Delhi High Court
Natsha Narwal vs The Superintendent Central Jail 6 ... on 30 June, 2020
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 942/2020 & CRL.M.A. 7851/2020, CRL.M.A.
7852/2020, CRL.M.A. 7863/2020
NATSHA NARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Kunal
Negi, Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Ms.
Tusharika Mattoo and Mr.
Chaitanya Sundriyal, Advs.
versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL 6,
TIHAR NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Standing
Counsel (Crl.)-GNCTD with
Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Adv.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGEMENT (oral)
% 30.06.2020
(video-conferencing)
W.P.(CRL) 942/2020 & CRL.M.A. 7851/2020, CRL.M.A.
7852/2020, CRL.M.A. 7863/2020
1. Consequent to the filing of various FIRs, charging the petitioner
with having committed various offences - with which the present
petition is not required to be burdened - the petitioner is lodged in Jail
No. 6, Tihar Prison Complex, Delhi since 28th May, 2020.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner sought various facilities,
i.e. daily access to her counsel by way of video-conferencing,
permission to communicate with her family and friends regularly in
accordance with the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred as
"the Delhi Prison Rules") and access to books and reading material.
3. Notice was issued, in this writ petition, on 18th June, 2020, on
which date Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Sr. Standing Counsel (Crl.),
GNCTD fairly submitted that he would ensure that all facilities, which
were permissible under the Delhi Prison Rules, would be made
available to the petitioner.
4. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 24th June, 2020, Mr. Adit S.
Pujari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, though he
had been granted an opportunity of video-conferencing, with his
client, that morning, there had been a suspension of such video-
conferencing facilities in Jail No. 6, consequent to an incident of
violence that had taken place in the said premises.
5. Status report has been filed, by the Jail Superintendent, in
response to the writ petition.
6. Yesterday, i.e. 29th June, 2020, Mr. Pujari narrowed down his
grievances to, essentially, four issues, i.e.
(i) the presence of the prison official, in the same room as
the petitioner, during the video-conferencing with her counsel;
this, according to Mr. Pujari, infracted Rule 627(2) of the Delhi
Prison Rules, which stipulated that the interviews between an
under-trial prisoner and his legal representative would take
place within visible, but not audible, distance of the prison
officials,
(ii) that the petitioner was not being allowed to read books
provided by outsiders, despite non-availability of library and
reading facilities consequent on the restrictions imposed during
the presently prevalent COVID-2019 pandemic in accordance
with Rule 1525 of the Delhi Prison Rules,
(iii) that his client was not being permitted 30 minutes video
conferencing time, twice a week, with her counsel, as has been
granted by this Court vide order dated 9th June, 2020 in
W.P.(Crl.) 855/2020 (Sanjay Chandra vs. The
Superintendent, Central Jail) and
(iv) non-availability of screen sharing facility, during the
video-conference between the petitioner and her counsel.
7. Today, Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Sr. Standing Counsel (Crl.)
appears and submits that he has engaged in a detailed interaction with
the DG (Prisons) and concerned jail officials, as well as with Mr.
Pujari and has made efforts to ensure that the grievances of the
petitioner are mitigated. Apropos the mandate of Rule 627(2) of the
Delhi Prison Rules, Mr. Mehra, submits that the petitioner would be
provided headphones, and the jail official, would be in the same room,
within visual but not, audible distance. He submits, justifiably, that in
the interests of security and other concerns, it is not possible for the
jail officials to completely vacate the room. Mr. Mehra also submits
that he has instructions from the concerned authorities to provide
screen sharing facility, on the Webex platform, over which video-
conferencing is provided in Jail No. 6. He further submits that, owing
to certain power issues, video-conference, with the petitioner's
Counsel could not be possible yesterday or this morning but assures
that it could take place as soon as possible.
8. Mr. Mehra further draws attention to paras 3 and 4 of the status
report, filed by the Jail Superintendent, which read thus :
"3. That the counsel of the petitioner has conducted video
conferencing successfully with the petitioner on 24.06.2020 at
09:00 AM and as per the submission made before this Hon'ble
Court by Ld. Standing Counsel. Mr Rahul Mehra, the next
video conference session of the Petitioner with the Counsel
will be conducted on 29.06.2020 at 4:00 PM. The counsels of
women prisoners shall be allowed video conferencing with
their clients in Central Jail No.6, Tihar, now onwards, on the
basis of written requests of the counsels of the prisoners to the
jail Superintendent on her official email i.e [email protected] .
4. That with regard to the prayer (ii) of the instant
petition which inter alia relates to providing of books and
reading material, it is submitted that 13 books and 2 registers
have been provided to her."
9. Apropos reading material, Mr. Rahul Mehra submits that the
jail authorities have no objection to the petitioner sourcing books from
outside and reading the same, provided the material does not infract
any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules. In fact, submits Mr Rahul
Mehra, reading by jail inmates is an extremely constructive way of
passing time during incarceration, and deserves to be actively
encouraged.
10. With respect to the request, of Mr. Pujari, that his client be
allowed two interviews, with her counsel, of 30 minutes each, Mr.
Rahul Mehra submits that though, the order dated 9 th June, 2020, of
this Court, in W.P.(Crl.) 855/2020 was passed in the peculiar
circumstances of that case, in which as many as 250 criminal cases
were pending against the petitioners, he assures, nevertheless, that,
subject to adjustments which may be required keeping in view the
number of persons who seek video-conferencing simultaneously, and
other such related concerns, efforts would be made to provide, to the
petitioner, two video-conferences of 30 minutes each, in a week.
11. This Court expresses its unstinted appreciation for the pro-
active approach of Mr. Rahul Mehra, which well-behoves his status as
Senior Standing Counsel for the Government.
12. Mr. Pujari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, too, fairly
submits that, with the aforesaid suggestion of Mr. Rahul Mehra, the
grievances of his client stands redressed. He, too, expresses his
gratitude to Mr. Mehra.
13. This litigation, has, therefore, ended on a happy note.
14. The petition stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
JUNE 30, 2020
kr
