Court questions Maha govt on decision to revoke phone call facility for inmates

The Bombay high court on Monday directed the home department to respond to public interest litigation seeking the continuation of telephone and other electronic modes of communication for prison inmates. This was started after the outbreak of Covid-19 to enable inmates to speak to their families and lawyers.

The PIL claimed that the video and voice calling facility, which was beneficial to both inmates and their families, was withdrawn without justification.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice VG Bisht, while hearing the PIL filed by the NGO People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), was informed that in-person meetings in prisons were discontinued two years ago amid the Covid-19 pandemic and all prisoners had been provided telephone and video calling facility by prison authorities. PIL, filed through advocate Mihir Joshi, stated that the video and voice calling facility was as per the Model Prison manual rules and hence sought implementation of the same in jails and to set aside the 2021 government decision to discontinue such services.

Model Prison Manual of 2016 had provided that the superintendent of the jail may allow inmates to use telephones and electronic modes of communication on payment to contact their family members and lawyers.

According to the PIL, prisoners were allowed to make a call for 10 minutes once a month and such a facility was allowed to all inmates except those convicted for terrorism, sedition, Naxalism and organised crimes.

The PIL has claimed that abruptly replacing voice and video calls with physical meetings put unnecessary hardships on family members of inmates and their lawyers.

After the bench was informed that there was no information on whether a circular was issued ordering withdrawal of the facilities, it asked the additional government pleader (AGP), A R Patil, to take instructions from the prison authorities, including the additional director general of prisons, as to whether such a circular was issued. The court also posted the matter for further hearing to Wednesday, May 4.