Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, affirmed the decision of the Superintendent of Jail denying Sandeep Kumar Pathak's request for a physical interview with Arvind Kejriwal. The court observed that Pathak's statements made on April 12, 2024, were of a political nature, thus violative of the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR), 2018.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held “There is not an iota of doubt that the statements made by the petitioner were political, for and on behalf of Shri Arvind Kejriwal and were clearly violative of Rule 587 of DPR (Delhi Prison Rules), 2018”. 

The court further remarked that Pathak “was more like 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”.

Pathak, a Member of Parliament from the Aam Aadmi Party, represented by Senior Advocates Sudhir Nandrajog and Rahul Mehra, asserted that the denial of his visitation was neither justified nor in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the prison administration’s rules should not apply to a visitor’s freedom to express political opinions outside the jail.

It was asserted that Rule 587 of the DPR did not restrict political discussions as broadly as interpreted by the Jail Authorities. Pathak also asserted his right to visit Arvind Kejriwal as a Member of Parliament and a law-abiding citizen, claiming that the denial was unjust and unconstitutional.

“The Prison Rules are made for effective and efficient administration of Prisons. The Prison discipline and administration requires stringent and scrupulous adherence to the Rules in order to ensure orderliness is maintained”, the court first remarked. 

The court also highlighted that the Reformist and Rehabilitation Approach in the Delhi Prison Rules (DPR) seeks to strike a balance between effective and efficient management of prison administration and the needs of inmates to maintain social interaction. 

On the issue of whether these statements violated Rule 585 of DPR, the court noted that the statements were clearly politically motivated. “It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforementioned statements that these were the political statements made on behalf of Shri Arvind Kejriwal who though Chief Minister of Government of Delhi, is confined to jail precinct and is himself unable to address the public or make such statements”, the court added. The court emphasized that it is important for jail inmates to ensure they do not hinder prison administration or make any political statements that might have large ramifications. 

The court, referring to Rule 585 DPR, noted that while it “Envisions that the Prisoners be provided with reasonable facilities for communicating with “his family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for arranging the management of his property and family affairs”. Rule 589 outlines that “The facilities are stated to be more in the nature of “Privileges” rather than “rights” in recognition of the good conduct of the inmate but is subject to regulation by the Superintendent”. 

Pathak also raised the issue that such restrictions violate the rights of the citizens/visitors and curtail their freedom of speech and expression to make statements once coming out of the jail premises.  

Accordingly, the court found no infirmity with the 'impugned denial of visitation'. However, the court granted the liberty 'to meet Shri Arvind Kejriwal in future'. 

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Pathak v The Superintendent Central Jail (2024:DHC:6785)