Bombay High Court: The present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed with the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the State to implement the provisions of telephonic and electronic modes of communication in terms of Clause 8.38 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016 in all the prisons across the State of Maharashtra. Further, it was prayed that the decision of respondents to discontinue telephonic and electronic modes of communication should be quashed.
The Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J., and Arif S. Doctor, J., directed the State Government to implement the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024 in all the prisons throughout the State of Maharashtra and shall also provide adequate infrastructure, wherever required, so that the Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024 was implemented in its letter and spirit and all the inmates in the prisons were given access to phone calls and e-mulakaat facilities.
Counsel for petitioners tendered to the Court a Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024, which included provisions providing phone call facility and e-mulakaat facility to the prisoners excluding Pakistani prisoners.
The Court opined that various provisions were made in the prisons across the State of Maharashtra for providing phone call and e-mulakaat facilities to the inmates in the jail. The Court disposed of the PIL and directed the State Government to implement the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024 in all the prisons throughout the State of Maharashtra and shall also provide adequate infrastructure, wherever required, so that the Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024 was implemented in its letter and spirit and all the inmates in the prisons were given access to phone calls and e-mulakaat facilities.
The Court stated that as far as the submission of counsel for petitioners in relation to exclusion of Pakistani citizens from operation of the Government Resolution dated 22-3-2024 was concerned, it was always open to petitioners to challenge any part of the Government Resolution if any grievance still existed by taking recourse to any remedy.
[PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1292, order dated 8-5-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Rebecca Gonsalves with Pritha Paul for petitioners.
For the Respondents: A. R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1, 3, and 4; P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader for Respondent 2.
