Delhi High Court Orders Finalization Of SOP On Mobile Phone Access To Open Prison Inmates

The Delhi High Court has directed the Director General (Prisons) to frame and notify a SOP on the access of mobile phones to open-prison inmates.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the SOP should either allows such inmates to keep their mobile phones with proper rules and checks or sets up a secure system for them to deposit their phones and get them back during the hours they must stay inside the open prison.

“The Court, therefore, directs the Director General (Prisons), after consulting relevant stakeholders, to frame and notify an SOP that either permits retention of mobile phones by open-prison inmates under regulated conditions, or establishes a secure deposit and return facility for hours when inmates are required to remain inside the open-prison precincts,” the Court said.

It added that the said SOP shall be finalised and made operational within eight weeks.

Justice Narula was dealing with a plea filed by a man serving life imprisonment in a murder case. He challenged the punishment awarded to him in 2020 and the consequential order directing his transfer from the open prison to a closed prison.

During a surprise inspection of the open prison, the authorities recovered a mobile phone from him, along with two SIM cards and two chargers.

As the articles are prohibited within the jail premises and constitute a breach of the prison rules, his Inmate Calling System (ICS) and canteen privileges were withdrawn for one month. The Inspecting Judge was judicially appraised and the convict was later transferred from open prison to a closed prison.

The Court noted that Rule 1270 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 is explicit and that no punishment, denial of privileges or amenities or transfer to another prison with penal consequences may be imposed without judicial appraisal.

“The punishment ticket does not propose, much less reason, a transfer. The order of judicial appraisal dated 18th August, 2020, also does not examine whether reclassification was warranted, whether lesser measures would suffice, or how the transfer comports with proportionality. In the absence of a specific, reasoned judicial appraisal on the transfer itself, the move from open to closed prison cannot be sustained. That is an added ground to interfere,” the Court said.

Further, the judge observed that for inmates in open prisons, a mobile telephone often functions as the basic conduit for contact with family, work coordination, transport, and digital payments during authorised hours outside.

The Court said that if possession within the open-prison precincts is prohibited, there ought to be a clear and workable system for secure deposit and retrieval so that compliance is feasible.

“Without such an arrangement, the rules risk placing inmates in a pincer, liable to violation either for keeping a device or for being unable to function outside,” the Court said.

As the convict's counsel stated that no such deposit facility presently exists, the counsel appearing for the State said there is a mechanism for special permission to possess otherwise prohibited items, including a mobile phone, within the jail premises.

The counsel however said there is no clarity on any structured deposit-and-return system for open-prison inmates.

Observing that such lack of clarity itself calls for administrative attention, the Court ordered for finalization of the SOP.

It directed the Selection Committee to reconsider the convict's placement, apply tests of legality and proportionality and pass an order within one

week.

“In view of the foregoing, the punishment ticket dated 29th January, 2020 is set aside. All consequential directions flowing from that ticket, including the transfer from open to closed prison, are quashed. The Petitioner shall be restored to the position he held immediately prior to the impugned action, subject to any fresh, reasoned decision of the Selection Committee taken in accordance with law and these directions,” the Court ordered.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr.Sangeet Sibou, Mr.Priyansh Raj Singh Senger and Mr.Aniket Kumar, Advocates

Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1416

Click here to read order