The Indian Supreme Court dismissed Tuesday a petition seeking the court’s intervention to increase undertrial prisoner visits to the prisons in Delhi, the capital of India. Undertrial prisoners are accused individuals who are kept in judicial, instead of police, custody while awaiting judicial proceedings on their charges. The petition was filed against the government’s limit of two weekly visits for undertrial prisoners lodged in Delhi prisons.

The short order by the Supreme Court, considering the arguments and the High Court’s order, declined to entertain the petition and dismissed the special leave petition. A special leave petition (SLP) is a discretionary remedy provided by the Supreme Court of India, allowing individuals to seek permission to appeal a decision from any court or tribunal in the country. It is not an appeal as of right but is granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court and is given under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

The SLP was filed against a Delhi High Court order which upheld the limitation. The writ petition in the High Court, filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), challenged Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, seeking an amendment to allow more open legal counsel interviews and removing the cap on weekly visits. As per Rule 585, prisoners are entitled to reasonable facilities for communication with family, relatives, friends and legal advisers for legal proceedings and personal affairs. They are permitted to have interviews with these individuals twice a week. Additionally, prisoners may write any number of letters at their own expense, with the government providing four postcards per month if requested. A PIL is a legal action initiated in the Supreme Court by an individual or a group on behalf of the public interest, seeking remedies or justice for issues that affect the general public or a significant part of it.

The petitioners argued that restricting visits violates their constitutional right to legal representation. The government justified the limitation, citing overcrowded prisons. The court, citing established principles, refused to interfere in policy matters and emphasized that judicial review should only occur if a policy is unconstitutional or grossly arbitrary. The court permitted the petitioner to submit suggestions to the government but did not issue a mandamus order. The petition was disposed of with these observations.