Dismisses Undertrial Visitation Rights Petition
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has called for a response from the Delhi High Court concerning a petition filed by a judicial officer. This petition is particularly notable as it seeks to expunge adverse remarks made against the officer. The origins of this plea trace back to a decision by the Delhi High Court, where it refused to remove critical comments directed at a trial court judge. These remarks were made in the context of the judge’s handling of a criminal investigation involving the Delhi Police. The Supreme Court’s involvement, signaled by its request for a response from the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, marks a crucial phase in this legal discourse.
Also read-AMU Minority Status | Day 3- Supreme Court Clarifies Article 30 (lawchakra.in)
Simultaneously, in a separate but equally impactful case, the Supreme Court addressed a petition aimed at revising the visitation rights of undertrial prisoners in Delhi’s prisons. This petition was significant as it challenged the existing government policy that limits undertrial prisoners to only two visits per week. Undertrial prisoners, distinct from those in police custody, are individuals held in judicial custody while they await trial.
The petition against this visitation restriction was rooted in a challenge to Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. This rule outlines the entitlement of prisoners to reasonable communication facilities with family, friends, and legal advisers, including the provision for interviews twice a week and unrestricted letter writing, subject to personal expense. The petitioners contended that the current restrictions on visits infringed upon the constitutional right of prisoners to legal representation.
Also read-Tamil Nadu Advocate General Resigns Amid Legal Challenges And Government Revamp (lawchakra.in)
However, the Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the arguments and the Delhi High Court’s stance, decided not to entertain the special leave petition (SLP). The SLP, a discretionary remedy under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, allows for an appeal to the Supreme Court’s decision from any court or tribunal in India. It is not an automatic right but is granted based on the Supreme Court’s discretion.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of not interfering in policy matters unless a policy is demonstrably unconstitutional or grossly arbitrary. This stance reflects a judicial philosophy that respects the boundaries between the judiciary and policy-making bodies. While the court allowed the petitioner to present suggestions to the government, it stopped short of issuing a mandamus order. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with these observations, upholding the existing visitation policy for undertrial prisoners in Delhi.
These two cases, while distinct in their specifics, collectively underscore the dynamic and complex nature of the legal system in India. They highlight the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with broader policy considerations, and the intricate processes involved in legal adjudication and review.
