Supreme Court of India
FRANCIS CORALIE MULLINversusTHE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
- Citation
- 1981 INSC 11
- Decided
- 13 January 1981
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- P N BHAGWATI
Holding
The Court held that the COFEPOSA provisions restricting a detenu’s right to interview a lawyer and to meet family members violate Articles 14 and 21 and are therefore unconstitutional.
Summary
The petitioner, a British national detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), challenged the constitutional validity of clauses that limited her interviews with a lawyer and family members to a monthly schedule, required prior permission from the District Magistrate, and mandated the presence of a customs officer. The Supreme Court examined the distinction between preventive and punitive detention and the safeguards required under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. It held that preventive detention must be accompanied by reasonable, fair and just procedures and that the right to legal counsel and family visitation are part of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court found the COFEPOSA provisions to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned provisions were declared void.
Issues considered
- The constitutionality of sub‑clause (i) of clause 3(b) of the COFEPOSA Conditions of Detention, which requires prior permission of the District Magistrate and the presence of a customs officer for a detenu’s interview with a lawyer.
- The constitutionality of sub‑clause (ii) of clause 3(b) of the COFEPOSA Conditions of Detention, which limits family visitation to once a month.
- Whether the restrictions imposed by these provisions satisfy the procedural fairness requirements of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
- Whether preventive detention provisions can validly curtail the right to legal aid and family contact.
Legislation cited
Subjects
preventive detentionArticle 21Article 22legal aidprisoner rightsCOFEPOSAfamily visitationconstitutional validityprocedural fairness
Judgment
516
t
FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN
...
'
THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI
& ORS.
B January 13, 1981
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
Right of the detenu under Conservation of Foreig11 Exchange & Prevention
of Smuggling Activitiea Act, to have interview wilh a lawyer and the mtm·
bm of hu family-Section 3(b)({) &: (ii) read with rule 559A and 550 of
the Punjab Manual of the Superintendence and Management of lail.J-Whethtr
c voilate3 Article.J 14 and 21 of the Constitution and hence invalid-Di3tirlctioll
between pre~·mtive detention with punitive detention-Constitution ,of Indf~
1950 Article 21, scope of.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HEll> : ( 1) While considering the question of validity of conditiom of
D detention coum must necessarily bear in mind the vital distinction betm:en
preventive detention and ptmitive detention. Punitive detention is intended
to inflict punishment on a person, who is found by the judicial process to have
committed an offence, while preventive detention is not by way of punishment
at all, but it is intended to pre-empt a pe~on from indulging in conduct
injurio\18 to tho society. [523 A·B]
E (2) Tho power of preventive detention has been recognised as a noces-
eary evil and is tolerated in a free society in the larger interest of security of
th,e State and maintenance of public order. It is a drastic power to detain a
person without trial and in many countries it is not allowed to be exercised
except in times of war or aggression. The Indian Constitution does recognise
the existence of this power, but it is hedged-in by various safeguards set out
in Articles 21 and 22. Article 22 in clauses (4) to (7) d.t1lls specifically with
F safeguards against preventive detention and enjoins that any law of preventive
detention or action by way of preventive detention taken under such law m111t
be in confonnity with the restrictions laid down by those clause! on pain of -.-....
invalidation, Article 21 also lays down restrictions on the power of preventive
detention. [523 B-DJ
G
Article 21 as interpreted in Mantka Gandhi'3 callt requires that no one
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure establish-
ed by law and this procWure must be rea!lonablo, fair and just and not arbi-
•••
r
trary, whimsical or fanciful and it is for the Court to decide in the exercise
of its corutitutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life
or personal liberty in a given ca.se is by procedure, which is reasonable, falr
and just or it is otherwise. The law of preventive detention must, therefore,
pass the test not only of Article 22 but also of Article 21. But, despite these
II safeguards laid down by the Constitution and creatively evolved by the Courts.
the power of preventive detention is a frightful and awesome power with
drastic consequences affectin~ personal liberty, which is the moet cheri8hed
F. C. MULLIN V. UNION TERRITORY 517
and prized possession of man in a. civilised society. It i.~ a power to be exer~ A
cised with the greatest care and caution and the courts have to be ever vigilant
to see that this power is not abused or misused, inasmuch as the preventive
detention is quilitatively different from punitive detention and their purposes
are diiferent. In case of punitive detention, the person has full~t opportunity
to defend himself, while in case of preventive detention, the opportunity
that be has for contesting the action of the Executive is very limited. There-
fore, the "restrictions placed on a person preventively detained must, consis- B
tently with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal". [524 A-G]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1979] 1 SCC 248; M.O. Hoscot v.
State of Maharashtra, [1979] 1 SCR 192; Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar, [1980] 1 SCC 81; Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration, (1979] 1
SCR 392; Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 2 SCR 557, re-
ferred to. c
Sampat Prakash v. Stflte of Jammu and Kashmir, [1969] 3 SCR 574,
follnwed.
3. The prisoner or detenu has all the fundamental rights and other
legal rights available to a free person, save those which are incapable of
enjoyment by reason of incarcera.tion. A prisoner or detenu is not stripped
of his fundamental or other legal rights, save those which are inconsistent D
with his incarceration, and if any of these rights are violated, the Court will
immet!iately spring into action and run to his rescue.
[525 B-C, 526 G-H, 521 A]
Sunil Batra (/) v. Delhi Administration, [19791 1 SCR 392~ Sunil Batra
(II) v. Delhi Administration, [1980l 2 SCR 551, State of Maharashtra v. Pra-
bhakar Sanzgiri, [19661 1 SCR 702; D. B. Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, .£
[19751 2 SCR 24. followed.
Eve Pall's Case, 417 US 817: 41 Lawyers Edition 2nd 495; Charles
Wolff's Case, 41 Lawyers Edition 2nd 935, quoted with approval.
(4) While arriving at the proper meaning and content of the right to life,
the attempt of the court should always be to expand the reach and ambit of
F
:,r- -the fundan1ental right rather than to a.ttenuate its meaning and content. A
· · constitutional provision must be construed, not in a narrow and constricted
sense, but in a wide and liberal manner so as to anticipate and take account
of chllnging conditions and purposes so tha.t the constitutional provision does
• not get atrophied or fossilized but remains flexible enough to meet the newly
emerging problems ap.d challenges. This principle applies with greater force
in relation to a fundamental right enacted by .the Constitution. The funda-
mental right to life which is the most precious human right and which forms
G
the ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted in a broad and ex-
pansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure
for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth
of the human person. [527 C-D, 528 A-C]
Weems v. U.S. 54 Lawyers Edition 801, quoted with approval.
(5) The right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere
animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival.
