confinement as claimed by the State but a case of solitary confinement. 14. The respondents have filed two affidavits, and their versions do not corroborate the Petitioner's pleadings or allegations. 15. The respondents' version is that on 20.04.2022, at about 12.15 pm, after the Petitioner was brought back to jail after attending the Court proceedings, the Petitioner assaulted Medical Officer Dilip Cuncolikar. The Jail Medical Officer was performing his duties when the Petitioner brutally assaulted him by holding his shirt and punching him with fist blows on his face. The Petitioner continued with his assault despite the intervention of jail guard Caitan Godinho and two prisoners. 16. The respondents claim that before the situation could go out of hand, to maintain discipline in the jail premises and safeguard the jail staff and other inmates, the decision was taken to segregate the Petitioner in a separate cell and a different block. Accordingly, the impugned order was made, having regard to the grave and the urgent situation created by the Petitioner in the jail premises. 17. The respondents have claimed that the Petitioner was not kept in the punishment block. Instead, they claim that he was placed in a separate block normally used to house inmates suffering from any contagious diseases or otherwise requiring segregation. Additionally, it was submitted that there were three other inmates in the said Block along with the Petitioner, and this was not a solitary confinement case. 18. The respondents have also pleaded that the segregation cells are designed and constructed to get sufficient fresh air. There is enough open space outside the cell, within the Block, which is open to the sky, where the Petitioner and the other three prisoners are allowed to move for some time in the morning and evening. Additionally, all meals are delivered in this Block through a mess team regularly. The allegations made by the Petitioner about solitary confinement were therefore denied. 19. Additionally, all meals are delivered in this Block through a mess team regularly. The allegations made by the Petitioner about solitary confinement were therefore denied. 19. The respondents have also pleaded that the assault on the Medical Officer has caused trauma in the minds of the medical staff/jail staff. It is contended that the jail Medical Officer proceeded on leave as the trauma he experienced thoroughly shook him. 20. Finally, it is pleaded that there are specific inadvertent errors/laxity in the choice of words used in the impugned order. This was because of the extreme urgency in which such order was made and action taken. The pleadings state that the words like "punishment block" may be treated as withdrawn. 21. Mr. Gouresh Kurtikar, Superintendent of Central Jail, has filed a further affidavit on 20.06.2022. To this affidavit, the order dated 06.06.2022 curtailing three months was also annexed. This affidavit gives other particulars. 22. Paragraphs Nos. 6 to 12 of this affidavit are relevant, and the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference. "6. I say that upon passing of the said order dated 20.04.2022 against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was shifted to a separate block within the jail premises itself. The said Block is named as "Condemned prisoners Block 8-Inmates" on the Jail Plan. I say that the said Block has eight separate cells. I say that each of the said Cells has its own bathroom and toilet which is separated by a low/half brick wall from the sleeping area. I say that outside the said sleeping room, area is an area/courtyard that is open to sky and accessible to the inmate of the cell. I say that beyond the walls of this said Block is an open area with its own compound wall. I say that this open area has its own outer gate. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said Plans of the said separate Block and the Jail premises so as to better visualize the layout and dimensions of the same. A copy each of the said Plans is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R1/C colly. 7. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said Plans of the said separate Block and the Jail premises so as to better visualize the layout and dimensions of the same. A copy each of the said Plans is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R1/C colly. 7. I say that the Petitioner was lodged in cell no.7 of the said Block and during the said period he was lodged in the said Block i.e. from 20.04.2022 untill 06.06.2022, there were eight other inmates also lodged there in other cells of the said Block for various periods and at any point of time there were at least 3 other inmates in the said Block. 8. I say that the Petitioner along with the other inmates of the said Block were moved out of their cells to the said open area outside the Block within the compound for fresh air and movement every day from 08.00 am to 10 am and from 03.00 pm to 05.00 pm. 9. I say that each day the inmates including the Petitioner are served morning tea and breakfast between 6 am to 7am, followed by Lunch between 12 noon-12.30 pm afternoon tea at 2.30 pm and dinner at 5 to 5.30 pm. I say that at the said Block where the Petitioner was lodged for the said period, the Petitioner and the other inmates would come to the outer gate of the said Block to collect their said food from the Mess serving party at each nominated time as above said. After collecting their respective provisions, the said inmates would return back to their respective cells for consumption of the same. 10. I say that on 29.04.2022, 20.05.2022 and 01.06.2022 the Petitioner was taken out of the jail premises and sent to attend court hearings in the trials in which he is involved. I say that the Petitioner was also taken to the Jail Dispensary for medical check-up on 24.05.2022. 11. I say that each day, garbage collection is done from each cell of the said Block between 7 am to 8 am by another prisoner inmate (not from the said Block) nominated for that purpose. 12. I say that the Petitioner was also taken to the Jail Dispensary for medical check-up on 24.05.2022. 11. I say that each day, garbage collection is done from each cell of the said Block between 7 am to 8 am by another prisoner inmate (not from the said Block) nominated for that purpose. 12. I say that as narrated in detail hereinabove, during the said period between 20.04.2022 and 06.06.2022, the Petitioner had and was provided with ample opportunity and access for interaction with other prisoners, inmates, jail staff which he actually availed of and also attended Court hearings on three occasions.'' 