Was there security breach in prison when video calls were permitted for inmates during pandemic? HC to Maharashtra govt

MUMBAI: Asking the State government whether there was any security breach in prison when video calls were permitted for inmates during the pandemic, Bombay high court on Wednesday directed it to file a detailed reply to a PIL seeking its resumption.
"Was there any breach of security reported?” asked Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Virendrasingh Bisht on a PIL by People’s Union for Civil Liberties to direct the State to implement electronic modes of communication as per Model Prison Manual 2016.The PIL said HC in July 2020 had allowed voice/video calls to enable undertrials and convicts to talk to the families due to the pandemic. The facility was abruptly discontinued after November 2021.
Advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said the 2016 manual is yet to be adopted by the State. Also, that the report of a committee, set up to reconcile it with Maharashtra Prisons Manual 1969, is “under active consideration.” He said the Centre’s inter-operable criminal justice system, which is being implemented by the Supreme Court, with regard to prisons includes e-mulaqat and the National Informatics Centre is looking after it. He submitted a one-page note of NIC saying, “it is still under consideration as it deals with some security aspects.” The AG said video calls are not allowed but the inmates are provided with a coin box facility to make bi-monthly calls to pre-fed numbers for 10 minutes. He informed the Supreme Court on March 23, 2022 recalled its earlier order allowing video call to a prisoner.
The judges then asked why the video call facility was withdrawn and whether there was any single report of breach. "With whom they are talking we do not know," said the AG. The CJ said, “It has to be family members.” The judges said similarly as pre-fed numbers for coin boxes, “they (inmates) can similarly give numbers for video call and you can find out who is the subscriber.”
The judges questioned if officers of the prison department checked if HC’s order was continuing before taking a decision to withdraw the facility. “No one as applied mind to this matter, whether it could have been withdrawn with petitions pending,’’ said the CJ. The AG said it was withdrawn due to the improving pandemic situation and “they thought it was in place of a physical meeting.” PUCL’s advocate Rebecca Gonsalves said, “Such facility cannot be dependent on the rise or fall of Covid cases." She submitted orders of SC where it encouraged use of technology and infrastructure to enable undertrials and convicts to contact their families and lawyers.
The judges said from the March 2022 order of SC they do not get the State’s version and the “grave situation” that led to SC modifying its order. “Let the affidavit come. Thereafter we’ll express our views. For the present, we are not inclined to make any order for resumption of video calls,” said the CJ. Giving the State an opportunity to reply, the judges posted the hearing on June 20, 2022.