Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Supreme Court of India, 13 January 1981, 2 judges, 1981 AIR 746; 1981 SCR (2) 516; 1981 SCC (1) 608
The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity; conditions allowing a COFEPOSA detenu only one family interview a month and lawyer interviews only by prior permission before a customs officer were struck down.
Facts
The petitioner, a British national, was detained in Tihar Central Jail under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, and her habeas corpus petition had been rejected. Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order issued by the Delhi Administration allowed interviews with a legal adviser only by prior appointment through the District Magistrate and in the presence of a nominated Customs or Excise officer, and allowed family members a single monthly interview. Her five-year-old daughter could see her only once a month, and her lawyer, who needed to consult her about a pending criminal case, was sometimes unable to meet her because the nominated officer did not attend. Under-trial and convicted prisoners were allowed more frequent interviews under the Punjab Jail Manual. She challenged sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause 3(b) under Article 32 as violating Articles 14 and 21.
Questions before the Court
- What is the content of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 for a person in preventive detention?
- Are the restrictions on a detenu's interviews with family members and a legal adviser arbitrary and unreasonable, and so void under Articles 14 and 21?
What the Court held
- Preventive detention is not punitive, and restrictions on a detenu must, consistently with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal. A law of preventive detention must satisfy Article 21, as read in Maneka Gandhi, as well as Article 22.
- A prisoner or detenu keeps all fundamental and other legal rights except those incapable of enjoyment by reason of incarceration.
- The right to life is not mere animal existence. It includes the right to live with human dignity and the bare necessaries of life, such as nutrition, clothing, shelter, reading and writing, and mixing with fellow human beings. Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment can never be authorised by a valid procedure.
- Interviews with family and friends are part of the right to live with dignity and of personal liberty. Allowing a detenu one interview a month, when under-trials get two a week, is arbitrary; sub-clause (ii) violates Articles 14 and 21, and a detenu must be allowed at least two interviews a week with permission from the Jail Superintendent.
- The right to consult a legal adviser of one's choice is part of the right to live with dignity. Sub-clause (i), requiring the District Magistrate's prior appointment and a nominated officer's presence, is void; the detenu may meet the lawyer at any reasonable hour by appointment with the Superintendent, watched if necessary but not within hearing.
Why it matters
The judgment reads the right to life in Article 21 as the right to live with human dignity, including the basic necessities of life and the freedom to read, write, express oneself and associate with others. It also holds that Article 21 implies protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that detenus retain their fundamental rights save those inconsistent with detention.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing one-self in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.”
“Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation protanto 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.”
“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,”
“We would therefore unhesitatingly hold sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 in so far as it permits only one interview in a month to a detenu. We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 22, Constitution
- Clause 3(b)(i) and (ii), Conditions of Detention Order, 23 August 1975, under Section 5, COFEPOSA Act, 1974
Related judgments
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“The position 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” (page 8)
- Follows Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)“This statement of the law was affirmed by a Bench of five Judges of this Court in the first Sunil Batra case” (page 9)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 3042 of 1980
- Decided
- 13 January 1981
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N., Fazalali, Syed Murtaza
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, J.
Questions on this case
4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.