23. Based on the affidavit filed before us, we are satisfied that some emergent action had to be taken against the Petitioner, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. However, it is also apparent that the Jail Authorities did not observe the procedures provided in the Rules of 2021. Merely because the citizens have been incarcerated, that does not mean they have no fundamental rights. On the contrary, the rules prescribed the procedures so that their fundamental rights were not arbitrarily interfered with. In this particular case, we appreciate that some emergent action was necessary. Nevertheless, after the order was made, the matter should have been immediately reported to the District & Sessions Judge, which report was also not made. This would amount to a breach of Rule 1269 of the said Rules. 24. Rule 1267 of the said Rules deals with minor and major punishments. One of the major punishments prescribed is segregation for up to three months and, with the sanction of the Inspector General, up to six months. 25. Rule 1268 of the said Rules provides that for the award of major punishment, the prisoner should be given notice in writing, calling him to show cause with references to the alleged violation of the jail Rule. Furthermore, the order of punishment should also be communicated to the concerned prisoner. 26. Rule 1269 of the said Rules provides that the Superintendent shall hold an inquiry touching every prison offense committed or alleged to have been committed by a prisoner in prison in a quasi-judicial manner recording the statements of all concerned witnesses, giving full opportunity to the offender for his defense. Confessional statements of the offender should also be recorded in the presence of two witnesses. Confessional statements of the offender should also be recorded in the presence of two witnesses. Findings and punishment in the manner provided in law should be recorded after applying judicious mind by the Superintendent in his own hand in the prisoner's history ticket. The complete enquiry file, findings and the punishment awarded shall be immediately forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge for obtaining judicial appraisal in all cases except in cases of formal warning. 27. Rule 1269 also considers the exigency in which compliance with such detailed procedures may not be possible. This rule further provides that where the information referred to in Rule 1269, on account of exigency, is difficult to be forwarded immediately, the same should be given within two days of the finding. Judicial appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge is a valuable safeguard in the Rules regarding the imposition of punishment upon the prisoner. In the present case, there is no record of such compliances before the impugned order was made. 28. From the material on record, though it appears that the Petitioner was not placed under solitary confinement, it is apparent that the major punishment was imposed upon the Petitioner without compliance with Rules 1267, 1268, and 1269 of the said Rules. There is also no explanation for why the report was not sent to the District and Sessions Judge about this incident and the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner. 29. On examining the plans of the separate Block and accepting the statements made on the affidavit by the Superintendent of Jail, the Petitioner cannot be said to be solitarily confined, but he was undoubtedly segregated. As noted earlier, segregation for up to three months is a major punishment contemplated under Rule 1267 of the Rules. 30. At the same time, we clarify that the Prison Authorities must not simply play with expressions like segregation and solitary confinement. In Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that solitary confinement cannot be resorted to by simply styling the same as separate confinement in a separate cell. If special restrictions of a punitive or harsh character have been imposed for convincing security reasons, the principles of natural justice must be complied with. Rules contemplate compliance with principles of natural justice. To some extent, even post facto compliance may be permitted. If special restrictions of a punitive or harsh character have been imposed for convincing security reasons, the principles of natural justice must be complied with. Rules contemplate compliance with principles of natural justice. To some extent, even post facto compliance may be permitted. Still, the Prison Authorities have to comply with the rules when it comes to the imposition of any punishment on prisoners. 31. In Sunil Batra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that solitary confinement degrades and dehumanizes prisoners. A prisoner's constant and unrelieved isolation is so unnatural that it may breed insanity. Social isolation represents the most destructive abnormal environment. The results of long solitary confinement are disastrous to the physical and mental health of those subjected to it. 32. Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor assured us that the Prison Authorities would comply with the rules regarding the imposition of punishment on prisoners. He pointed out that the Prison Authorities, by themselves, modified the impugned order and curtailed the term indicated in it. He submitted that hereafter, necessary reports will be forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge for obtaining a judicial appraisal. 33. We accept Mr. Bhobe's statement made on behalf of the Prison Authorities. However, while we understand that the impugned order was made in peculiar circumstances, we cannot appreciate the breach of Rules and the procedures involved in making such an order. Just as there can be no compromise with the indiscipline of the inmates, so also there can be no compromise with the jail authorities breaching the rules. The rules apply to both sides. Even in prisons, the rule of law must prevail. 34. On the particular relief to be granted to the Petitioner, we find that the impugned order is no longer in force, firstly because its term was curtailed and secondly because the same has already worked itself out. However, as Mr. T. George John requested, we declare that such an order, though made in the exigency explained by the Prison Authorities, was not in accordance with the Prisons Rules, 2021. 35. On the aspect of compensation, again, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think that any case is made out for the award of compensation to the Petitioner. Though in breach of Rules, the impugned order was not made malafide or to unduly harass the Petitioner. 35. On the aspect of compensation, again, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think that any case is made out for the award of compensation to the Petitioner. Though in breach of Rules, the impugned order was not made malafide or to unduly harass the Petitioner. Even the Jail Authorities were in a bind because the Petitioner assaulted the medical staff, whose presence was vital to the functioning of the jail. The Petitioner's assault traumatized jail staff and other inmates, as per the affidavit filed before us. Therefore, we do not think it would be appropriate to award the Petitioner any compensation on this occasion. 36. The rule is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs.