Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

Author: Shalini Dhyani, Law Student at (Vasudev College of Law, Haldwani, Nainital)

Edited By: Naman Jain, Law Student at Galgotias University

ABSTRACT

The protection of human rights is one of the core principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 has been interpreted many times by the judiciary which has increased its scope. It includes the right to life with dignity. The right to life is not about mere animal existence or just physical survival but a life that must be greeted with dignity one cannot arbitrarily take away the right of another person. This case also deals with the prisoner’s right to life with dignity along with their detention. Preventive and punitive detention under article 22 is described in this case helps in identifying the difference between these two detentions and also considers the rights of the detained person. This case maintained the legacy of the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case while upholding the golden triangle that articles 14, 19, and 21. The case is again an interpretation of Article 21 and complies that Article 22 must be complied with Article 21.

Keywords: Article 21, Preventive detention, The Constitution of India, Punitive detention, Rights of detained.

CASE DETAILS

      i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
    ii)          Case Number Writ Petition No. 3402 of 1980
   iii)          Judgement Date 13 January 1981
   iv)          Court The Supreme Court of India
     v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.
   vi)          Author / Name of Judges  Justice P.N. Bhagwati
 vii)          Citation 1981 (1) SCC 608
viii)          Legal Provisions Involved Conservation of Foreign Exchange &  Prevention of  Smuggling Activities Act, Rule 559A and 550 of the Punjab Manual of the Superintendence and Management of Jails, and the Constitution of India Act 1950.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

“What are we having this liberty for? We have this liberty to reform our social system, which is full of inequality, discrimination, and other things, which conflict with our fundamental rights” B.R. Ambedkar[1]

Fundamental rights are the basic human rights that have been incorporated into the Constitution of India. Part III of the Constitution of India deals with the fundamental rights. In the constitution, certain rights are mentioned explicitly. Judicial rulings, however, shaped some rights. Implied fundamental rights describe them. There can be no legislation passed that will handle all the essentials since they might not be enough to deal with what’s to come. On occasion, they even leave a void, which the idea of necessary implications sought to address. Consequently, the Supreme Court has emerged, in response to changing times and circumstances, to uphold these implicit fundamental rights, which are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.[2]

Article 21 “No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”[3]

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is one of the important rights that has been interpreted by the judiciary several times in matters to widen its scope. It not only includes the right to life but also several rights such as the right to sleep, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to health, etc. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India[4] article 21 has been interpreted especially the term ‘personal liberty’. Article 21 does not override Article 19, and the Supreme Court held that Article 21 and other parts of Part III of the Constitution must be applied to any legislation that restricts a person’s freedom. The Court established the Golden Triangle, which states that all rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution must be viewed in conjunction with one another and that no legislative act may violate any right guaranteed by Part III. Additionally, the Court granted the discretion to the judiciary to broaden the scope of the right to life as outlined in the Constitution to encompass several unenumerated rights, such as those of inmates, the safeguarding of women and children, and the preservation of the natural environment.[5]  The right to life and personal liberty does not include mere animal existence rather it incorporates the right to life with human dignity. This case also emphasizes the fundamental rights and legal rights available to detain a prisoner which are not deprived due to his incarceration.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Francis Coralie, the petitioner was a British national and she was arrested and detained at the Tihar jail (central jail) as she was attempting to smuggle hashish out of the country. She was detained as per an order dated 23rd November 1979 issued under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act). A criminal was brought against her regard she challenged her detention by issuing the writ of habeas corpus through a petition but her petition was dismissed or rendered by the court through a judgment dated 27th February 1980 and as a result, she remained to be under detention in the central jail Tihar.

The petitioner had tremendous hurdles in securing interviews with her attorney and family members while under arrest. Her daughter and sister were only allowed to meet her once a month, and she was not allowed to meet her daughter more frequently. The petitioner was facing a criminal procedure for attempting to transport hashish out of the country. To defend her, she needed to visit her lawyer. However, her lawyer struggled to arrange an interview due to the need for a prior appointment with the District Magistrate, Delhi, and the presence of a Customs Officer nominated by the Collector of Customs. This approach created tremendous hardship and trouble, and even after gaining an appointment, her lawyer could not have an interview with her. The petitioner was essentially denied the option of an interview with her counsel and her daughter.[6] This restriction on interviews was established by the Prison Authorities by article 3 (b) sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the Conditions of Detention handed down by the Delhi Administration under an Order dated 23rd August 1975 issued in exercise of the authority conferred under section 5 of the COFEPOSA Act.

