[Gautam Navlakha judgment] Jail authorities should have considered books as essential commodity during COVID: Bombay High Court

Jail authorities should have considered books as an essential commodity during COVID-19 pandemic, the Bombay High Court observed while dismissing a plea filed by Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha requesting to be transferred to house arrest from jail [Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.].A Bench of Justices SB Shukre and GA Sanap observed that outright rejection of books sent to Navlakha while in judicial custody by his family during the COVID-19 lockdown was not proper."…we find that outright rejection of a parcel containing book by a humorist on such a ground was not proper. Covid pandemic was a period of distress, isolation and nervousness for most of the people, and more so for the jail inmates. During such terrible times, nothing more could have provided solace to a jail inmate than a book of his choice," the Court emphasized.The Bench ruled that the jail officials were required to follow the prison regulations with exceptions."If Covid protocol demanded rejection of outside parcel, the jail authorities were required to apply the rule not only generally but also with all it’s exceptions...exceptions to general rule permitted acceptance of essential items from out-side, like grocery, vegetables, toiletries, medicines etc. subject to procedure of sanitation. In Covid times the books also could have been looked upon as essential commodities, just like medicines and hence worthy of acceptance," the order said..Navlakha, who is a human rights activist and former Secretary of the People's Union for Democratic Rights, was arrested in August 2018, but was initially placed under house arrest.He was later moved to the Taloja Central Prison in Maharashtra in April 2020 after a Supreme Court order.Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in his default bail case, Navlakha moved the High Court pointing out that he was being denied basic medical aid and other necessities in Taloja and was suffering great hardships at his advanced age.This plea was dismissed by the High Court on Tuesday. .The Bench stated that if his constitutional rights as an under trial prisoner were violated, he had every right to file a grievance, but he was expected to do so with the Presiding Officer of the Special NIA Court."It is pertinent to note that the jail custody of the petitioner is regulated by the Presiding Officer of the Special NIA Court. The Presiding Officer of Special NIA Court is bound to take care of the grievance, if any, made by the under trial prisoner," the High Court said.The bench noted that Navlakha came before the High Court without first approaching the Special NIA Court and, therefore, his contentions were not well founded."It is seen that the petitioner without making a grievance before the learned Presiding Officer of the Special NIA Court, has come before this Court. If the petitioner had made a grievance or a request to the learned Presiding Officer of the Special NIA Court and if the same had not been considered, in that event, he would have been justified in making grievance and asserting his rights before this Court," the Court explained.[Read Judgment]