Francis Coralie Mullin v. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
& [1981] INSC 12 (13 January 1981) unanimous decision of P.N. BHAGWATI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI,delivered by BHAGWATI.CITATION: 1981 AIR 746 1981 SCR (2) 516 1981 SCC
(1) 608 1981 SCALE (1)79
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 person from indulging in
conduct injurious to the society.
the preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive
detention and their purposes are different. In case of punitive detention, the
person has fullest opportunity to defend himself, while in case of preventive
detention, the opportunity that he has for contesting the action of the
Executive is very limited. Therefore, the "restrictions placed on a person
preventively detained must, consistently with the effectiveness of detention,
be minimal".
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 will immediately spring into action and
run to his rescue
Now obviously when an under-trial prisoner is granted the facility of
interviews with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and a
convicted prisoner is permitted to have interviews with his relatives and
friends once in a week under Rule 550, it is difficult to understand how
sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which
restricts the interview only to one in a month in case of a detenu, can
possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly when a
detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict
and, as held by this Court in Sampath Prakash's case (supra) restrictions
placed on a detenu must "consistent with the effectiveness of detention,
be minimal." 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 at least two interviews in a week with relatives and friends ...
The same reasoning must also result in invalidation of sub-clause (i) of
clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order which prescribes that a detenu
can have interview with a legal adviser only after obtaining prior permission
of the District Magistrate, Delhi and the interview has to take place 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 has sponsored the case for detention.