Thus, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India she filed a writ petition that challenges the constitutional validity of section 3(b) sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the conditions of detention order stating that this section is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India as it is unreasonable and arbitrary and further, she pleaded before the Administrator of the union territory of Delhi and Superintendent of the central jail, Tihar, to allow her to communicate with her counsel and family members.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether clauses 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) of the Conditions of Detention Order constitutionally valid or not as it is violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
  2. Does preventing the detained or arrested person from communicating with his lawyer or family member constitute a violation of Article 22 of the Indian Constitution?[7]
  3. Whether Preventive detention is different from Punitive Detention?
  4. Whether a person preventively confined in a prison have any rights that he can enforce in a Court of law?[8]

ARGUMENTS ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

  • The petitioner argued that allowing family interviews only once a month was discriminatory and unreasonable, given that under-trial prisoners were permitted to interview with friends and family twice a week under Rule 559A and convicted prisoners were allowed to interview with friends and family once a week under Rule 550 of the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in the Punjab. Additionally, the petitioner argued that Articles 14 and 21 were violated by the arbitrary and unreasonable necessity of a previous appointment for the interview and the presence of a Customs or Excise Officer at the interview. Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees the detenu the right to choose and be defended by a lawyer of his choosing. Consequently, she was entitled to the opportunity to speak with any attorney he wished to consult or to represent him in court.

ARGUMENTS ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

Respondent denied the contentions of the petitioner and stated that the restrictions placed on the petitioner were justifiable, fair, and reasonable and also argued that subclauses (i) and (ii) of clause 3 (b) did not violate article 14 and article 21. It was also stated that they would not object if the petitioner was allowed to interview her daughter and sister twice a week, as is the case for prisoners awaiting trial, in place of a monthly interview, and that they would not insist on having a customs or excise officer present during the lawyer-client meeting.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS:

  • Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act: The conditions of detention in respect of classification and interviews shall be as under:-

(b) Interviews: “Subject to the direction issued by the Administrator from time to time, permission for the grant of interviews with a detenu shall be granted by the District Magistrate, Delhi as under”:-

Clause (i) and (ii):

(i) Interview with legal adviser: “Interview with a legal adviser in connection with the defense of a detenu in a criminal case or regard to writ petitions and the like, may be 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.”[9]

(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 “.[10]

  • Article 14: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.[11]
  • Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.[12]
  • Article 22: protection against illegal arrest and detention.

JUDGMENT

 Issue 1: While answering issue one is whether clauses 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) of the Conditions of Detention Order are constitutionally valid or not as it being violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the court held that these clauses are violative of article 14 and 21 because under clause 3(b)(i) the procedure which is prescribed for having interview with legal adviser were causing great inconvenience as presence of an officer at the time of interview seems to be unreasonable. Thus, subclause (i) is violative of articles 14 and 21 and it was held void and unconstitutional. The court also held sub-clause (ii) violative of articles 14 and 21 as it was unreasonable and arbitrary to restrict the interview with family members to once a month in case of detenu when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict.  The court also held that at least two interviews with relatives and friends in a week must be permitted while obtaining permission from the superintendent of the jail and the permission from district magistrate Delhi is not mandatory.

While addressing issues 2 and 3 the court held that:

The court relied on the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case where they relied on article 21 and stated that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and the procedure must be fair, reasonable, nonarbitrary, and justifiable and is should not be based on whims and fancies. Preventive detention law not only passes the test of Article 22 but also of Article 21. It was held that a prisoner has a fundamental and legal right available to a free person to save those who are incapable of enjoyment because of incarceration.

To understand the validity of the condition of detention it must be essential to know the difference between Preventive and Punitive Detention. In punitive detention when a person is found guilty of wrongdoing he is detained by way of punishment as a result of a trial where he has full opportunity to defend himself while preventive detention is not a way of punishment at all it is just intended to prevent a person from doing conduct that is harmful to the society, in preventive detention the person has limited power to defend himself. The court also relied on the case Sampat Prakash vs State of Jammu and Kashmir[13] where it was held that “the restraints placed on a person preventively detained must, consistently with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal.”[14]

While addressing issue 3 the court relied on the Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration[15] and stated that when someone enters prison, their fundamental rights do not go away, even though their size may decrease due to incarceration. Except for those that they are unable to exercise due to their detention, prisoners, also known as detenus, are entitled to all fundamental rights and other legal protections. Not only in India but also in America the rights of prisoners were also recognized under the case of Eve Pall, where Justice Doughlas gave a humanistic note that “ Unless their liberty has been constitutionally restricted through procedures that meet all due process requirements, prisoners are still persons entitled to all constitutional rights.”

