The Delhi High Court has recently addressed the issue of denying telephonic and electronic communication facilities to prisoners implicated in terrorist activities and offenses under statutes like the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Public Safety Act. In its preliminary observations, the court opined that such denial is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, especially when public safety and order are at stake.
Case Background
The matter arose from a petition filed by Syed Ahmad Shakeel, a prisoner challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. This specific rule restricts prisoners involved in terrorist activities or serious offenses under laws like MCOCA and the Public Safety Act from accessing regular telephonic and electronic communication facilities. The rule emphasizes that such restrictions are in the interest of public safety and order.
Provisions of Rule 631
Rule 631 explicitly states that prisoners associated with terrorist activities or offenses under MCOCA and similar statutes are not eligible for regular communication facilities. However, it provides a discretionary clause where the Jail Superintendent, with prior approval from the Deputy Inspector General (Range), can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. This ensures that the denial of communication facilities is not absolute but is evaluated based on individual circumstances.
Court's Observations
The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, noted that the impugned rule allows for discretion, ensuring that decisions are made considering public interest and safety. The court emphasized that in situations where regulated communication does not pose a threat to public safety, the rule permits granting such facilities even to prisoners involved in serious offenses.
Petitioner's Arguments
Representing Shakeel, the counsel highlighted that a 2022 circular aimed to streamline the inmate phone call system had reduced the frequency of permitted calls. Previously, prisoners could make five calls a week, but the circular limited this to once a week. In contrast, other prisoners were allowed one call per day. Shakeel contended that since April 2024, he had been entirely denied telephonic access, resulting in no contact with his family. He argued that this disparity in communication frequency among prisoners was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Legal Context
The court's deliberations underscore the balance between individual rights and collective security. While prisoners retain certain rights, these can be curtailed when there's a compelling interest in maintaining public safety. The discretionary provision within Rule 631 ensures that each case is assessed individually, allowing for flexibility without compromising security concerns.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's prima facie view supports the notion that restricting communication facilities for prisoners involved in terrorist activities is justified, provided there are adequate safeguards and discretionary measures in place. This approach seeks to uphold public safety while ensuring that decisions are made judiciously, respecting the nuanced circumstances of each case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.