Today, On 21st August, Sandeep Pathak termed the refusal of permission to meet Arvind Kejriwal in jail as “arbitrary” in a plea to the High Court. He argued that the decision lacked a valid basis and urged the court to intervene. The case highlights concerns about access to political leaders in custody.
New Delhi: AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Kumar Pathak argued before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that the prison authority’s decision to deny him a meeting with Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in jail “arbitrary, illegal, and entirely unjustified.”
While Pathak had been granted permission to meet Kejriwal twice in April, the prison authorities refused his request this time, citing that certain statements he made after previous meetings were in violation of prison rules and appeared to be politically motivated.
Read Also: “Matter of Time Before He Comes Out of Jail”: AAP Celebrates Delhi CM Kejriwal’s Bail
In opposition to Pathak’s plea, the jail authorities argued in court that he deliberately breached prison regulations by discussing his conversations with Kejriwal in the media. They maintained that due to his past conduct, the prison administration is not inclined to allow him physical “mulakat” with the inmate.
After hearing partial arguments from both sides, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna scheduled the matter for further proceedings on Thursday. When the court inquired if no one else was permitted to meet Kejriwal, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, representing Pathak, responded that three people allowed to visit the chief minister, with two currently meeting him.
The court also directed the jail authorities to submit the order preventing Pathak from meeting Kejriwal. Kejriwal currently in judicial custody at Tihar Jail in connection with the alleged excise policy scam.
In his petition, Pathak requested the court to direct the jail authorities to permit him the right to a physical visit and interview with Kejriwal. He asserted that he had not violated Rule 587 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, as claimed by the authorities. Rule 587 stipulates that conversations during inmate interviews must be limited to private and domestic matters, with no reference to prison administration, discipline, other prisoners, or politics.
The jail authorities alleged that after visiting Kejriwal, Pathak made statements such as,
“Kejriwal is CM and will remain the CM, and if needed, he will run the government from inside the jail,”
“Starting next week, the CM will call two ministers to the jail every week to review their departments and provide guidelines and directions.”
On April 24, just an hour before their scheduled meeting, Pathak received an email from the jail authorities stating,
“The request for a physical ‘mulakat’ with Sandeep Kumar Pathak has been denied as he misused the facility by making statements against prison administration and issuing political statements after the interview, which violates Rule 587 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Accordingly, his ‘mulakat’ facility is restricted.”
In response to Pathak’s petition, the jail authorities claimed that his plea “baseless and malicious” and should be dismissed.
They argued that,
“The petitioner violated the rules related to physical interviews with inmates and presented incorrect facts in the petition, thereby disqualifying him from the relief he seeks.”
Pathak’s plea contended that Rule 587 applies only to conversations during the interview, whereas the jail authorities denied him a physical meeting based on statements made after the interview.
The plea argued that,
“Holding the petitioner in violation of Rule 587 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 is arbitrary, illegal, and completely unjustified on the part of the jail authorities.”
The petition also asserted,
“Political speech and discussions are fundamental to democracy and the basic structure of the Constitution, general conversations with political undertones should not be denied to someone visiting an undertrial prisoner unless they violate any law or are explicitly prohibited under Article 19 of the Constitution.”
He contended that the authorities’ actions rooted in an incorrect application of prison rules and were influenced by political considerations. Pathak emphasized that his conduct did not breach any regulations and that the decision to restrict his access was unjust and without merit.