In conclusion or summarisation of this case it can be concluded that Regarding the detention law, it was decided that the preventative detention statute needed to meet both the requirements of Article 21 and Article 22. Given the unique qualities that set preventative custody apart from punitive imprisonment, the limitations imposed on a person detained for preventative purposes must be kept to a minimum by the effectiveness of detention. Deprivation protanto of this right to life would also result from any act that violates or diminishes human dignity, and such actions would need to follow a reasonable, equitable, and just process established by law that satisfies the requirements of other fundamental rights.[16]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

The Court critically examined the importance of ‘life’, they not just only relied on life but instead focused on “life with dignity”, a life that is not just a mere animal existence or just a physical survival.  It has been explained that any act that impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be by reasonability, fairness, and justifiability procedure that is established by law. Right to life includes the right to necessities of law and also such rights that constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self. Article 21 is somewhat related to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights in a matter of the right to protection against torture, and cruel activities. Therefore as an essential component of the right to life with dignity a prisoner would be entitled to have interviews with his family members and no procedure regulating the right to have interviews can be held constitutionally valid unless that process or procedure is reasonably fair and just. The right to life with dignity also includes the right to personal liberty. Therefore it may regulate the right of a detenu to have an interview with a legal adviser in a just, fair, and reasonable manner and hence it has to be reminded that an unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary procedure for regulating such an interview cannot be prescribed and even if does it is violative of article 14 and 21.

The court here relied on several case laws which are explained as follows:

  1. Maneka Gandhi vs Union India[17]: This case overruled the A.K. Gopalan case and established the new dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court ruled that the semblance of a procedure prescribed by the law was insufficient to deprive an individual of their life or personal liberty. The procedure had to be reasonable, fair, and just. If it was not, the law would be deemed void for breaching the guarantee of Article 21. This revised interpretation of Article 21 has aided the Apex Court in its new capacity as India’s institutional Ombudsman for Human Rights.[18] This case gave rise to several other cases to interpret Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  2. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544[19]: in this case, it has been reiterated that “Judicial justice, with its procedural complexities, legal submissions, and critical examination of evidence, depends on professional expertise; and where such supportive skill is absent for one side, a failure of equal justice under the law is imminent.” Gaining access to justice is essential to achieving all other legal and constitutional rights. It was also contended that the prisoners have the right to free legal aid as a fundamental right.
  3. Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar[20]: this case is related to the condition of the under-trial prisoners where it has been reiterated that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  4. Kharak Singh vs State of U. P[21]: here Justice Subba Rao relied upon the quality of life under article 21 of the Constitution of India by reiterating the judgment from the case Munn v. Illinois[22] it was held that

“The meaning of “life” in this context goes beyond simple animal existence. All the limbs and faculties that enable one to enjoy life are protected from its deprivation. This clause also forbids disfiguring one’s body, amputating a limb, taking out one’s eye, or destroying any other bodily organ that serves as a conduit for communication between the soul and the outside world.”[23]

The court once again interpreted Article 21 and gave a distinction between preventive and punitive detention. The main question in the case is whether the Constitution protects a petitioner’s right to speak with their family and obtain legal counsel. The same legal rights, including fundamental rights, are accorded to free individuals as well as inmates. In D.B. Patnaik v. State of Andra Pradesh[24], the court decided that while a person’s rights may be restricted when detained, they do not always disappear. Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution were violated by the COFEPOSA Act’s section 3(b) restrictions, and the court’s determination to protect the Constitution was reasonable.[25]

