Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which restricts telephonic and electronic communication facilities for certain categories of prisoners. The petitioner contends that the rule arbitrarily limits communication rights for prisoners charged with specific offences while allowing other inmates more frequent access to phone calls. The court has sought a response from the relevant authorities and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 1, 2025.

The petitioner, Syed Ahmad Shakeel, filed W.P. (CRL) 123/2025, contesting the legality of Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The rule states: "The prisoners who are involved in offences against the State, terrorist activities, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, National Security Advisor, Public Safety Act and otherwise involved in multiple heinous offences such as robbery, dacoity, murder, kidnapping for ransom etc., habitual jail rules offenders and who are frequently involved in assaulting co-inmates in the prison shall not be eligible for this facility in the interest of public safety and order. However, the Superintendent Jail will be empowered to take appropriate decision in individual case to case basis with the prior approval of Deputy Inspector General (Range)."

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Chinmay Kanojia, Pravir Singh, and Nilanjan Dey, argued that the rule imposes a blanket restriction on communication facilities without providing adequate safeguards. The petition specifically challenges the denial of regular telephonic access to prisoners based on their classification under the impugned rule.

According to the petitioner, a circular issued on September 2, 2022, regulated phone call access for inmates, previously allowing five calls per week. However, the implementation of Rule 631 has now reduced this access to once per week for certain prisoners. The petitioner asserted that this restriction is arbitrary and discriminatory, as undertrial prisoners and other inmates are permitted one call per day.

The petitioner also submitted that since April 2024, he has been entirely denied communication with his family, further exacerbating the alleged unfairness in the rule’s implementation. He contended that the differential treatment in allowing communication among prisoners violates the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined the petitioner’s arguments and the provisions of Rule 631.

The court noted: "Prima facie, the denial of regular telephonic and electronic communication to a prisoner who is involved in terrorist activities and offences such as under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act and Public Safety Act without adequate safeguards, cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable."

The bench further observed: "Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, clearly indicates that such facilities are denied to the prisoners 'in the interest of public safety and order.' Clearly, the said guiding principles cannot be faulted."

However, the court also noted that the rule provides discretionary power to the Jail Superintendent, subject to approval from the Deputy Inspector General (Range), to grant communication facilities in individual cases. The court recorded: "The impugned Rule also specifies that the Jail Superintendent is empowered to take appropriate decisions in individual cases based on the prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General (Range). Thus, the denial of the facilities in question is not absolute and is permissible where public interest and safety is not compromised."

Considering the petitioner’s claim that he has not been allowed to contact his family since April 2024, the court took cognizance of the issue of differential treatment among prisoners regarding communication rights.

The Delhi High Court issued notice seeking a response on the validity of Rule 631, scheduled the next hearing for April 1, 2025, and took note of the petitioner's claim of discriminatory communication restrictions, indicating the need for further examination.

Case Title: Syed Ahmad Shakeel v. Central Jail No. 8, Tihar Jail & Anr.
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) 123/2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

[Read/Download order]