Gujarat High Court Rejects Asaram's Son's Plea For Personal Laptop Inside Jail, But Calls Upon Prison Authorities To Embrace Technology

"Crime is outcome of the deceased mind and jail must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care", Mahatma Gandhi said. Quoting the father of the nation, the Gujarat High Court recently asked jail authorities to embrace the benefits of technology including providing e-services to inmates, while underscoring that all prisoners cannot be painted with the same brush. 

The high court made the observations while rejecting a plea moved by Narayansai Aasharam Harpalani–the son of "godman" Asaram Bapu convicted in a rape case, seeking that he (Narayansai) be provided with a "personal laptop/ipad/Computer with word processor facility and printer" in jail. He had further sought quashing of a communication by prison authorities rejecting his plea for using mobile phone inside the jail. 

State had provided facilities for inmates, but petitioner's conduct does not entitle him to it

Rejecting Narayansai's plea as devoid of any merit, a single judge bench of Justice Hasmukh D Suthar noted the Supreme Court's decision in Anuradha Bhasin Vs. Union of India (2020) where the apex court had held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India embodies the fundamental right of speech and expression which includes the right to make any expression through medium of internet subject to reasonable restrictions.

The high court said that even under the reformative approach, the State had taken appropriate steps and started to provide vocational training to the convicts/under-trial prisoners, however Narayansai was not entitled for such facilities looking at his "conduct and the offence" for which he was convicted.

All prisoners cant be painted with same brush, high time that jail authorities embrace technology

It thereafter said, "However, this Court is of the opinion that, it would be improper to paint all prisoners with same brush. As Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, held that, “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. Even father of Nation - Mahatma Gandhi had stated that, “crime is outcome of the deceased mind and jail must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care”.

Justice Suthar thereafter observed that with a view to improve the future for inmates and prisoners, a reformative approach had been adopted which includes the  implementation of open-air prisons and vocational training programs, as well as the introduction and updation of model Jail Manual. 

"Hence, it is a high time for the State Government to implement the project, the State Government should consult experts to determine how internet access can be controlled effectively, using hardware-based firewalls or other advanced fool-proof technology to prevent circumvention by tech-savy users and to form comprehensive exhaustive guidelines and SOP for providing limited internet access to UTP/convicts for the purpose to enrich their knowledge and research purpose considering the educational credentials of convicts/UTPs under the surveillance of jail authority, with a liberty to discontinue such facilities in case of misuse," the high court underscored.

The High Court further said that as we are living in the "digital era", one has to embrace technology. Pointing to the e-court project, the court said that the same "envisions e-visit" and so the judicial system must be more accessible, efficient and equitable for all individuals, who are seeking justice. For this, the court said, various projects had been implemented such as e-court, hybrid hearing, e-services, e-filing etc. and appropriate infrastructure is also developed.

"Hence, this is high time for the jail administration also to adopt an embrace the technology and create digital environment in a jail and spread awareness among the inmates qua availability e-services and to establish e-seva kendra or e-corner in jail and also provide vocational training to inmates," the high court said. 

Contentions

Narayansai's counsel had argued that he  is a "good writer" and prior to his incarceration, he handwritten 19 books, which are sold online; after his arrest and while being in jail since 2013-14, he had published 5 more books in Hindi and has thereby utilized his free time in jail. For this purpose, his counsel said, that Narayansai needed a  personal laptop and computer desktop on his own cost, so that he can use it inside the prison for producing a huge volume of document of his own and his father's cases which collectively runs into 50,000 of pages approximately.

Narayansai's counsel also said that the petitioner needs to needs to consult his lawyer/s during the course of hearing of the cases and wishes to give notes to his lawyers as well as consult/communicate with them. He further said that to coordinate with every situation since there were multiple cases and some cases are also in States other than Gujarat, it would be essential for him to communicate on his own as well as to keep himself updated with regard to the cases. 

The State opposed his plea and argued that the prisoner has no absolute right to claim such electronic gadgets in a jail. The petitioner had indulged in illegal activities and earlier, had called for hunger strike and provoked other elements against the jail administration, the prosecution added. 

Petitioner found with unauthorized items in high security cell, no case made out for personal laptop

With respect to Narayansai's plea, the high court took note of his conduct in jail including possession of "unauthorized items such as a mobile phone, battery, and tobacco" when he was placed in a separate high-security cell. The court noted that his canteen services and visitation rights had also been suspended for one month.

Underscoring the importance of protecting the society from crime the high court said, "The petitioner's conduct indicates a misuse of his liberty, and allowing him to possess personal items such as a laptop, computer, or iPad in jail could potentially lead to further misuse and breaches of public tranquility. It is important to note that, the petitioner has no absolute right to possess such prohibited items while incarcerated. Considering the petitioner's conduct and history-sheet, the interest of society must be prioritized. The protection of society from crime and criminals is more important than the personal gain of the offender. The underlying principle of criminal justice is to achieve social justice, rather than individual justice. In a serious case like this, it is prudent and advisable, in the overall interest of society and victims, to deny such permission. Be you ever so high the law is always above you and no one is above the law. Therefore, no case is made out for granting such permission to use personal laptop, iPad etc. in cell or in a high security zone of jail". 

The order notes that Narayansai was booked in a 2013 case for various IPC offences including rape, unnatural offences, Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, wrongful confinement among others and had been sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment in 2019. There were additionally two other cases registered against him–in one trial proceedings were pending and the other was pending for framing of charges

Case Title: NARAYANSAI AASHARAM HARPALANI v/s  THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 118

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Ashish M Dagli 

Counsel for State: Public Prosecutor Hardik A Dave 

Click Here To Download Judgment