Judicial review of policy decisions should not interfere unless the policy is grossly arbitrary or irrational.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The Petitioners have also prayed for amendment of Rules to include interview with legal advisers be open from Monday to Friday for an appropriate allotted time with no cap on interviews per week. The Petitioners in the interim have prayed for visit of the legal counsel to their clients in Delhi prisons more than twice a week.

2. Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 read as under:

"585. Every prisoner shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeing or 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."

3. It is the contention of the Petitioners that limiting the number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers to twice a week is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it limits the right of an undertrial to have adequate resources to legal representation. The Petitioners' contention is that fixing a cap on the number of visits to an undertrial is manifestly arbitrary as it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to legal representation and is violative of the right to access justice which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State. It is contended in the counter affidavit that there are 16 Jails in Delhi housing with more than 18,000 prisoners against the sanctioned capacity of 10,026. It is stated that looking at the number of inmates in the Delhi Prisons, it was decided to put a cap on the number of visits permitted by the family members, relatives, friends and legal counsel. It is contended that providing two legal interviews to a prisoner can be increased on the request of a prisoner or a visiting counsel and it does not fall foul of the constitutional right of the prisoner.

5. Pursuant to the Order dated 13.01.2023 passed by this Court, the State has filed Model Prison Manual, 2016 and also the Prison Rules of other States to demonstrate that in no other State are prisoners allowed visitation more than two times a week from relatives, friends and legal advisors. In fact, Mr. Satyakam, learned ASC, places reliance on Clause 8.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, which reads as under:

"8.01 Every prisoner shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeing or communicating with, his/her family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for arranging the management of his/her property and family affairs. He/she shall be allowed to have interviews with his/her family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers once in a fortnight. The number of letter a prisoner can write in a month shall be fixed by the Government under the rules."

(emphasis supplied)

6. He states that the Model Prison Manual only permits visits once in a fortnight, which is twice a month, whereas in Delhi, the prisoners are permitted visits twice a week. He states that in no other State, prisoners are permitted visitation more than twice a week. He states that these are matters of policy and this decision has been taken by the State in the best interests of the prisoners and to provide a congenial atmosphere not only to the prisoner but also to the visiting counsel while conducting their legal interviews and to avoid crowding at the time of visitation.

7. In a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court, the scope of interference by the courts in matters of policy is well established. Judicial review is the cornerstone of constitutionalism and is a part of our basic structure. Despite this understanding, the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated how, by way of judicial review, policy decisions of the State should not be interfered with unless they