Provide Robust Video Conferencing Facility In Prisons To Facilitate Interaction Between Inmates & Defence Counsel/ Family Members: Karnataka HC Directs State
The Karnataka High Court directed the State Government to provide a robust video conferencing facility and headphones in prison to facilitate interaction of inmates with the defence counsel and family members.
The Court issued this direction while dismissing the plea filed by the inmates accused of the murder of a BJP Youth worker Praveen Nettur, seeking their transfer to one prison for safety reasons.
The Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed “The crime may vary but the facility cannot be crippled. Therefore, the State shall ensure that in all the prisons where the undertrial prisoners are housed or the convicts, shall have a robust video conferencing facility so that any inmate will be in a position to interact with the defence counsel or the family members as the case would be in accordance with law. The plea of the petitioners that there is no privacy to speak to the defence counsel through video conferencing as it is conducted in a room, to alleviate the said grievance, I deem it proper to direct the State to provide head phones to the accused and to the person be it the defence counsel or the family members whoever wants to interact with the undertrial prisoners / convicts or any inmate so that there is no breach of privacy in the prisons.”
Advocate Mohammed Tahir appeared for the Petitioners while Advocate General V.G. Bhanuprakash appeared for the Respondents.
In the present matter, the Petitioners averred that they were attacked inside the prison and their lives were in danger, therefore, the Court may direct the State to bring all of them to one Prison and house them in different cells.
Per Contra, the State submitted before the Court that the persons arrested belong to the Popular Front of India organization, which is declared to be unlawful and one of the persons has turned as an approver and, therefore, it was necessary to shift all the accused persons except the one who turned as an approver to various prisons in the State.
The Bench said, “Therefore, I decline to accept the request of the petitioners to house them in one prison i.e., the Central Prison, Bengaluru as this Court would not sit in the seat of the State to foresee or oversee the safety of every prisoner. It is the duty of the State and the duty is accepted by the learned Advocate General on an assurance that there would be no danger to the life or limb of the petitioners or any other inmate.”
The Court also relied on the Sections 537 and 538 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 and observed, “The power of removing convicted prisoner or a person confined in prison in default of giving security for keeping the peace or for maintaining good behaviour it is necessary to be transferred. The other reason and circumstance of such transfer as quoted supra is security and expediency.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition, with directions to the State.
Cause Title: Abdul Basheer & Ors. v. Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Mohammed Tahir
Respondents: Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty, Additional Advocate General V.G. Bhanuprakash, AGA Navya Shekhar and Spl. PP Prasanna Kumar.
