[Gautam Navlakha plea] How can PG Wodehouse book be security threat; this is comical: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court was on Monday staggered by the allegations raised by Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha that Taloja prison authorities had denied him a stool, his spectacles and even a book authored by PG Wodehouse [Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.]

A Bench of Justices SB Shukre and GA Sanap found it extremely comical that a book by Wodehouse which was sent to Navlakha was returned by prison officials citing security threat.

Is there really an order that the book was returned? ...This is really comical, it shows the attitude of the jail authorities. PG Wodehouse was an inspiration for PL Deshpande, the famous humorist and writer of Maharashtra. How can that be a security threat," demanded Justice Shukre.

Advocate Sandesh Patil appearing for the National Investigation Agency said that it was the call of the prison authorities.

"Why did you not intervene? As the agency it is your job to make the life of the prisoner comfortable," the Bench further remarked.

The Court was hearing a plea by Navlakha praying that he be transferred from prison to his house and kept under house arrest considering his bad health.

Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, representing Navlakha, pointed out the dismal conditions in prison which compelled Navlakha to file the present plea.

Chaudhry pointed out three instances where the prison authorities behaved in an irrational manner while refusing the bare minimum requirements to Navlakha:

1. His request for chair was refused despite his difficulty to be able to sit down;

2. He was denied spectacles despite his prison pair having been stolen and he eventually got spectacles only after reports about the same emerged in media;

3. A book authored by PG Wodehouse which was sent to him, was returned on two occasions, which eventually he received after it was personally delivered.

Chaudhry submitted that the prison officials returned the book stating that it was a security risk and threat.

"Do we live in some Nazi times that his spectacles were denied? ...So they refused him chair, then spectacles, and then even slippers. It was like the concentration camps," Chaudhry submitted.

Chaudhry pointed out the conditions in the prison as deposed by Navlakha on affidavit.

"The barrack was not just unfit for medical quarantine but wholly unfit for human habitation. The ward was filthy and full of grime and cockroaches. The barrack had 4 bathrooms which were malfunctioning and extremely unhygienic, unsanitary and smelt foul. None of the bathrooms had any doors and were extremely dirty with feces and urine lying on the floor. Inmates were forced to perform their ablutions in the open with no privacy. The water coming from the taps was muddy and unclean," the affidavit stated.

Justice Shukre at this point asked if the prison officials had filed any response to the same. When Chaudhry pointed out that an affidavit had been filed, but it did not address the concerns raised, the Court reprimanded the prison officials for their casual approach.

"The State has not bothered to file any affidavit. So we will have to hold that whatever has been submitted is true. We will pass strictures then," the Court asserted.

The Court then dictated an order stating,

"The reply affidavit of the state government prima facie gives us an impression that whatever is alleged by the petitioner might be true. This is further bolstered by the absence of a government lawyer in court when the petitioner's advocate is arguing."

The Court also suggested the state to consider initiating appropriate actions against the erring law officer.

However, additional public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde appeared before the Bench at that juncture and requested the Court to recall the order in light of the fact that the chief public prosecutor was held up in another court.

The Court said that it will not sign the order if the PP tenders a written apology.

"The matter which is to be given the first priority is given the last priority. If you give written apology, then we will not sign the order," the Bench remarked.

The Court also called upon the Advocate General to look into this matter and suggest corrective measures to be followed by the prison authorities by tomorrow, when the matter will be taken up for hearing.

Before the matter could be adjourned, the Court enquired how was it possible to implement the mechanism of house arrest.

In response, Chaudhry stated that it was something that the present Bench would be doing for the first time and that they should not shirk away from that responsibility.

Chaudhry also requested the Court to not convert this plea into a prison reforms petition.

"I do not want this to become a prison reform petition. Do not kill this petition by kindness of prison reform. This petition is filed for saving my (Navlakha's) life. I have made prayers and I have grounds for them," he emphasised.