¿¨)˾ TbEL < m @bLZm L F@L[Tm ;1sü 0 Ê#ä # ˳ ˾
Ũӧ ¦ZijĴ Ĵ Ĵ Óe Ĵ 9 âĴ 7 Ĵ = Ĵ M˾ ñ!Ĵ Ĵ e,]Ĵ T\Nf e } Ĵ
` 4ä Ĵ 'Ĵ ¾!Ĵ .q ':@D.;A"@-I e6 Ĵ Ĥü!Ĵ !Ĵ 7Ĵ õX Ĵ Ĵ u Ĵ QÈĴ
Ôøìy,Ĵ ¹ZĴ !9m Ĵ w-5,} åĴ 7î8 Ĵ Ĵ ¢+ 0Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ +Ĵ H
8 BĴ Ĵ īĴ 8Ĵ Ĵ K Ĵ <q Ĵ x Ĵ - Ĵ čĴ ÆĴ Ĵ Ĵ V ĭ
Ĵ A * } ¬ Z Ĵ 3e} mĴ Ĵ u>|!Ĵ N'} S[4th5NG} Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 1 Ĵ
' B Ĵ , g- X} Ėģ Ĵ TY4th5NG} Ĵ þH{zĴ Ĵ d%Ĵ !)Ĵ & Ď\Ĵ
T[5te5NF} 5b} ENe} F} e} w.5.} Ĵ NBT= e } Ĵ !Ĵ +Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ ȑ˾ Ĵ t tĂĴ
0ʪ Ĵ F } Ĵ (Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ )Ĵ 8Ĵ K- Ĵ Ĵ |Ĵ 9 H Ĵ Ĵ ! Ĵ 0!Ĵ
ĬĴ ĨĴ ¯9 9Ĵ HĴ Ĵ Ĵ !e¿(Ĵ 9Ĵ 4G;pZ a} ďĴ ęĐÕ ėĴ ıIJæĚĴ XĴ
-Ĵ Ĵ {Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 'p=o} ÖĴ Ĵ ĀĴ ç Ĵ d Ĵ +Ĵ Ĵ o \Ĵ
ą Ĵ Ĵ èĴ Ĵ 7 Ĵ Ĵ `4"Ç Ĵ '.CĴ µE'OĴ cMĴ ©ªAĴ E'FĴ1öĴ
- Ïþ .6)*I ^Ĵ þ <(I :Jþ #ß ºZþ ¶.F_;vĴ .Ĵ G£<Ĵ 'D')Ĵ &iĴ
H78I CĴ 44/6</BI ·.ONN»Ĵ F;Ĵ ²GĴ .DDĴ !Ĵ ,Ĵ
řʪ
(/ þ 6 Þþ ,Ĵ &4*/I k= ½(¾ã /H(+þ ¸.FO¼Ĵ 'Ĵ G¤<Ĵ EEN)Ĵ ,Ĵ
_Ĵ PĴ \4+,e} Ĵ &ÌĴ n Ĵ fĴ (Ĵ Ĵ x Ĵ Ĵ KĴ o Ĵ ĄĴ
źŻ˾ JĴ (Ĵ (Ĵ ãĴ 0)Ĵ )Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ "Ĵ &Ĵ v0&Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
Č Ĵ >é)Ĵ >Ĵ E } Ĵ !Ĵ > 0Ĵ Ĵ !"()Ĵ º´ êĴ Ĵ
[Wj- (Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ AĴ & Ĵ zĴ Ĵ !Ĵ "["Ĵ Ĵ
ïʪ # Ĵ "Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ İ,Ĵ PĴ gĴ 5Ĵ $Ĵ Ĵ 4lĴ
$Ĵ Ĵ 7qĴ " Ĵ Ĵ f!Ĵ ĊĴ Ĵ [ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ $Ĵ Ïį
Ĵ &Ĵ Ĵ $KJ MĴ Ĵ "Ĵ Ĵ 8Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 47Ĵ %)Ĵ I !Ĵ ÍĴ
" Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ò- Ĵ &Ĵ ×Ĵ !Ĵ -Ĵ Ĵ (Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ kĮ
#3Ĵ Ĵ n 3Ĵ 3Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ "# Ĵ ĩ+ "Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
Ę &,Ĵ §VĴ Ĵ " Ĵ ÙÚ Ĵ y-Ĵ %Ĵ "WĴ Ĵ !""Ĵ Ĵ $
˅ːˁ˾ pĞĴ >@<I ( þ Ĵ Ĵ %>(Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 4~Ĵ Ĵ 0Ĵ
öʪ đÉ Ĵ Ĵ )Ĵ &0Ĵ A˾ ò - Ĵ 5 Ĵ "5Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
ʒʿDʓ˾ Ĵ ĕĴ ØĴ 4Ĵ ÄĴ #:,Ĵ P BĴ Ĵ Ĵ &Ĵ :V Ĵ
Ĵ / )Ĵ ï Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ R Ĵ Ĵ Ɖ˾ ÜJ#Ĵ Ĵ QĴ "Ĵ
5Ĵ }J ĝ/RĴ Ĵ I~ Ĵ Ĵ I3Ĵ @0Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Q Ĵ ҈ӧ AĴ Ĵ pĴ ħsMĴ Ĵ
g Ĵ Ĵ 1+I Ĵ 'Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ %$ %Ĵ Ĵ
Ĵ AĴ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 8 áĴ l jĴ Ĵ Ĵ $i Ĵ 6Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 6Ĵ
/ēĴ Ĵ ÿĴ 6/Ĵ Ĵ Ê"Ĵ + *Ĵ Ĵ %Ĵ Ĵ =ÎĴ Y 3Ĵ 2Ĵ
ýʪ Ĵ Ĵ W Ĵ ¡Ĵ ěĴ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ $- / Ĵ Ĵ
Ħ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ : Ĵ &Ĵ 1#wĴ .;Ĵ À Ĵ '.CĴ 'Ĵa¨½Ĵ
Ĵ °Ĵ "Ĵ # Ĵ Ĵ 1 Ĵ '.Ĵ Ĵ ( Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ ( Ĵ % % Ĵ ĭ¼ ʪ
Ĵ $]Ĵ *Ĵ ĒĴ Ĵ ĠÁĴ Ĵ #Ĵ ĥ SĴ Ĵ 1#Ĵ ľ˾ q
&Ĵ Ĵ ³ %Ĵ c $wÃ*"Ĵ &Ĵ « Ĵ < ĢĴ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ 1$Ĵ Ĵ Dz˾
2Ĵ Ĵ ĔĴ bĴ Ĵ b Ĵ Ĵ ®:#Ĵ <"( CĴ Ō˾ ßĴ Ĵ
Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ %!!Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ %!Ĵ J qĴ Ĵ 4Ĵ ɪdzǗǛʥ˾ ˉ˾ ȧljƶ˾
ӧ Ĵ $$ SĴ Ĵ % Ĵ Â$$%5 āĴ Ĵ S Ĵ : Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
X=2Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ +Ĵ 3Ĵ LÛ/ýĴ # 5Ĵ Ĵ +#Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
Ĵ ÝĴ #Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ī Ĵ ʤɅ˾ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ &Ĵ óĴ Ĵ
