The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition advocating for an increase in the frequency of visits by family members and advocates to prisoners lodged in Delhi jails. A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal maintained that the existing restrictions on prison visits are necessary for effective prison management and cannot be relaxed.

The petitioners had argued that the overcrowded conditions in Delhi prisons, coupled with advancements in technology such as video conferencing, warranted a reconsideration of the limitations imposed by the Delhi Prison Rules. Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, restricts the right of inmates to consult with a lawyer to two meetings per week.

The lead petitioner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, contended that Rule 585 violated the constitutional right to access justice guaranteed to undertrial prisoners and convicts under Article 21. The plea sought an amendment to the rules, allowing prisoners to meet legal advisors an unlimited number of times from Monday to Friday.

However, Justices Trivedi and Mithal, expressed reservations about relaxing the existing restrictions. Justice Trivedi emphasized the accused status of the prisoners, stating, "Do not forget you (prisoners) are accused. Where is the question of relaxing? These are policy matters. It will become difficult for jail authorities to manage so many visits. There has to be restrictions, even for undertrials."

The Court underscored that such matters fall within the domain of policy decisions and suggested that unlimited visits could pose challenges for jail authorities in maintaining order within the prison facilities. The bench also took note of the February 2023 Delhi High Court judgment that rejected a plea to relax the Delhi Prison Rules.

Despite the petitioners' arguments regarding the overcrowded conditions in Delhi prisons and the potential benefits of video conferencing, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced. The bench, in its order, stated, "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We are not inclined to interfere. Liberty granted to file appropriate applications."

Case: Jai A Dehadrai and anr vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and anr.