The Supreme Court of India has recently upheld the restrictions on the number of visits undertrial prisoners in Delhi can receive, dismissing a plea that sought to increase the frequency of these visits. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, emphasizes the policy considerations and operational challenges faced by prison authorities.
Also read-Supreme Court To Deliberate On AMU’s Minority Status (lawchakra.in)
The origin of this litigation can be traced back to a public interest litigation filed by two advocates, challenging Rule 585 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018. The petitioners argued that limiting the number of visits to twice a week infringed upon the rights of undertrials, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They contended that this restriction hampers the ability of undertrials to access adequate legal representation and manage their property and family affairs.
In response to these concerns, Justice Bela M. Trivedi remarked,
“Do not forget that you (prisoners) are accused. Where is the question of relaxing? These are policy matters. It will become difficult for jail authorities to manage (so many visits). There has to be restrictions, (even) for undertrials.”
This statement underscores the court’s recognition of the practical difficulties in managing an increased number of visits in already overcrowded prisons.
Also read-“Will Have To Constitute Bench”: CJI Chandrachud (lawchakra.in)
Advocate Jai A. Dehadrai, one of the petitioners, highlighted the increasing number of undertrials in Delhi and the challenges posed by the cap on visits. He asserted the principle of criminal law that every person should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, stating,
“My lords only accused but I am presumed innocent. Our criminal jurisprudence which your lordships have upheld for the last 60 years is that we are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Despite these arguments, the High Court, in its February 16, 2023, decision, opined that the decision to cap visits had been taken after careful consideration of the facilities available in prisons, the availability of staff, and the number of undertrials. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, suggesting that it was not inclined to interfere with the policy decision. Justice Trivedi also noted the impossibility for jail authorities to manage long periods of visits.
Dehadrai further argued for the gravity of the situation, emphasizing the need for undertrials to have access to their lawyers and family members. He pointed out the lack of infrastructure and the limited time available for visits, which he argued was insufficient for effective communication and legal consultation.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, maintaining the stance that these are policy decisions best left to the discretion of the authorities managing the prisons. The decision highlights the delicate balance between the rights of undertrial prisoners and the practical challenges faced by prison authorities in managing visitations and maintaining order within the facilities.
Also read-Supreme Court Rejects Continued Court Monitoring In Dabholkar Case (lawchakra.in)