Ĵ 2Ĵ $ ,Ĵ ±Ĵ #+Ĵ %Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ Ĵ
*Å YĴ k RĴ Ĵ Ĵ ġ Ĵ Ĵ -Ĵ Ĵ @Ĵ ;q Ĵ ć ? hĴ *Ĵ ̥ӧ 2+hĴ
Lû?Ĵ #:6Ĵ %Ĵ # Ĵ Ĵ ô ,Ĵ a )Ĵ Ĵ ĉĴ 2Ĵ ğĴ #=Ĵ ˈ˾ Ĵ L#6Ĵ
̐ҳ-ӧ ëàíYĴ Ĵ Þ]Ĵ 3Ĵ Ĵ $ *Ĵ }ċĴ ɕ˾ Ĵ ª̂~҉ӧ Ĵ ˡsîӧ ˸˾
Zӧ Ĵ L/ Ĵ Ĵ #?ÐĴ ѧϞӧ %ȿ¶rӧ 'δ6r¨¶'ʶ¸лӧ ¸'6%ӧ 6%ʷӧ ɝ ¨ӧ ĆTĴ ̑͂ӧ T* ?Ĵ * ӧ
ˢВsε мӧ ɀ ӧ Ĵ Ĵ @U/÷ĜrĴ Ĵ Ñ @Ĵ ùrËĴ Ĵ Ĵ #Ĵ @U/?* ĈĴ
U ú*sĴ Ĵ ð(Ĵ ˇ˾ =Ĵ Ĵ =Ĵ Ĵ ăĴ TĴ Ĵ 2* Ĵ * Ĵ
ôl˾ ãm˾ ěŏ00ăğ˾ Ŕ˾ B' -'P <33 =-3NP I
ñ Nçń ÔNń ń " $ń Õń ħ R ń Ö ń ń & ń -6ń oń .°,ń ń ųӧ
ü ń ń 5ń Lģń ań _ C*Eń
nĕa sń 9ń 'ń { ń ń %ń ? Īń ń Kń ń ń èp ń ýń
I þń ń &e !ń .±iń ń 'ń ń ń B ń # ń ń ń [ń ò8`x ń
ń 9 ń {ń !ń ń 9ń :C /~ń ! ßP ń @2îń ń + ×ń &*# Jkń
Ì'ń ľ ń ń | ń :0\ń ń & ń .-ń ȏ˾ ń ń Čï+ń
$3ń ďń ń (éń oń ń ń ń % # ń ń ń ĐċD2ń ń ¦ʵ2¬ϝ-ɐӧ
Hӧ
A ijń 9ń ń ń ń ń ń ń ][;ń % \ ń ń ń ń Rń * ń
Ĭ ń Qǐ˾ ƩǮ ʢDZOƑʣ˾ Ã s >$ń ËĈ ń ɒ ӧ ( ń >r ń ń ń
ÓɨʡǭƐțƴ˾ ²»Eń Í jń ě ń !3Ħń ļ" ń 3 ń ) ń ń fĤ˾ 3Azń
Ĺ eûń Ĥĩń óń ń ` !ń /Nń ń à_,ń ń ĥí ń Ėń ?ń ! ń ń
ġ"$ ń ń "ń & $ń -6ń 8ń .-jń ń ń | ń dń ń
đń §\DFń Ď˾ ń Ēń " Lń ń "ń ń ń
ń "! ń R[ń *ń ń ń Ļń 'ń ń ń ń L$ń ń
LjɩǯƵOƨ ˾ ǰ ˾ ØO DÙń ń "Ĕ 5ń fń %ĶAń ń !ń ń ń O 4ń %Bń 7q
Úӧ
y! ń ń ń (w (ń ń &P ń -6ń /Bń .-¬ń Ð7³VńÀTHÓń
#7&2#I #7%+0I Eń 70=7I ='I 7%1#I I Ă˾ 1GGń .6m5ń ! ¨ń
m ń 1 Uå"ń S gń ń $dń ´Sgń ń ń G ń ń = ń Yń
]ń ń ń & ~ń -6ń ń .-ń ń ń Ý:ń ;ń )ń #;ń ń ń : ń
ń ń 'ń ń ń "Eń Ï ń ń "B 3$ń ń Ȑ˾ ĭtrń ń ô ń îʪ
9ń Qń ń $ ń ń ń +% äń ń m 4ń ń Z ń 77¼&ń ń
-q ÿ2ń Āń ń ń ń ń ē O ń L ń ǧ˾ pIJ (ëń @Bń
õĢ ,ń ń ń ń 4ń ń Z !ń 77V5ń ķU$ ń hń ń "Łń µhń ń ń
G ań ėń = ń Y,ń ń ĵ );ń ń ń ń ń ń ń
m ā ń wń >ń ń ń ¡ń ń c á ń ń @ ,ń Ě Mń Ò('ń
-q ń ń ń ń Ă ń ğð>!ń ń /ń ń 0 ń ń m ( +Fń
¿ń Į"ń "ń ƈ˾ ń ń ń fń ń ń Cń ń ń 4ń % ń õʪ
q ń ń ö ń ń ń Mń ń cC ń ń 6q (ń ń ń ń ń
ăį( %ń e ń 'ń ń +ń ń !ń ń ń ń ` ń ń
ń 1"ĜP ń ń ń Ç !ń ń ń " ń ń ń /ń )ń 4ń ń
ĝĄ ń ń ń =3:Ċń X fì¢ń = ą,ń ń 'ń D2ń ń Ań ń
"ń ń 0ń ń ń ń ń ń ń ń ń ń Ŀ
/; !Fń H ń ń ń Z ń <¹Vń 8 ń <7½&£ń ń ń Ê _ń X / ń
uń ń 1 2#b ń ń XÞ ń ń È Q,ń ń +ń ń ń +%ń 5ʪ
0 ń ń ń čń ń ń īń ń Mń łń T )Úń
æ ©ń Ñ<¶¯ńÄTÅ5ń <lWń m
#5?#E,I A#3#C+I
8 ªń
Fń F#G&I =(I $55HI #9%I #C+5/@I !I lń Ľâį˾ <º¸5ń
¾ń 1Uã$ĸĨń 4} vń !Cń · Sń vń 'ń Á Ćdń 9ń = ń YOPń
ù ń ń ń ń ń ń ń @ń xćń #*Kń Ť˾ }úń q ń ń ń
ʪ
' ń Qń A ń ń &* Ďń W6ń ń .Wń ń Iń # ?}ń 8ń ¤ń
Æ)ń % ń ń Ġ" ń Ę!ń ń ń Ĵ ń tń *ń ń #* 2«ń ń ń )0ĺ ń
ń ^ń ń #ń ń ?ń /!ń "ń ń ń ń ń >4 ń )ŀ
Rń ń D ń 1Ğ ń ń ń É# ¥ń # ń c] ń ń¦ńń ń
ń ń 1 ń ń Ûń â ń kń Î ń )0( %ń ń +ń
2;?0^!ń 4ń !Jń ń ń ń ń ń 3ń ÷ń ń n İń
 Mń HĽzQ®H u:I ń +ń yń Jń ę Jń ń ń ˶ʉӧɷȼӧɛoӧ ɶ+ҵp̀ʲ+ѢӚ
6ʪ
ӏӧ йʴɸҨБ˖ӧ ťʠ˾ ѭ̕ʾӧ ҙΙtӧ Ϛˠӧ ±̎pӧ ̾+±oАҶ̿ʳҾӧ ҿ ѣ̏ϛҩѤӧ ,µϜµ́,˿ӧ Ƚ,Ӑӧ ¥кѥ¥βqΗqγѦӧ
ń *Kń ĉı0^,ń K@bń ń øIń Üń ͡ӧ ~Ͳӧ ¦2¬-ɹӧ 8b ń ń ń ʂnƧ2Ƴiń
520 SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS [1981} 2 S.C.R.
A then any other Jail official may, if thought necessary, watch the interview but
in a month to a detenu. When an undertrial prisoner is granted the facility
[532C-F]
(10) The right of a detcnu to consult a legal adviser of his choice for any
purpose not necessarily limited to defence in a criminal proceeding but also for
securing release from preventive detention or filing a writ petition or prosecu-
B ting any claim or proceeding, civil or crimine.I is obviously included in the right
to live with human dignity and is also part of personal liberty and the detenu
cannot be deprived of this right nor can this right of the detenu be inter-
fered with except in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure estab-
lished by a valid law. [531 C-E]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 3042 of 1980.
c (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
N. M. Ghatate (Dr.) and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioner.
