FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN  VS. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in  Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory (1981) 2 SCR 516 has held that right to live includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner was a British citizen. She was arrested and detained under COFEPOSA Act. While under detention, she faced difficulty in having interview with her  lawyer and family members. Her daughter of five years and her sister were allowed to meet only once a month. She was facing difficulty in meeting with her lawyer as lawyer could only meet after getting permission from District Magistrate in presence of nominated custom officer. These conditions have been imposed by conditions of detention laid down by Delhi Administration issued under Section 5 of COFEPOSA Act. The Petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of these provisions.

FINDINGS OF THE SURPEME COURT

Petitioners challenged the aforesaid provisions on the ground that they were in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution as undertrial prisoners were allowed meeting twice a week and convicted prisoner was allowed once a week.

The Supreme Court noted that there is a vital distinction between preventive detention and punitive detention. Punitive detention is intended to inflict punishment on a person who is found by judicial process to have committed an offence, while preventive detention is not by way of punishment at all, but it is intended to preempt a person from indulging in conduct injurious to society. The power of preventive detention has been recognized as necessary evil and is tolerated in a free society in the larger interest of security of State and maintenance of public order. It is drastic power to detain a person without trial and there are many countries where it is not allowed to be exercised except in times of war or aggression.

The Supreme Court noted that after Maneka Gandhi judgment, apart from Article 22, Article 21 also lays down restriction on the power of preventive detention. It is no longer enough to secure compliance with prescription of Article 21 that there should be a law prescribing some semblance of a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty, but the procedure established by law must be reasonable, fair and just and if it is not so, the law would be void.

The Supreme Court observed that 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 reasons of incarceration.

The Supreme Court observed that right to life is not limited to protection of limb and faculty but includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must include the right to the basic necessities of life and also 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. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity. The Supreme Court observed that a prisoner or detenu cannot move outside prison, but he would be entitled to have interview with family members and friends.

The Supreme Court observed that same result will follow if seen from perspective of right to personal  liberty under Article 21. Right to personal liberty would include right to socialize with members of family and friends subject to valid prison regulations.

The Supreme Court declared provisions in question violative or Article 14  Article 19.

_____________________________________