CONCLUSION

This case clarified Article 21’s relevance and decided it to be the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution by offering a wide reading of it. It is said that one cannot live by unfair or discriminating ways. The right to life goes beyond simple animal existence; it also relates to a decent life, which should not be subject to arbitrary or illogical intervention. This point of view holds that the state must follow policies that protect the rights and dignity of the person detained even if preventative detention is used. Furthermore, the ruling underlined the point that one’s rights are not revoked by fear. As long as they do not contravene the terms of imprisonment, the fundamental rights of the detained are maintained. Therefore, the Court carefully examined constitutional rights in analysis of limitations on family visits and legal consultations. The Court decided that any restrictions on these liberties should be rigorously followed if we are to maintain the effectiveness of the detention. certify that the application of preventive detention policies conforms to the Constitution and is humane. This emphasizes the court’s duty to protect basic rights against repressive policies implemented by the government, therefore strengthening the ideas of justice, equity, and human dignity inside the Indian legal system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. AJ, ‘48 Quotes by B. R. Ambedkar’ (Elevate Society20 July 2023) <https://elevatesociety.com/quotes-by-b-r-ambedkar/> accessed 2 June 2024
  2. COFEPOSA Act, s 3.
  3. D.B. Patnaik v. State of Andra Pradesh [1975] 2 SCR 24.
  4. Deshpande JM, ‘FRANCIS CORALIE v. the ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY of DELHI’ (2022) IV Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 2582 <https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdef5_e922a295814e4a7b807683285a47703e.pdf> accessed 4 June 2024
  5. Fali S Nariman, ‘Fifty Years of Human Rights Protection in India – the Record of 50 Years of Constitutional Practice’ [2013] National Law School of India Review 13 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44283607> accessed 3 June 2024.
  6. Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608.
  7. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar [1980] 1 SCC 98.
  8. Kharak Singh vs State of U. P.  [1964] 1 SCR 232.
  9. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [1978] 3 SCC 544.
  10. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248 (SC).
  11. Munn v. lllinois [1877] 94 U.S. 113.
  12. Sampat Prakash vs State of Jammu and Kashmir [1969] 3 SCR 574.
  13. Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration [1979] 1 SCR 392.
  14. The Constitution of India 1950, art. 14.
  15.  The Constitution of India 1950, art. 21
  16. The Constitution of India 1950, art.22.
  17. The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 21.
  18. Vithlani Y and B K, ‘Analysing Preventive Detention Laws and Article 21’ (2018) 4 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues <https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Yash-Vithlani-Keerthana.pdf>

[1] AJ, ‘48 Quotes by B. R. Ambedkar’ (Elevate Society20 July 2023) <https://elevatesociety.com/quotes-by-b-r-ambedkar/> accessed 2 June 2024.

[2]Jahnavi Madhav Deshpande, ‘FRANCIS CORALIE v. the ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY of DELHI’ (2022) IV Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 2582 <https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdef5_e922a295814e4a7b807683285a47703e.pdf> accessed 2 June 2024.

[3] The Constitution of India 1950, art. 21.

[4] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248 (SC).

[5]  Yash Vithlani and Keerthanaa B, ‘Analysing Preventive Detention Laws and Article 21 ’ (2018) 4 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues <https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Yash-Vithlani-Keerthana.pdf>.

[6] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608.

[7] Jahnavi Madhav Deshpande, ‘FRANCIS CORALIE v. the ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY of DELHI’ (2022) IV Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 2582 <https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdef5_e922a295814e4a7b807683285a47703e.pdf> accessed 2 June 2024.

[8] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608.

[9] COFEPOSA Act, s 3.

[10] The Constitution of India 1950, art. 14.

[11] The Constitution of India 1950, art. 21

[12] The Constitution of India 1950, art.22.

[13] [1969] 3 SCR 574.

[14] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608.

[15] [1979] 1 SCR 392.

[16]Yash Vithlani and Keerthanaa B, ‘Analysing Preventive Detention Laws and Article 21 ’ (2018) 4 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues <https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Yash-Vithlani-Keerthana.pdf>.

[17] [1978] 1 SCC 248 (SC).

[18] Fali S Nariman, ‘Fifty Years of Human Rights Protection in India – the Record of 50 Years of Constitutional Practice’ [2013] National Law School of India Review 13 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44283607> accessed 3 June 2024.

[19] [1978] 3 SCC 544.

[20] [1980] 1 SCC 98.

[21] [1964] 1 SCR 232.

[22] Munn v. lllinois [1877] 94 U.S. 113.

[23] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608.

[24]  1975] 2 SCR 24.

[25] Jahnavi Madhav Deshpande, ‘FRANCIS CORALIE v. the ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY of DELHI’ (2022) IV Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 2582 <https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdef5_e922a295814e4a7b807683285a47703e.pdf> accessed 2 June 2024.