lfardayal Hardy and M. N. Shroff for the Respondents Nos. 1-2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
BnAGWATI, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
raises a question in regard of the right of a detenu under the Conser-
vation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) to have interview
with a lawyer and the members of his family. The facts giving rise to
E the petition are few and undisputed and may be briefly stated as
follows:
The petitioner, who is a British national, was arrested and
detained in the Central Jail, Tihar under an Order dated 23rd
November 1979 issued under section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. She
F preferred a petition ih this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challeng-
ing her detention, but by a judgment delivered by this Court on~2'1fh
February 1980, her petition was rejected with the result that she
continued to remain under detention in the Tihar Central Jail. Whilst
under detention, the petitioner experienced considerable difficulty in t.
having interview with her lawyer and the members of her family.
G Her daughter aged about five years and her sister, who was looking .~
after the daughter, were pemiitted to have interview with her only
once in a month and she was not allowed to meet her daughter more
often, though a child of very tender age. It seems that some criminal
proceeding was pending against the petitioner for attempting to
smuggle hashish out of the country and for the purpo~e of her
D defence in such criminal proceeding, it was necessary for her to con-
sult her lawyer, but even her lawyer found it difficult to obtain an
interview with her because in order to arrange an interview, h0 wa~
F. C. MULLIN V. UNION TERRITORY (Bhagwati, J.) 521
required to obtain prior appointment from the District Magistrate, A
Delhi and the interview could take place only in the presence of a
Customs Officer nominated by the Collector of Customs. This pro~
cedure for obtaining interview caused considerable hardship and
inconvenience and there were occasions when, even after obtaining
prior appointment from the District Magistrate, Delhi, her lawyer
<:ould not have an interview with her since no, Customs Ofticer nomi~ B
nated by the Collector of Customs remained present at the appointed
time; The petitioner was thus effectively denied the facility of inter-
view with her lawyer and even her young daughter 5 years old could
not meet her except once in a month. This restriction on interviews was
--~posed by the Prison Authorities by virtue of clause 3 (b) sub-clauses
.- (i) and (ii) of the Conditions of Detention laid down by the Delhi
c
Administration under an Order dated 23rd August 1975 issued in
exercise of the powers conferred under section 5 of the COFEPOSA
At- Act. These two sub-clauses of clause 3 (b) provided inkr alia as
under:
"3, The conditions of detention in respect of classifica~ D
tion and interviews shall be as under : -
(a)
(b) Intenriews : Subject to the direction issued by the
Administrator from time to time, permission for the
grant of interviews with a detenu shall be granted E
by the District Magistrate, Delhi as under : -
(i) Interview with legal adv~er :
Interview with legal adviser in connection with
\,-:
defence of a detenu in a criminal case or in
regard to writ petitions and the like, may be F
allowed by prior appointment, in the presence
~ - ---
of an officer of Customs/Central Excise/
Enforcement to be nominated by the local
Collector of Customs/Central Excise or Deputy
Director of Enforcement who sponsors the case
for detention. G
(ii) Interview with family members:
A monthly interview may be permitted for
members of the family consisting of wife, .
