Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the petitioner lawyers and the government of NCT Delhi to prepare a table indicating the position in other States as to how many legal meetings per week are permitted with an undertrial prisoner.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order in the plea filed against the rule of 2 visits allowed to the advocates to meet the undertrial prisoners stating that "it's not sufficient".

The court said that "there may be limitations of manpower".

The petitioner lawyers, practicing on the criminal side, have alleged that the Delhi Prison Rule, 2018, curtails the right of the undertrials and convicts to get continuous legal meetings with their lawyers in a week, as a result of which they are disabled from preparing their legal defense.

Advocate Jai A Dehadrai, one of the two petitioners, appearing in person, said, "I practice on the criminal side, it is a question on access to justice; this is not sufficient. It's a colonial-era provision. It was framed to restrict access to justice but the law has changed now and it is not adversarial litigation."

To this, Justice Prasad said, "90% are undertrial, there are practical difficulties, there is manpower limitation as well."

Dehadrai further submitted that the prison authorities must accommodate more slots as one slot is only half an hour long, not more than that. "For example, if there is a financial crime, I need to sit with my client for more time to prepare my defense," he added.

Furthermore, he said, "Twice a week for half an hour is very restrictive."

Additionally, he submitted that "for an accused, who is the state to decide as to how many times I should meet with my lawyer? There should be a proper meeting room where we can spread our papers, and have discussions."

The petition stated that "the Tihar Prison Profile further indicates that occupancy rate at Tihar Central Jail is currently at 175% which indicates major overcrowding in jails, which further manifests a crying need for facilitating the inmates' legal conference with their legal representative and not unnecessarily hindering or capping it."

It argued that Section 40 of the Delhi Prisons Act contemplates reasonable visitation for a prisoner and does not impose any restrictions on a prisoner's right to confer with his counsel. "Rather, the said Section explicitly states that the legal conference would be without the presence of another individual," the plea read. 

However, Rule No. 585, travels beyond the scope of reasonable restrictions contemplated under the Parent Act, and without any legal or scientific basis, imposes a fetter on the number of times that a prisoner may meet his legal counsel, the plea added.

Case Title: Jai A Dehadrai & Anr Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.