Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Gujarat High Court has suggested that the State government should consider providing controlled internet access to prisoners in state jails noting that it is crucial for jail administrations to adopt and integrate technology, creating a digital environment within prisons for educational and research purposes. However, the court held that a prisoner cannot be permitted to possess a personal electronic device such as a laptop, iPad, mobile phone, etc within the jail premises.

This recommendation was made by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar while delivering a judgment on a petition filed by Narayansai Aasharam Harpalani, also known as Narayansai, a rape convict and son of Asaram bapu. The petitioner, who is serving life sentences for offences including rape under Section 376(2)(c), unnatural sexual offences under Section 377, and several other crimes like wrongful confinement and assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had argued that these devices were necessary for his social and welfare activities, as well as for authoring books while incarcerated. The petitioner claimed that he had already published five books from jail without such devices, but further research and writing required modern electronic tools.

The petition also challenged a communication dated February 5, 2021, in which the Jail Superintendent of Lajpore Central Jail, Surat, rejected a request made on the convict's behalf by a third party for permission to use a mobile phone. The request was primarily based on the need for the convict to stay in touch with trustees and other associates for social welfare activities. The authorities denied this request, citing prohibitions under Sections 42 and 45(12) of The Prisons Act, 1894, and various state government circulars that restrict the use of mobile phones by prisoners convicted of serious offences, including those under Section 376.

The prosecution opposed the petition, highlighting that the jail provides STD/PCO facilities, which are sufficient for prisoners to maintain contact with their families within allotted time slots. The prosecution also emphasised that allowing the petitioner to use a mobile phone or other electronic devices could lead to misuse and pose a threat to public order, given the nature of the petitioner’s crimes and his past conduct in jail, which included illegally possessing a mobile phone.

The court noted : “The petitioner wants to use his personal mobile and other electronic equipment for his personal use in a cell. To allow such request and accord permission to keep such articles in a jail, which is nothing, but amounts to violation of jail manual and The Prisons Act…If permission is given to use mobile in jail, which is nothing, but indirectly by-pass the jail rules and regulations and therefore, such permission cannot be acceded to.”

Additionally, with regards the petitioner's request to quash or modify the communication dated February 5, 2021 concerning the prohibition of mobile phone use in jail, the court upheld the Jail Superintendent's decision, noting that the petitioner's request for electronic devices violated the strict regulations governing prison conduct. The court observed that the petitioner had managed to publish several books without access to electronic devices and that there was no indication that his fundamental rights were being curtailed by the jail administration. “It is the duty of the convict to obey all lawful orders and instructions issued by the competent prison authority and to obey all Prison Rules and Regulations and follow all restrictions imposed by the State Authority. Here, in the instant case, it is not a case where the respondent authority has denied such basic fundamental rights and basic human rights of the petitioner,” the court remarked.

The court also considered the petitioner’s past conduct, including previous instances where he was caught illegally using a mobile phone in jail and engaging in activities that disrupted public peace. The court cited the Supreme Court's rejection of the petitioner’s furlough application, which was based on similar concerns regarding his conduct and the potential risk to public safety. The court observed that “If the petitioner is provided mobile and internet facilities, then there is strong apprehension that, he may contact his followers and outsiders, which may result into break the public peace.”

The court recognised the need for jail administrations to embrace technology, aligning with the broader e-court initiatives that aim to make the judicial system more accessible and efficient. The e-court project, which envisions digital integration within the judicial system, underscores the necessity for jails to create a digital environment, raise awareness among inmates about e-services, and provide vocational training. In line with this, the HC highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in ‘Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India’ (2020), which upheld that Article 19(1)(a) embodies the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, including the right to express through the internet, subject to reasonable restrictions. These restrictions, the court noted, are necessary for maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, state security, public order, and other concerns. The Supreme Court also directed the provision of internet facilities in jails for the effective service of writs and notices through the FASTER system.

Considering the need for a reformative approach, the court suggested that the State Government consult experts to determine how internet access could be effectively controlled in jails, using advanced technology to prevent misuse. Comprehensive guidelines and SOPs should be developed to provide limited internet access to inmates for educational and research purposes, under strict surveillance.

However, the court emphasised that due to the petitioner's conduct and the offences for which he has been convicted, he is not entitled to such facilities.

In light of these observations and directions, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: NARAYANSAI AASHARAM HARPALANI v THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS [R/SCR.A/4715/2021]