children or parents of the detenu ......... "
R
The petitioner, therefore, preferred a petition in this Court under
Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of sub-clauses (i)
ō ӧ VbGL < m @cL\m L HAMYWm q;1O¢ü Mü UMm
¦ü r)ü ü ¥ ü / )ü ü ü ü ü 2i ü UÞ ßü Ñ ü čʪ
!÷ ü 8 !8ü ü 'ü ü ü ü 4(ü ü2ü Z ü
ü 3 @6 Øü ü 'ü h+ü Q+ü ӧ ü ü ü ü ü
ü 'ü ü ü nFü ü ü ü ü ü 7ü ø
ü ü ü ü ' ü * ü ü ü ü zÉ }ü
.ʪ 4 ©ü ½Òü h ü ü ü ü *ü D ü Ûü K
& ü )ü §ü $.ü ü ü / )ü ü è ü ü ü 2ª ü
ü ü D °ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ³ü
^Cü =ü ü M<ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
ü ü :ü Pü ü & @ ü ü ü ]ü ü #{¡ü
"ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Åü +ô
Œʪ ü ü ü ü ü $6 ü ü ~ü (Íõûü
Óü Ô ü %ü ü F# ü ü 5*ü ü $ _ü ü
ü ü ] ü ü ü ü Bü ü X *ü 001 ü ü £ ¤ ü
6æ ü (ü "# ü ü ü -ü ü ü «+ü Õ ü
"_ ü ü ü ü #Bü ü Y ü 00Lü ü ü Y ü ü éü ü H \ü
S Æü µ ü ü 3 ü ! ü S ü ü Âü $ ü ü
ӧ
W cü 4 ü kü ü ü j ü ü ü ü C ü àü
"í7&ü 0 ´ü îü ü ü ü ! ü ü ü ü ü Çü
iü ü %ü ü > ü ü %t úü ü C ü ü ¬ü 5$ü
ü ü ü ü nü ü ü ü ü & % ü ü ü Gü
Ïü ü ü ü ü ü I ü E ü ü ü jü
5ü @"-ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Fü òü U¶ü ü
ñʪ
ü 6 êü ü 8'ü ü ! ü ü ü dZü
Üü '8Ëü =ü ü N<:ü ü ü ( ü ü ü ü
ü ü > ü ü ü | ü tǏʪ ü sǢ ʪ ü &+? \ü
/ )ü ü ü bü ü ü ;=ü ü <uü ü ü ""ü
¾ ü ü ü ü vü "ü ü Ä 9ü ü ã ü »ü ü
úʪ ü ü ü cü ͠ӧ ü ü ü ÐÝ ü (wü #ü ù
ü ü G? ü ü &^7ü ü A G-$ü 7 ü ü ü Ù ü
äü aü ü ü Bü ü ü ü ü ü Ö ìDü ü ü üü
ü ü -$ü ü ü Èöü %ü ±xü ü Î ü ü ,åÁü
ü ü üüü çü ü mÀü·¯üü ü A l:ü 4 ¼ü
%ü ü ¿ ü ü ü ü [ ü 5ü ü ü ü ü
Āʪ > ü ü ü kü [ü yü ü E #%ü ü ! ü fü
K ü .ü ü .ü ü ü / .ü !ü d ü ü ü ü (ü ü
ü ü ó!` ü җӧ E ïü ü ü #mü ü J ü Hb Êü
9ü ü ü ü ˾ ü ü ü ü ü ü
VWV3 ü Iü ? ü ü ü ü fü ü ü á¹ ü eü
` g-ü ü ü ¸ Ì*ü I ü ü aü J ü
đʪƏ˦˾ Ǎɫʪ ǎɍʪȈʦɎɏȜʪ ɬȫʪ ʼnŹńʪ ǣʪ ǾǐSCʪ ɭƳźʪ CLƧɯLSżɰǑȬȉʪ ŊEɮʍŻEgʪ *Y
ñ®×ðü ¨,H oü ü J,Alü ²,ë p9ü ü ü gü e, âÃÚºü
F. C. MULLIN V. UNION TERRITORY (Bhpgwati, J.) 523
the question of validity of con~tions of detenti~n. TJ;t.e~~ }~ . ~ ~it~F A
1 distinction between these two. kinds of detention. 1p'unitive deten~19.!'.;~.
is intended •to' inflict punishment on a person,'' . who\ f~uhd "bi th't is .. I
judicial process to have committeCI an offence, while 'preventive
<kt~mi6n' is .riot by way of punishment at all, but it is intended to:
JSte:~mpt ~: ~rson from indulging in conduct ~njur.ious to the .society. . B
The power of preventive detention has been recognised as a n~cessary:.
evil and is tolerated in a free society in the larger in,terest of 1security .
of the State and maintenance of public order. It is a drastic power to ·
detain a person without trial and there are many countries where it ·
is not aHowed to be exercised except in times of war or aggression.
-~ ~~j ~tnfitit~tion, do.es 1~ec.~ise _the exi~tence. of ~is power, but it is c
•
heiigchl!ifl:>by v~nous safeguards set out m Articles~ 21 and
""' ' ' '- : · ,_ < ' ' • • r •• ' :.
22. Art. 22
..J }. ' .. ...,., •
\o • • < 0 '
n:i ~clauses (4) to (7), .deals spe<;rfically w1th saf(.:g_u~rd~ ~~;:qn~~ pr!!-
ventive detention and .ally law of preventive. d,et~ntjon- .Pt
-~·c.mm by .
way of preventive detention ~e~ 11fid~r s,uch l~w. ~~st "~e :in .con-
formity with the restri~tions laid· down by tho~e ).Clauses on p,ain of
3
i~va!idation. But apart from Art. 22, there is also Ari. 21 whiCh lays · D
do\%. ·resttictions on the power of preventive detention. Until the deci-
sfon ·~r tbts·· Court in Maneka Gandh~ v. Union of lndia(l), a very
narrow and constricted meaning was given to the guarantee embodied
in Art. 21 and that article was understood to embody only that aspect
of the rule of law, which requires that no one shall be deprived of.
his life or personal liberty without the authority of law. It was E.
construed only as ·a guarantee against executive action unsupported
by law. So long as there was some law, which prescribed a pro-
ce:d~re authorising depriv~tion of life or personal ~berty, it _was .
sdpPO~~d ~o tneet .the ~equlre~ent of Art. 21. But in Maneka, Gandhi's
ca~e . {supra),. this .cou~ Jor t4e _first time opened-up a _ne~ gilp~nsion
of Art. 2l and laid down that Art. 21 is not. only a guarantee against F
·-.ei.e~qtive action unsupported by law, butfs also a re~~ri~iio~ on .law
' ll:iaking.. It is not enough to secure compliance wit4 the . prescription ..
of Adic;le -21 that thefe should be a law prescribing some semblanee of
a 'proqedore fot' depriving a t>erson of his life or personal liberty, but ·
tli'e pi-oc~l:ue· t>rescribed by the law must be reasonable, · fair and G·
just and if it is not so, the law would be void as violating the
guarantee of Art. 21. This Court expanded the scope and ambit of
the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Art. 21 and sowed_
the seed for future development of the law enlarging this most fun~a
mental of Fundamental Rights. This decision in Maneka Gandhi's
case became the starting point-the-spri'ng-board-for a most spectacular
evolution of the law culminating in the decisions in M. 0. Hoscot v. R
(l) [1979] 1 sec 248
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.
A State of ;uaharashtra, ( 1), H ussainara Khatoon's case (2), the first
Sunil Batra's case(') and the second Sunil Batra's case.(4-) The posi-
tion now is that Art. 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi's case
(supra) requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure
must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or
B fanciful and it is for the Court to decide in the exercise of its consti-
tutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life or
personal liberty in a given case is by procedure, which is reasonable,
fair and just or it is otherwise. The law of preventive detention has
therefore now to pass the test not only of Art. 22, but also of Art. 21
c
and if the constitutional validity of any such law is challenged, the 1-
Court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by
such law for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable,
fair and just. But despite these safeguards laid down by the Consti-
tution and creatively evolved by the Courts, the power of preventive A.
detention is a frightful and awesome power with drastic consequences
D affecting personal liberty, which is the most cherished and prized
possession of man in a civilised society. It is a power to be exercised
with the greatest care and caution and the courts have to be ever vigi-
lant to see that this power is not abused or misused. It must always
be remembered that preventive detention is qualitatively different
from puuitive detention and their purposes are different. In case of
E punitive detention, the person concerned is detained by way of
punishment afl';;:r he is found guilty of wrong doing as a result of trial
where he has the fullest opportunity to defend himself, while in case
of preventive detention, he is detained merely on suspicion with a
view to preventing him from doing harm in future and the opportunity
that he has for contesting the action of the Executive is very limited.
