Court Addresses State Liability, Blind Prisoners' Safety, Legal Services, & Judicial Procedures in Landmark Case

The court addressed various issues including non-appearance of the State of Bihar, housing and safety of blinded prisoners, state liability for compensation under Article 21, right to free legal services for indigent accused, irregularities in judicial procedures and remand orders, failure of judicial magistrates to inquire about injuries, lack of inspection of Bhagalpur Central Jail, and handling of petitions by blinded prisoners. The State of Bihar was exonerated for non-appearance, blinded prisoners were directed to be housed in Delhi for safety, and the court emphasized the importance of free legal services and compliance with legal requirements. The next hearing is scheduled for 6th January 1981.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-appearance of the State of Bihar.
2. Housing and safety of blinded prisoners.
3. State liability for compensation u/s Article 21.
4. Right to free legal services for indigent accused.
5. Irregularities in judicial procedures and remand orders.
6. Judicial magistrates' failure to inquire about injuries.
7. Lack of inspection of Bhagalpur Central Jail.
8. Handling of petitions by blinded prisoners.

Summary:

1. Non-appearance of the State of Bihar:
The State of Bihar did not appear on 2nd December 1980 due to the notice being served only on 6th December 1980. The court accepted this explanation and exonerated the State from remissness.

2. Housing and safety of blinded prisoners:
Blinded prisoners undergoing treatment at Rajendra Prashad Ophthalmic Institute, New Delhi, should not be sent back to Bhagalpur due to safety concerns. They should be housed in the Blind Relief Association of Delhi, with the State of Bihar bearing the cost.

3. State liability for compensation u/s Article 21:
Mrs. Hingorani argued that the State is liable to pay compensation for the violation of Fundamental Rights u/s Article 21 due to police actions. The court acknowledged the constitutional importance of this issue and decided to hear detailed arguments in the next hearing.

4. Right to free legal services for indigent accused:
The court emphasized that free legal services are a Fundamental Right u/s Article 21, as declared in Hussainara Khatoon's case. The State must provide legal aid to indigent accused at all stages, including the initial production before a magistrate. Magistrates must inform accused persons of their right to free legal services.

5. Irregularities in judicial procedures and remand orders:
The court noted irregularities such as non-production of accused within 24 hours and lack of remand orders. The State must ensure compliance with constitutional and legal requirements. Magistrates should enforce these requirements and address violations by the police.

6. Judicial magistrates' failure to inquire about injuries:
Judicial magistrates failed to inquire about injuries sustained by blinded prisoners, despite police reports indicating such injuries. The court urged the High Court to ensure judicial officers fulfill their obligations in the future.

7. Lack of inspection of Bhagalpur Central Jail:
No inspection of Bhagalpur Central Jail was carried out in 1980. The court requested the High Court to address this issue and ensure regular inspections.

8. Handling of petitions by blinded prisoners:
Blinded prisoners' petitions alleging police atrocities were not acted upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court sought detailed information from the State Government on the steps taken after receiving these petitions and whether appropriate actions were taken to prevent further atrocities.

Next Hearing:
The writ petition is adjourned to 6th January 1981 for further hearing.

---