Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner who is a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha and a member of the Aam Aadmi Party, seeking permission from Tihar Jail authorities (respondents) to allow him a physical interview with Arvind Kejriwal, who is detained at Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that there is no infirmity in the impugned denial of visitation to the petitioner but allowed to meet Arvind Kejriwal in future and left him at liberty to move an application seeking visitation to be considered by the concerned Jail Superintendent, in accordance with law.
The petitioner claims to have visited Shri Kejriwal on multiple occasions in compliance with Rules 585, 586, and 587 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (“DPR, 2018”). On 12-04-24, respondent 1 granted permission for a physical meeting, which was conducted without any violations. However, after the interview, the petitioner made political statements in the media, which the respondents claim violated Rule 587 of the DPR, 2018. As a result, the petitioner’s request for a subsequent meeting on 23-04-24 was denied. On 12-06-24, the petitioner sent a follow-up email requesting reconsideration of the denial, assuring compliance with prison rules in future meetings.
Counsel for the petitioner asserted that his statements made after the interview with Arvind Kejriwal fall under his fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He argued that denying him visitation based on these statements is an infringement on this right. Furthermore, he contended that Rule 587 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, applies only to undertrial prisoners and jail administration, not visitors, making the respondents’ reliance on the rule legally flawed. He also highlighted a violation of natural justice, as his request for visitation was denied without an opportunity to explain himself, and the decision was arbitrary, lacking proper authorization and formal order from the Jail Superintendent.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner’s political statements to the media after his meeting with Arvind Kejriwal on 12-04-24 were a clear violation of Rule 587 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which limits conversations between inmates and visitors to private matters. They contended that the rule applies equally to all visitors, and maintaining prison discipline justifies the denial of further visitation requests. They also submitted that the petitioner lacks the locus standi to challenge the denial, as Arvind Kejriwal did not object to it.
The primary issue for consideration in this case is whether the statements made by the petitioner, during his visitation to meet Arvind Kejriwal, violated Rule 587 of the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR), 2018. A review of the content shows that the statements were of a political nature, made on behalf of Mr. Kejriwal, who, being confined to jail, was unable to express such views himself. The Court recognized that the rights of jail inmates are necessarily curtailed to maintain prison discipline, and this extends to interactions with visitors. Rule 587 explicitly prohibits discussions related to prison administration, discipline, and politics. Thus, the Court concluded that the statements were political and violated the rules. Furthermore, the petitioner’s later email admission acknowledged his wrongdoing and sought reconsideration of future visitation rights.
The petitioner’s argument, that the term “politics” in Rule 587 of DPR, 2018 should be interpreted narrowly as loose conversation about jail administration rather than state politics, was rejected by the court. The Court held that “politics” must be understood in its ordinary legal sense, referring to activities related to governance and the state, and thus, political conversations on behalf of Arvind Kejriwal were clearly prohibited. The Court further addressed the claim that denying visitation without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. However, the petitioner’s prior admission of his violation weakened this argument.
The Court remarked that the petitioner had made the statements for and on behalf of Arvind Kejirwal and he was more like in an agent or spokesperson and his statements cannot be held to have been made by him in exercise of free right to speech and expression or violative of reasonable restrictions imposed by DPR. He is seeking right of physical interview in terms of DPR and must therefore, exercise it in accordance thereof. He cannot on one hand seek right to physical interview according to Rule 589 DPR and on the other hand not abide by the conditions contained therein. Privilege conferred by the Rule would be implemented in its full rigor; the petitioner cannot seek its selective adherence, as per his convenience
Thus, the Court upheld the jail authorities’ decision to deny the visitation based on the violation of Rule 587, while leaving the door open for the petitioner to move an Application seeking visitation which shall be considered by the concerned Jail Superintendent, in accordance with law.
[Sandeep Kumar Pathak v. The Superintendant, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6197, decided on 04-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Baani Khanna, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Robin Singh & Mr. Vivek Gaur, Advocates for petitioner;
Mr. S.G.K Murty Sr. Law Officer, Mr. Vinod Yadav Jail Superintendent & Mr. Amrish Goel, Dy. Supd. (Lit.) for respondents 2.
