Are Aadhaar Card Details Given By People Requesting Video Call With Prisoners Verified? Delhi High Court Asks Tihar Superintendent

The Delhi High Court has directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to explain the procedure as to how the request for setting up video calls with prisoners are dealt with by the prison authorities.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also asked whether any record of such video call is maintained and for how much duration the call is allowed.

The court has specifically asked whether the Aadhaar Cards furnished by the person requesting setting up of virtual meeting by a video call are verified by the jail authorities or not.

The order was passed by the court after a counsel representing the accused during the hearing of his bail plea claimed that prosecutrix had made request to the jail authorities for setting up video calls with him on various dates.

The accused lodged in Tihar Jail since November 15 has been booked by the police under Sections 363, 365, 328, 506 and 354D of IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act.

During the hearing on October 31, as the prosecutrix was present in court, Justice Sharma was apprised by the APP that as per the jail authorities, a request was received from ABC (name of prosecutrix) with Aadhar Card No. 'X' to set up a video call with the accused.

However, the counsel appearing for the accused stated that the Aadhaar Card in question did not belong to the prosecutrix but to a male person as "he has verified from the e-website".

"….The correct Aadhaar Card number of the prosecutrix is found to be 'Y'," the court was told.

Expressing serious concern over the matter, the court noted that it is alleged that the prosecutrix in a case under Section 363 IPC is trying to set-up video call and is requesting for virtual meeting with the accused on several occasions, however, the same has been denied by the prosecutrix, who is present in the Court and has been identified by the IO.

It added "It may therefore mean that someone has used fake name of prosecutrix to set up video call with accused, to claim in court that she is trying to contact him in jail. If it be found to be true, in serious offences, anyone may misuse such facility to the detriment of prosecution and the country."

While asking the jail authorities about the procedure regarding requests for video calls to prisoners, the court ordered that the records of video calls mentioned by the accused be preserved and the details be handed over to the IO and be sent to the court.

"The documents furnished for setting up of video call and the details pertaining to the request received for the above stated video calls, be also provided to the IO and to this Court before the next date of hearing," the court said while listing the matter next on January 19, 2023.

The allegation against the accused was that he had kidnapped the prosecutrix and had also given her some drink laced with a stupefying substance.

On July 5, the counsel appearing for the accused had apprised the court that the prosecutrix had approached the accused requesting for setting up a video call at jail as she was allegedly interested in marrying him.

Thereafter, on September 29, the investigating officer had verified the fact that the prosecutrix was in regular touch with the accused by making video calls in jail. Accordingly, the court had directed the prosecutrix to remain personally present before it, in view of the claim that she was interested in getting married to the accused.

Title: TARUN KUMAR v. STATE & ANR.