Denial Of Regular Telephonic Communication To Prisoners Involved In Terrorist Activities, MCOCA Not Arbitrary: Delhi HC
The petitioner filed a Petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional vires of Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

The Delhi High Court recently observed that 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 petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a Petition challenging the constitutional vires of Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said, “Thus, the denial of the facilities in question is not absolute and is permissible where public interest and safety is not compromised”
Advocate Chinmay Kanojia represented the Petitioner.
Arguments
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner too was provided the facility of five calls a week, however, the same had been restricted to a maximum of once a week by the impugned Rule. It was further stated that after April 2024, the petitioner had no contact with the family. It was also submitted that discrimination as to the frequency of communication allowed amongst prisoners would be arbitrary.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, held, “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.”
Noting that Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 indicates that such facilities are denied to the prisoners “in the interest of public safety and order”, the Bench made it clear that the impugned Rule also specifies that the Jail Superintendent is empowered to take appropriate decision in individual cases based on the prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General (Range.). Clarifying that in cases where providing communication facilities in a regulated manner is not considered to be detrimental to the interest of public safety and order, the Bench further mentioned that the impugned Rule accommodates providing such facilities even to prisoners that are involved in the offences as set out in the impugned Rule.
The Court took note of the submission that a circular dated September 2, 2022, has been issued to streamline and regulate the procedure of inmates' phone call system. However, the said facility is now restricted to only once a week instead of five calls a week that were being provided earlier. The Peitioner’s Counsel further informed the Bench that other prisoners/undertrials are provided with a facility of one call a day.
“Issue notice on the aforesaid aspect, returnable on 01.04.2025”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Syed Ahmad Shakeel v. Central Jail No. 8, Tihar Jail (Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 123/2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Chinmay Kanojia, Pravir Singh, Nilanjan Dey