F Having regard to this distinctive character of preventive detention,
which aims not at punishing an individual for a wrong done by him,
but at curtailing his liberty with a view to pre-empting his injurious--~
activities in future, it has been laid down by this Court in Sampat
Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir(") "that the restrictions
placed on a person preventively detained must, consistently \\ith the
G effectiveness of detention, be minimal."
The question which then arises is whether a person preventively
,
detained in a prison has any rights which he can enforce in a Court
(1) [1979] 1 SCR 192
(2) [1980] 1 sec 81 ,
(3) [1979]1 SCR 392
(4) [1980] 2 SCR 557
(5) [1969] 3 SCR 574.
F. C. MULLIN v. UNION TERRITORY (BhagwaO, J.) 525
of law. Once his freedom is curtailed by incarceration in a jail, does A
he have any fundamental rights at all or does he leave them behind,
when he enters the prison gate? The answer to this question is no
longer res integra. It has been held by this Court in the two Sunil
Batra cases that "fundamental rights do not flee the person as he
enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by
B
incarceration .., The prisoner or detenu has all the fundamental rights
and other legal rights available to a free person, save those which are
incapable of enjoyment by reason of incarceration. Even before the
two Sunil Batra cases, this position was impliedly accepted in State
of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Sanzgiri(l) and it was spelt-out clearly
-~ and in no uncertain terms by Chandrachud, J. as he then was, in c
D. B. Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh( 2 ) :
"Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction,
denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise
possess. A compulsion under the authority of law, following
upon a conviction. to live in a prison-house entails to by B
its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like
the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or
the right to ''practise" a profession. A man of profession
would thus stand stripped of his right to hold consultations
while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution guarantees
other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of E
property for the exercise of which incarceration can be no
impediment. Likew:se, even a convict is entitled to the
precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution that
he shall not be deprived of his life or pe~son~ liberty except
according to procedure established by law."
F
This statement of the law was affirmed by a Bench of five Judges of
X this Court in the first Sunil Batra case (supra) and by Krishna Iyer,
J. speaking on behalf of the Court in the second Sunil Batra case
(supra). Krishna Iyer, J. in the latter case pror.:leded to add in his
characteristic style; "The jurisdictional reach and range of this
Court's writ to hold prison caprice and cruelty in constitutional leash G
t is incontestable" and concluded by observing; "Thus it is now clear
law that a prisoner wears the armour of basic freedom even behind
· bars a'nd that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will
respond to his distress signals through 'writ' aid. The Indian human
has a constant companion-the Court armed with the Constitution."
H
(1) [1966] 1 SCR 702
(2) [1975] 2 SCR 24.
526 .·suPREME COURT REPORTS {1981] 2 S.C.R,
1 ..
A It is iriterestmg to note tltat tlie Supreme Colirt of th~ United ·States
t ~ .a.Iib ..taken the same view ill. regard to
rights of p~isoners: - Mr.
r~e~Douglas struck ·a humanistic note when he said in Eve Pati>i
grs'{l)-: . . .
"Prisoners are still persons entitled to all constitutional
B rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed
by procedures that satisfy all the requirements of due pro-
c~ss.''
S~.lUs~.in Charles Wolff's case,(2) Mr. Justice White made the same
~iU:tt: in1'n11;lhf!tic t~Ilis .·. ~ _. ·1 •
~i ..t;~ J~1iuf,.;thou~~ his rights may be dimi·riished by environ-
ment, a prisoner· is not wholly stripped off constitutional ·
protections, when he is imprisoned for crime. There is no
iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons
of this country.u
0 Mr. l.JJStice Douglas reiterated lils thesis when he asserted·:
~·.Ey~ry prisoner's. li.,erty 'i.e. of courses, circumscribed
by the very fact of his confinement, but his interest in the
limited liberty left to him is then only the more substantial.
Conviction of a crime does not render one a non-person
whose rights are subject to the whim of the prison adminis-
E ttation, and tRerefore, the imposition of any serious punish·
~~~r..,within the system requires procedural safeguards."
Mr. Justice Marshall also expressed himself clearly and explicitly in
the same terms :
. . ' .
F'
''I have previously statfd my view that a prisoner
does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison
·. gate, and I fully support the court's holding that the
. interest of inmates in freedom from imposition of serious
. discipline is a 'liberty·· , enlitled to due process proteetion."
~at;i~·.~t~ted by these ·l~arned Judg~ i~ :re~rd ~o the riih!~ 9(.~
pmoner under the Constitution of _the United States app~es equ~y.
in regard to the rights of a prisoner or detenu under our · constitJ.-
J
tionai system. It must, therefore, now be taken to be well-settled that
a prisoner or detenu is not stripped of his fundamental or other legal
rights, save those which are inconsistent with his incarceration, and
if any of these rights are violated, the Court which is to use the words
n:. of Krishna Iyer, J., "not a distant abstraction omnipotent in the
(1) 417 U.S. 817 : 41 L. ed. 2d 495
(2) 41 L. ed. 2d 935,
F •. c.- MULLIN V. UNION TERRITORY (Bhagwatj, J.) 52 7
1 ~
'
books. but an activist institution which is the cynosure of public ho~; A
will immediately spring into action and run to his ·rescue.
We must therefore proceed to consider whether any of the
Fundamental Rights of the detenu are violated by sub-climses -(i) · and
(ii) of clause 3(b) so as to result in their invalidation wh9Uy Qr i~
I>¥t :Yi.e will fu~t t!ife -~!? for considerat~oll: the}~un~~~_pt_al j:i~ B
~f :the <letenu under Article 21 because that is a Fundam~nt~ R,!ght
which has, after the decision in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), a
highly activist magnitude and it embodies a constitutional value of
supreme importance in a democratic society. It provides that no one
• shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
~oce~ure established by law and such procedure shall be reasonable
fair, .and just.- Now what is the true scope and ambit of the right to
~~e ,J~a~anteed under· -t~i_s :~~cle ? While arri~iii~ at the pro.Per
c
meaning and content of the right to life, we must .remember t!tat it
is a constitutional provision which we are expounding and moreover
it is a provision enacting a· Fundamental right and the attempt of the
court should always be t<> ·expand· the reaeh and ambit of the fund~..: D
mental right· xathet than· to ·attenuate its: meaning and cnntent. The
luminous· guideline ·in ·the interpretation of a constitutional provision
is::. provided. by the Supreme Court· of United States in Weems v.
il.s._54 -~awyers Edition 801.
