Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the Mandoli Jail authorities to give a post facto hearing to conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, arrested in connection with several fraud cases, on the punishment ticket issued to him depriving him of canteen facility for 15 days.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, "Without going into the issue of minor and major punishment and particularly in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, let a post facto hearing be given for punishment no. 1 (stoppage of canteen facility)," 

The court noted that Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Nandita Rao agreed that the petitioner will be given a post facto hearing in respect of Punishment No. 2 which is the stoppage of mulakat and phone calling facility" for 15 days. Subsequent to that, a fresh decision shall be taken in accordance with the law and Delhi Prison Rules.

“In view of this, the counsel for Petitioner does not want to press the present petition. Accordingly, it is disposed of”, the court said while disposing of the petition.

During the hearing, Advocate Anant Singh Malik, on behalf of Sukesh Chandrashekhar informed the court that the status report had been filed. “If my lords will see the status report, there is no show cause notice, no inquiry. There is blatant violation of rule no. 1272, 1273 and I am also pressing 1275 of the Delhi Prison Rules. For the same offence, I have been punished twice & 1275 clearly prohibits that”, he contended.

Rao appearing for the State explained to the court that there are two categories of Rules in 1271— minor punishment is any punishment that is less than one month, in which there is no obligation to give a show cause notice and major punishments like stopping facilities up to 1 month or canteen facilities for 1 month. “For it to be a major punishment, canteen facilities have to be stopped. Only if the punishment is for 30 days, it is a major punishment. If it is less, it is a minor punishment. Other facilities, Mulakat and telephone calling facilities, they come under privileges given under rule 589 of Prison Rules”, she added.

The standing counsel submitted that 15 days of stoppage of canteen facilities for one offence had been given where he (Sukesh) made a false allegation that while frisking by CRPF staff, he was mishandled but the CCTV footage shows otherwise.

Rao contended that in a prison, discipline has to be maintained. She apprised the court that the Supreme Court is also hearing the matter of his punishments.

To this submission, Malik clarified, “The issue is pending before Supreme Court. There has been a High power committee appointed after I (Sukesh Chandrashekhar) made the complaint. I am in direct conflict with the government (Aam Aadmi Party) I am a key witness of Arvind Kejriwal and Satyendar Jain, which is why my life is under threat. My Lords!”

“I (Sukesh Chandrashekhar) have received constant threats from Satyendar Jain and his aides regarding the petition before the Supreme Court. And threats have come through the Jail officials because the jail comes under the AAP administration. This petition has nothing to do with the transfer petition before SC. Of course, these allegations are there, on manhandling me on instructions of Satyendar Jain, etc”, he argued.

Malik contended, “Where is the issue of these transfer petitions and jail tickets being connected? I'll show the blatant violation on the face of it. Neither the Status report is required nor anything else is. They have punished me (Sukesh) for the same offence twice. Rule 1275 clearly states that no prisoner should be punished twice for the same offence. ‘Possession of prohibited articles’, that's the only offence for which I have been punished twice”.

The counsel argued that the confessional statements of the offender (Sukesh Chandrashekhar herein) should also be recorded in the presence of two witnesses. “There is not even a document left apart from the question of two witnesses. Findings and punishments should be recorded after applying a judicious mind. This one-pager doesn't have the application of "judicious mind"!”, he argued.

“The rule clearly states that the findings and punishments shall immediately be forwarded to the District Judge and Sessions Judge for obtaining the appraisal and in any case, not beyond 2 days. Here it is sent after 10 days! Once a calculated fraud and documentation have been made by the Jail officials! That is what is happening”, Malik contended.

“Jail authorities are rewriting the manual! I don't know when a day will come my lords! When the State will assist the court fairly!”, he contended.

Furthermore, referring to the status report, Malik contended that there is no inquiry report, and there is no written show cause. Nothing at all is complied! “I (Sukesh) am not allowed to be heard, that too when I am in direct conflict with the AAP government”, he said.

Notably, the court on Wednesday sought a status report from the Delhi Police on the plea by Sukesh Chandrashekhar challenging the punishment awarded to him by the jail authorities.

Chandrashekhar has prayed to set aside and quash the order of April 17, 2023, passed by the office of the Jail Deputy Superintendent of Prison, Mandoli, as well as stay on the execution of the said order until the adjudication of the present petition.

His plea stated that the Jail Deputy Superintendent had arbitrarily, erroneously, and without any application of mind, awarded two punishment tickets against Chandrashekhar depriving him of the canteen facility and the Mulakat/Phone call facility for 15 days.

Case Title: Sukesh Chandrashekhar v. State Govt NCT of Delhi