Observing that a prisoner is entitled to certain fundamental rights even while in custody, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a remand prisoner to meet his ailing wife in a hospital in Tirunelveli.
It ordered that the conversations between the couple should not be monitored and asked the escort police to respect the privacy of the couple.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the sister of the prisoner, who sought permission for Mohamed Shalin, lodged at the Palayamkottai Central Prison, to meet his ailing wife.
He was earlier granted permission to meet his wife at their residence by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai, on humanitarian grounds.
But she was shifted from their residence to Rosemary Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Tirunelveli, for treatment.
The escort police refused to take him to the hospital saying that he was only allowed to meet his wife at his residence.
In a special sitting on Tuesday, Justice G. R. Swaminathan observed that under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules the prisoner certainly had a right to communicate with his wife. If the spouse was unable to visit the prison, the authorities must facilitate a visit by the prisoner. “It is necessary to recognise the existence of such a right.” This should not be seen as a prisoner’s privilege. It must be viewed more as a spousal right of the prisoner’s wife, the court said.
Refusing to accept the contention that the meeting should take place in the presence of an escort police, the court said that Rule 531(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, which states that every interview with a convicted prisoner shall take place in the presence of an experienced police officer, would have to be read down as inapplicable during meetings between spouses.
Also, Rule 529 states that the place of interview will be at or near the main gate. The prison authorities will have to make an exception in the case of spousal meetings, the court said.
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, treats communication between spouses during marriage as privileged.
The court observed that Mohamed Shalin was no doubt a prisoner, but was a person too.
The court, while allowing the prisoner to meet his wife, observed that it was not granting a bail or parole, but was only directing the prison authorities to take the prisoner under escort to his wife.
The cost of escort shall be borne by the State government and the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court shall be adhered to. Close blood relatives of the prisoner alone should be present during the meeting, the court said.