Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain torture case, dismisses petition, suggests seeking remedies in Rajasthan High Court.

The Court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case due to challenges in conducting an inquiry into alleged torture of detenus in jail. The Court highlighted the availability of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur as a more suitable forum to address the grievances raised by the petitioners, emphasizing that the exercise of powers under Article 226 remained discretionary. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, advising the petitioners to seek remedies in the Rajasthan High Court, which had the jurisdiction and means to comprehensively address the issues raised.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition and grant reliefs to the detenus.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought various reliefs concerning the alleged torture of detenus in jail. The detenus were arrested for serious offenses and were being tried in an Additional Special Court at Jodhpur. The petitioners claimed to be friends and political associates of the detenus and sought reliefs such as production of detenus before the Court, judicial inquiry into the incident, transfer of under-trials to a jail in Punjab, medical facilities, and simplification of interview procedures. The Court deliberated on its jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant reliefs in such circumstances.

The Court noted that the detenus were under-trials in the Central Jail at Jodhpur, and the incident in question occurred there. The petitioners argued that the Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition and provide the reliefs requested. However, the Court expressed reluctance to grant relief in a case where it faced challenges in conducting an inquiry due to distance and other factors. The Court highlighted the availability of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, which could more effectively handle the matter and provide necessary relief to the petitioners.

The Court emphasized that while Article 226 grants wide and extraordinary powers, the decision to exercise those powers remained discretionary. It concluded that in the present case, it was not inclined to interfere, considering the jurisdiction and capabilities of the Rajasthan High Court to address the grievances raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, indicating that the petitioners should seek remedies in the Rajasthan High Court, which had the jurisdiction and means to address the issues raised in the petition comprehensively.

---