Read Time: 06 minutes
Kejriwal asserted that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which ensures the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice, was violated. It was also asserted that unequal treatment was unfair and unsupported by law.
The Delhi High Court, recently, allowed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking to overturn the orders passed by the Special Judge. The order dismissed Kejiriwal’s applications seeking weekly meetings along with additional meetings with his lawyers.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “When balancing the policy with the fundamental rights of the jail inmate, the request of the petitioner for two additional legal meetings with his Lawyers through video conferencing, in the given circumstance of huge number of cases pending against him, cannot be termed unreasonable”.
Kejriwal, represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, claimed that the department’s opposition was based on assumptions and misapplication of legal principles, without evidence of misuse. It was argued that the dismissal of his second application was incorrect as it sought a different relief from the first. Senior Advocate Gupta claimed that the Special Judge's remarks against Kejriwal were unwarranted and without legal basis.
The court remarked that the right to a fair trial for the accused was a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution and was repeatedly affirmed by the Apex Court in various judgments referenced. Furthermore, it was undisputed that a fair trial included the right to legal representation, a valuable constitutional right derived from Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, consistently recognized in numerous judgments by the Apex Court. “Every citizen of this country is recognized to have equal rights and equal protection of the law under the Constitution of India”, the court highlighted.
The court observed that every citizen, regardless of status or privilege, has equal rights. “The ordinary citizen has the same privileges as the public figure or an MLA has and no one is above the law of the land”, the court outlined.
The court noted that Kejriwal sought two additional weekly legal meetings with his lawyers via video conferencing, citing involvement in over 30 cases across various Indian states. He has claimed that despite being granted interim bail in this case, his relief had not become irrelevant as he remained in custody for other matters.
The court observed the Jail policy, enacted by the concerned Jail Authority with due consideration to all modalities, infrastructure, and inmate numbers, was generally not interfered with by courts. However, balancing policy with the fundamental rights of jail inmates, Kejriwal’s request for two additional legal meetings through video conferencing, given the numerous pending cases, could not be deemed unreasonable.
The court noted that similar relief for additional legal meetings was granted to co-accused Sanjay Singh. Therefore, recognizing the fundamental right to a fair trial and effective legal representation, Kejriwal was granted two additional weekly legal meetings with counsel via video conferencing while confined to jail.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v Department Of Delhi Prisons And Anr. (2024:DHC:5475)
Please Login or Register
