Read Time: 04 minutes

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from prison authorities as to why people from outside India have been denied access inmates in India through Video Conferencing facility.

The single bench led by Justice Rekha Palli passed the directions while hearing a plea by Delhi Riots Accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita seeking addressing various issues faced by Prisoners in Jail.

On Justice Palli's enquiry as to why was Video Conferencing facility not being given to prison inmates, Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi, Gautam Narayan submitted that Video conferencing facility outside India was not being granted to prisoners due to security concerns.

Justice Palli however not satisfied with Narayan's reason said "You cannot give bald statements, how does VC affect security?"

Justice Palli further said that there may reasons for restricting the facility but there had to be clear reasons for it.

Narayan thereafter suggested that an Officer of the Prison Department would be in a better position to explain the reasons.

The bench accordingly directed the prison authorities to file an affidavit giving a clear stand as to why video conferencing facility cannot be provided to Prisoners for calls outside India.

Advocate Adit S Pujari appearing for the Natasha and Devangana sought permission to file a rejoinder to highlight additional issues in Prisons.

The bench has allowed the application and listed the matter for next hearing on September 10.

Natasha and Devangana have been accused under the UAPA  in the larger conspiracy case leading to the riots in North East Delhi.

The Division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani on June 15 granted bail to the Natasha and Devangana observing that there was nothing in the chargesheet which would make-out the ingredients of the offences under sections 15, 17 or 18 of the UAPA.

Subsequently the Delhi Police filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the bail order which is pending before the Apex Court.

Case Title: Natasha Narwal and Anr vs State of NCT of Delhi