LI Network
Published on: January 9, 2024 at 13:34 IST
The Supreme Court, rejected a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision not to interfere with the government’s imposition of limitations on visits to jail inmates.
The government had implemented a policy allowing only two visits per week by family, friends, and legal advisors.
The Delhi High Court, in its ruling on February 16, 2023, justified the restrictions, citing careful consideration of prison facilities, staff availability, and the number of undertrials.
The legal dispute originated from a public interest litigation filed by two advocates challenging Rule 585 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, which sought to amend the rules to allow legal advisor interviews from Monday to Friday without a cap on weekly visits.
Rule 585 mandates reasonable facilities for prisoners to communicate with family, friends, and legal advisors for appeal preparation, bail procurement, or managing property and family affairs.
The petitioners argued that limiting visits to twice a week violates Article 21 of the Constitution, restricting undertrials’ right to adequate legal representation.
The Delhi High Court emphasized that in matters of policy, courts do not substitute their judgment for the government’s unless the decision is entirely arbitrary. The case reached the Supreme Court, where it was presented before Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
During the hearing, advocate Jai A. Dehadrai, one of the petitioners, highlighted the negligence of Justice Lokur’s 2017 prison reform order by the Delhi Government. He argued against the visitation cap, emphasizing the increasing number of undertrials in Delhi.
Justice Bela responded by reminding Dehadrai that the accused are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite Dehadrai’s assertion of the constitutional principle, the Court leaned towards viewing the visitation policy as a valid government decision.
Dehadrai argued that the limited half-hour visits from lawyers and family members were insufficient, challenging the government’s claim of providing more visitation rights than other states.
The Court, however, maintained its stance that it is a policy decision, expressing the impracticality of managing extended visitation periods in overcrowded jails.
Dehadrai urged the Court to reconsider, emphasizing the gravity of the situation and the need for improved infrastructure. Despite his pleas, the Court dismissed the case, prompting Dehadrai to express disappointment but still beseech the Bench for reconsideration.
Case Title: JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR., Diary No.- 35777 – 2023.
