Delhi HC reserves order on AAP leader Sandeep Pathak's plea against prison authority not allowing him to meet Kejriwal in jail

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has concluded the hearing after considering arguments from both Pathak's counsel and representatives of the Tihar authorities.

The jail authorities had previously allowed Sandeep Kumar Pathak to meet Kejriwal twice in April. However, they recently denied further meetings, arguing that Pathak's subsequent statements to the media violated prison rules and appeared politically motivated.

In response to Pathak's plea, the authorities contended that his actions demonstrated a deliberate breach of prison conduct, leading them to oppose granting him further meetings based on his past behaviour.

In response to the court's inquiry about whether anyone else was allowed to meet Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, representing Pathak, stated that three people had been permitted to visit Kejriwal, with two currently meeting him. The court also directed the jail authorities to provide a formal order explaining the decision to prevent Pathak from meeting Kejriwal.

In his plea, Sandeep Kumar Pathak requested that the jail authorities be directed to allow him physical visitation and interviews with Kejriwal. Pathak contended that he had not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rules, which limits conversations during inmate interviews to private and domestic matters, excluding topics related to prison administration, discipline, other prisoners, or politics.

The jail authorities had previously allowed Pathak to meet Kejriwal but subsequently restricted this access, citing statements he made after the meetings that allegedly breached prison rules. Statements attributed to Pathak included comments about Kejriwal continuing as CM from jail and meeting ministers regularly.

Pathak's plea challenged the application of Rule 587, arguing that its scope is limited to conversations during the interview itself and does not extend to statements made afterwards.

He contended that denying him political discussions infringes on democratic principles and constitutional rights, as political speech is integral to democracy and should not be restricted unless explicitly prohibited by law or constitutional provisions. (ANI)