"Legislation, both statutory and constitutional'is enacted,
it is true, fto:tn an experience of · evils, but-its general
language sliollld ,not, therefore, be necessarily colllined to the
form that evil had, · therefore taken . .Time works changes,
brings into existence new conditions and : purwses. · J:}!e(e-
fore, a principle,· to~ be vital, must- be capable- of · wider
a}.1plieation tha:n m.isch_ief. which gave it -birth. ·This is pecu- F
liary true of Constitutions. They are not ephemeral enact-
ments designed to meet passing occasions. TMy are, to use
the word~ of Chief Justice Marshall, "designed to approach
immOrality as nearly as htima'n institutions cim apPr~ach1t~.
The "future is theircare, ~nd provisions for evenrs. bf'go6d
arid ·bad tendencies ·a.f which no prophecy· can ·t;e· made. In G
\
the. application of a:. constitution, therefore: 6'\ir .contempla-
tion cimnO't' be only of what has been, 'buf Of ·wnat 'may' be.'
Under any other rule a constitution would indeed be as easy
of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power.
Its general principles would have little value, and be con-
verted by precedent into important and lifeless formulas.
Rights declared in the words might be lost in reality. And
this has been recognised. The meaning and vitality of the
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.
Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive
construction."
This principle of interpretation which requires that a Constitutional
provision must be construed, not in a narrow and constricted sense_,
but in a wide and liberal manner so as to anticipate and take account
of changing conditions and purposes so that the Constitutional pro-
vision does not get atrophied or fossilized but remains flexible
enough to meet the newly emerging problems and chall~nges, app1ies
with greater force in relation to a fundamental right enacted by the
Constitution. The fundamental right to life which is the most pre-
cious human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must
therefore be interpretated in a broad and expansive spirit so as to
invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years
to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of
the human person.
Now obviously, the right to life enshrined in Article 21 can not
D be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much
more than just physical survival. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Prade.~h(l) Subba Rao J. quoted with approval the fo11owing passage
from the judgment of Field J. in Munn v. lllinois( 2 ) to emphasize
the quality of life covered by Article 21 :
E *"By the term "life" as here used something more is
meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against
its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by
which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
mutilation of the· body or amputation of an arm or leg or the
putting out, of an eye or the destruction of any other organ
F of the. body through which the soul communicates with the
outer world."
and this passage was again accepted as laying down the correct law
by the Constitution Bench of thls Court in the first Sunil Batra case
{supra). Every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed is thus
G protected by Article 21 and a fortiorari. this would include the
faculties of thinking and feeling. Now deprivation which is inhibited
by Artide 21 may be total or partial, neither any limb or faculty
can be totally destroyed nor can it be partially damaged. Moreover it
is every kind of deprivation that is hit by Article 21, whether such
deprivation be permanent or temporary and, furthermore, depriva-
H (1) [1964] l S.C.R. 232
(2) [1877) 94 u.s. 113
*Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. P. 503.
/
F. C. MULLIN v. UNION TERRITORY (Bhagwati, J.) 529·
tion is not an act which is complete once and for all : it is a cont-
nuing act and so lClng as it lasts, it must be in accordance. with pro-
cedure established by law. It is therefore clear that any act which
damages or injures or interferes with the use of, any limb or faculty
of a person, either permanently or even temporarily, would be within
the inhibition of Article 21.
But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited
only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and
embrace something more. We think that the right to life includes the
right to 1ive with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, cloth-
ing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing one- c
self in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and comming-
ling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and con-
w
tent of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of
the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view
of the matter, include tne right to the basic necessities of life and also
J)
the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the
bare minimum expression of the human-self. Every act which offends
against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro
tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with
reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands
the test of other fundamental rights. Now obviously. any form of
E
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would be offensive
to human dignity and constitute an inroad into this right to live and
it would, on this view, be prohibited by Article 21 unless it is in
accordance with procedure prescribed by law, bu~ no law which
authorises and no procedure which leads to such torture or cruel, in-
human or degrading treatment can ever stand the test of reasonable- II'
ness and non-arbitrariness: it would plainly be unconstitutional and
void as being violative of Articles 14 and 21. n would thus be seen
that there is implicit in Article 21 the right to protection against
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is enunciated
in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
guaranteed by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and G
Political Rights. This right to live which is comprehended within the
broad connotation of the right to life can concededly be abridged
according to procedure established by law and therefore when a
person is lawfully imprisoned, this right to live is bound to suffer
' attenuation to the extent to which it is incapable of enjoyment by
reason of incarceration. The prisoner or detenu obviously cannot H
move about freely by going outside the prison walls nor can he socia-
lise at his free will with persons outside the jail. But, as part of the
[1981] 2 S.C.R. \
530 SUPREME COURT
~ ~ . .
. . REPORTS
.·A right ~ live with human dignity ~nd th~efore .as. a ·neces?a_ry: c,qD!pO;
nent of the right to life, ,h_e wo~d l:!e entit_ledto have_in~e.rvi~~~w!~
~h~.. IJ1Cmb~rs :o~ his: fa~ly and friends aQd no pri_s~:m ·regulflf!ew;~
p~ure l;eid :dewp.. ·by :Prison regulation regulating the right -m ~ve
~nterviews with the members of the family and friends can be upheld
as constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21, unless it is reason-
B able, fai~ an~ j~t.
The sanie consequence would follow even if this problem is consi-
dered from the point of view of the right to personal Uberty enshrined ·
in Article 21, for the right to have interviews with members of the family
and friends is clearly part of personal liberty guaranteed under that
c Article. The expression 'personal liberty' occurring in Article 21 has
been given a broad and liberal interpretation in Maneka Gandhi's case
(supra) and it has been held in that case that the expression 'personal
liberty used in that' Artjcle ·is of the widest · amplitude and it covers
a variety of rights which ·go to constitute the personal liberty of a man
and it also iricludes rights which "have be~n raised to the:status of dis~
D
tinct 'F~.uitlamental ' ~igbtS' and given.~- aaditionai p;rotectien . 'uflder
ArtiCte ··19"'. - There 'can .therefore· be-- n5: doub't -that ·'persoriaf tiblriy'
wourn- incliide •the. dgh:tto .sO<:iatis·e 'wifli members otth'e fatrrlly' ami
ftlehels Si.ib]ect,· csf C'outse,· to any valid prison regulations· · aiid under
Articles· 14 and 21, such prison regulations must be reasonable and
non-arbitrary. If any prison regulation or procedure laid down by it re-
gulating the right to have interviews with members of the family and
friends is arbitrary or unreasonable, it would be liable to be struck
d·owri as invalid as being violative of Articles 14 and 21.
