Dismissed
Mohd Nauman v. Director General (Prison) & Anr.
Delhi HCLPA/85/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MOHD NAUMAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL (PRISON) & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC, GNCTD.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 09.04.2018
The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition by which he had sought a direction to the Tihar Jail to permit him to enter its premises for the purposes of counselling inmates. The Tihar Jail had registered its objections and denied access. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner could not claim a vested right to visit the jail premises and that the authorities had discretion in determining whom to grant access to the premises.
The appellant’s counsel emphasizes that the only adverse circumstance pitted against him was the letter addressed by one Shri Siddharth Yadav and jail visiting counsel who had complained to the authorities that he (the appellant) had interfered with the LPA 85/2018 Page 1 of 2
choice of counsel to the inmates and guided them to engage another counsel. It is submitted that apart from this complaint there was no other allegation.
The counsel for the NCT of Delhi, Mr. Satyakam, urged that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. He pointed out that the appellant was convicted for an offence but enlarged on bail pending consideration of his appeal. He submitted that the right to visit a jail by any citizen is not an unrestricted one and limitations have been placed in terms of the Jail Manual and other rules.
The Court is of the opinion that the appellant’s contentions lack merit. Whilst he may have the right to practice or profess any occupation or vocation, that right does not carry with him the further right to fulfil the objectives; jail visits are regulated by rules. These rules confer wide discretion upon the jail authorities whose primary task is to ensure the safety and protection of the inmates and also ensure order within the premises.
Having regard to these considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the denial of writ by the learned Single Judge was justified. The appeal is dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 09, 2018/kks
Page 2 of 2
LPA 85/2018
Mohd Nauman
Director General (Prison)
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court