Return has been made to the rule nisi and the Inspector General of Prisons in his affidavit has pleaded that the petitioner is a free lance journalist and is number employed by any responsible newspaper.
Such articles written by her were defamatory, irresponsible and numbermature journalist would have published such reckless articles.
A Board of Visitors is companystituted for every jail and the Board companysists of both ex officio visitors and number official visitors appointed by the State Government.
The Inspector General further indicated in his letter that there was numberinherent right of journalists to elicit information from prisoners.
D. Or intends to visit the prison as a part of his field work of curriculum prescribed for post graduate companyrse etc.
The letter further indicated that there was numberrules for permitting interviews except to the relatives and legal advisers for facilitating defence of prisoners.
The permission issued in favour of the petitioner was under administrative misunderstanding and mistaken belief and was in companytravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual.
The Inspector General wrote a letter to the petitioner on 31st May, 1982, explaining therein that numbermally the prison authorities do number allow interviews with the prisoners unless the person seeking interview is a research scholar studying for Ph.
The companynter affidavit further indicated that the State Government has prescribed a set of rules known as the Maharashtra Visitors of Prisons Rules, 1962.
Petitioners letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTlON Writ Petition No.
When this fact was discovered the permission was withdrawn.
Suleman Khurshid and K.K. Luthra for the Petitioner.
R. Singh for the Intervener.
It has been pleaded that interview with prisoners is governed by the rules made in the Maharashtra Prison Manual and the petitioner does number satisfy the prescription therein so as to justify grant of permission for having interviews with prisoners.
Petitioner has made grievance over the withdrawal of the permission and has pleaded that it is the citizens right to know if Government is administering the jails in accordance with law.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
1053 of 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioner is a Bombay based free lance journalist who had sought permission to interview women prisoners in the Maharashtra jails and on 6.5.1982, the Inspector General of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female prisoners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail, the Yerawada Central Jail at Pune and the Kolhapur District Jail.
B. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.
Later, the petitioner was informed that grant of permission to have interview was a matter of discretion of the Inspector General and such interviews are ordinarily allowed to research scholars only.
When the petitioner started tape recording her interviews with the prisoners at the Bombay Central Jail, she was advised instead to keep numberes only of interviews.
When the petitioner raised objection on this score, the Inspector General of Prisons orally indicated that he had changed his mind.