. . -
Now obviously \fhen an undertrial prisoner is granted the facility
F
of interviews , with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule
55~A. and . a oonviciect · p~o~r is ~~t~ - to have. inte~i~~ ~t)l
.._
.
\
his ..r~latives· ami .friends ·onee irr a wee~· under .Rule 550, it. is :diffi.eult
to Understand how 6Ub-clause (.ii) of-CJ.ause •3 (b) of·the C~~.tion~" Of
Detention Order, which restricts the interview oil.ly to ·one in .a .month
in case of a detenu, can possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-
G arbitrary, particularly when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an
undertrial prisoner or a convict and, as held by this Court in Sampath
Prakash's case (supra) restrictions placed on a detenu must. "consistent
~t!J;:th~ etJ:ectiv~qess _of detention,· be minimal." We would . tq~~~f~r_c
-u1tt!~it~tingly.:ho!d sub-clause (ii) of ~l~1:1se ·3(b} to be vi~affi'~#
}\JtiGl~: 14-~nd 21· if!. so-far: as i~ ·permitr. only_ one inte:r~,r~~:--,
~~-to. a,detenu. -W~:;are-of the.view that a-detenU-J!l.US~ ~;'~~t
Je4-t~~~ye-atleast two ~iews in a week with relatiyes ·~.Jtiends
and·it sbould be possible-_for a relative or friend to have inteniew with
p, c. MULLIN v. UNION TERRITORY (Bhagwa0 J.) 1 531
at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission A
S0 pcrintendent of t hc J a1.l and 1t
the dctcoil . shou ld not be necessary to
) rn the
fr~. he rmission of t c h D' t · "·I ·
1s net 1v ag1strate, Delhi, as the latter
• S<"<k ·~ure~ould be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view
1
. prOC· 'ty and hence unreasonable. We would go so far as to say tha\
. "'pendently of RuIes 550 and 559,.,.,
of secun A
we would regard the pre·
e~en tn"" . • k f .
scnt uorm of two interviews m_ a wee or pnsoners as furnishing a cri- B
. , f
tenon•nu...b,t we would consider reasonable and non-arbitrary•
The same reasoning must also result in invalidation of sub-clause
(i) of clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order which pres-
, cnbes that a detenu can have interview with a legal adviser only after
obtaining prior permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi and the c
interview has to take place in the presence of an offtcer of Customs/
· 1 Central Excise/Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collector
uf CustomsjCentral Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement who
bas sponsored the case for detention. The right of a detenu to con-
mit 11 legal adviser of his choice for any purpose not necessarily limi-
ted to defence in a criminal proceeding but also for securing release D
fro?I preventive detention of filing a writ petition or prosecuting any ;
~aun or proceeding, civil or criminal, is obviously included in the ;
fight lo live with human dignity and is also part of personal liberty ;
and the detenu cannot be deprived of this right nor can this right of '
~~ dete~u be interfered with except in acc~rd'ance with reasonable, E
~~~and Just procedure established by a valid Jaw. A prison regula-
U~nb
11
may, therefore, regulate the right of a detcnu to have interview
"it Blegalad' VtSer ·m a manner which is reasonable, fau
· and'JUst btu
- lat~annot prescribe an arbitrary or unreasonable procedure for regu-
A:gl 1
&uch an interview and if it does 50 it would be violative of
· . \1vec·es 14. a0 d 21 • Now in the present' case the kg'Jl adviscr can F
•
' ' ing petntervicw • • Wit· h n dctcnu only by prior appointment nf ter obt~tn--
·
I
tly ca:SSIOO or the District Magistrate, Delhi. This would obvi?U-
.\)U}d h &reat hardship and inconvenience because the legal adviser
'r.d lht:ve to apply to the District Mugistrate, Delhi well in a~vance
~ be _also the time fixed by the District M:~gistrate, Delhi may
1 ~ittitj~UJ!able to the legal adviser who would ordinarily be a busy G
riV!t to :nsand, in that event, from a practicnl point of view the
the lntervie ult 8 legal adviser would be rendered illusory. Moreover,
~a! l: V.: rnust take place in the presence of an officer of Customs/
~Cq_~torn:~~/Enforcement to be nominated by the local Collect~r
'Ponso entral Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement w o 11
::able p/~d the detention and this too would seem to be an uttrea•
<~Ce ti{ :~ural requirement because in order to secure theyJ;~i1
c officer at the interview, the District Magistrate, e
. - ... -- - ~--
- ..-~---- - - ·-·
.....
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
532 [1981] 2 s.c.a,
A would have to fix the time for the interview in consultation w·th
~
Collector of Customs/Central"E ~elSe. . b D
or t e epu~y Director of I
En-
forcement and it ~ay ~come d~cult to s~ncbro'nise tbe time which
suits the legal adviser With the .time convement to the concemed ofli. •
cer and furthermore if the nommated officer does not, for any reaso0
attend at the appointed time, as seems to have happened on quite '
B few occasions in. the case of the petitioner, the interview cannot ~
held at all and the legal adviser would have to go back without m~t- ·
ing the detenu and the entire procedure for applying for an appointment
to the District Magistrate, Delhi would have to be gone through once
again. We may point out that no s-atisfactory explanation has been ,
given on behalf of the respondents disclosing the rationale of this re- '1
c .
qwrement. '
..,
We are therefore of view that sub-clause (i) of clause 3(b) regu-
lating the right of a detenu to have interview with a legal adviser of his
choice is violative of Arts. 14 and 21 and must be held to be unconsti-
D tutional and void. We think that it would be quite reasonable if a
detenu were to be entitled to have interview with his kgal adviser at
any reasonable hour during the day after taking appointment from the
Superintendent of the Jail, which appointment should be given by th~
Superintendent without any avoidable delay. We may odd that ~~
intcrvie\Y heed not necessarily take place in the presence of a notiU·
.£ nated officer of CustomsjCentral Excise/Enforcement but if the pre-
sence of such officer can be conveniently secured at the time of th:
interview without involving any postponement of the interview, then
liuch officer and if his presence cannot be so secured, tbcn any other
Jail official may, if thought necessary, watch the interview but .not 50
as to be within hearing distance of the detenu and the Jagal adVISe!• .
We accordingly allow the writ petition and grant relief to the e~~~:nt -1.
indicated above. .
v.o.K. .-·(J.
Petition II11V"
MGIPP-$7SCJ/81-8-7-1 9 Sl-2SOO
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search