Advertisement
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said it was not inclined to interfere with the high court order as it a policy decision.
The high court, in its order dated February 16 last year, had said the decision has been taken after careful consideration of the facilities available in prisons, availability of staff and the number of undertrials.
”In matters of policy, the courts do not substitute its own conclusion with the one arrived at by the government merely because another view is possible. Therefore, this court is not inclined to pass any order issuing writ of mandamus,” the high court had said.
Related Articles
Advertisement
The petition by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had prayed for amendment of the rules to allow interviews with legal advisers be open from Monday to Friday for an appropriate allotted time with no cap on interviews per week.
The petitioner, in the interim, had prayed for visits of the legal counsel to their clients in Delhi prisons more than twice a week.
The high court, in its verdict, had said keeping in view the fact that the present PIL is not an adversarial litigation and the petition has been filed in the interest of prisoners, it permits the petitioner to give a representation to the state providing suggestions.
”Depending upon the number of undertrials and prisoners, the State has taken a decision of capping total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers to two times a week and it cannot be said that the said decision is completely arbitrary. The said decision has been taken after careful consideration of the facilities available in prisons, availability of staff and the number of undertrials,” the high court had said.
The petitioner had contended that limiting the number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers to twice a week is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as it limits the rights of an undertrial to have adequate resources to legal representation.
Fixing a cap on the number of visits to an undertrial is manifestly arbitrary as it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to legal representation and is violative of the right to access justice which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, the petitioner had said.
The Delhi government, in its reply, had submitted that there are 16 jails in Delhi housing more than 18,000 prisoners against the sanctioned capacity of 10,026. It said that looking at the number of inmates in the prisons here, it was decided to put a cap on the number of visits permitted by family members, relatives, friends and legal counsel.
It had said that providing two legal interviews to a prisoner can be increased on the request of a prisoner or a visiting counsel and it does not fall foul of the constitutional right of the prisoner.