Court Upholds Fundamental Rights of Undertrial Prisoners

Court Affirms Fundamental Rights of Undertrials

Why in the News?

A Delhi court ruled that undertrials retain their fundamental rights, granting former AAP MLA Naresh Balyan weekly e-mulakat and phone call access despite his custody under a special act, reinforcing protections for undertrials under the Constitution. This decision highlights the importance of balancing security concerns with constitutional rights in disaster-prone areas and during weather-related shocks.

Court Upholds Rights of Undertrial in Custody:

• Special Judge Dig Vijay allowed Naresh Balyan weekly access to a five-minute e-mulakat and phone call with his family, emphasizing the need for inter-agency coordination in such cases.
• The court reiterated that custody does not strip a person of their fundamental rights, even in cases involving environmental vulnerability.
• Balyan, a diagnosed psychiatric patient, argued that his mental health depends on regular family interaction, highlighting the importance of considering health impacts in detention situations.
• His counsel, Advocate MS Khan, claimed that communication facilities were wrongfully denied, raising questions about the balance between security and rights.
• The court dismissed Delhi Police’s objections, which cited security risks and possible witness tampering, stressing the need for concrete justification rather than assumptions.

Security Concerns vs. Constitutional Protections

• Delhi Police opposed the plea, highlighting that Balyan is booked under special laws like UAPA and MCOCA, which often require additional security measures.
• Authorities argued that such communication could lead to information leaks or interference in the investigation, particularly in cases involving climate-induced disruptions or other sensitive matters.
• However, the court stressed that custody during trial doesn’t negate basic rights, reinforcing the principles of justice even in complex cases.
• The judge affirmed that denial must be justified on concrete grounds, not assumptions, setting a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
• The ruling reinforces the balance between rights and security in sensitive cases, potentially impacting how authorities manage detainees in various scenarios, including during extreme weather events or in environmentally vulnerable areas.