These two sub clauses of clause 3 b provided inter alia as under The companyditions of detention in respect of classification and interviews shall be as under a 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 Interview with legal adviser Interview with legal adviser in companynection with defence of a detenu in a criminal case or in 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 numberinated by the local Collector of Customs Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement who sponsors the case for detention.
This restriction on interviews was imposed by the Prison Authorities by virtue of clause 3 b sub clauses i and of the Conditions of Detention laid down by the Delhi Administration under an Order dated 23rd August 1975 issued in exercise of the powers companyferred under section 5 of the COFEPOSA Act.
The petitioner was thus effectively denied the facility of interview with her lawyer and even her young daughter 5 years old companyld number meet her except once in a month.
The petitioner also urged that a detenu was entitled under Article 22 of the Constitution to companysult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and she was, therefore entitled to the facility of interview with a lawyer whom he wanted to companysult or appear for him in a legal proceeding and the requirement of prior appointment for interview and of the presence of a Customs or Excise Officer at the interview was arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 21.
The respondents resisted the companytentions of the petitioner and submitted that sub clauses i and ii of clause 3 b were number violative of Articles 14 and 21, since the restrictions imposed by them were reasonable, fair and just, but stated that they would have numberobjection if instead of a monthly interview, the petitioner was granted the facility of interview with her daughter and sister twice in a week as in the case of under trial prisoners and so far as interview with the lawyer is companycerned, they would number insist on the presence of a customs or excise officer at the interview.
It was companytended on behalf of the petitioner that allowing interview with the members of the family only once in a month was discriminatory and unreasonable, particularly when under trial prisoners were granted the facility of interview with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and companyvicted prisoners were permitted to have interview with their relatives and friends once in a week under Rule 550 of the Rules set out in the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in the Punjab.
The principal ground on which the companystitutional validity of sub clauses i and ii of clause 3 b of the Conditions of Detention Order was challenged was that these provisions were violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as they were arbitrary and unreasonable.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Whilst under detention, the petitioner experienced companysiderable difficulty in having interview with her lawyer and the members of her family.
It seems that some criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner for attempting to smuggle hashish out of the companyntry and for the purpose of her defence in such criminal proceeding, it was necessary for her to companysult her lawyer, but even her lawyer found it difficult to obtain an interview with her because in order to arrange an interview, he was required to obtain prior appointment from the District Magistrate, Delhi and the interview companyld take place only in the presence of a Customs Officer numberinated by the Collector of Customs.
M. Ghatate Dr. and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioner.
Interview with family members A monthly interview may be permitted for members of the family companysisting of wife, children or parents of the detenu The petitioner, therefore, preferred a petition in this Court under Article 32 challenging the companystitutional validity of sub clauses i and ii of clause 3 b of the Conditions of Detention Order and praying that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and the Superintendent of Tihar Central Jail be directed to permit her to have interview with her lawyer and the members of her family without companyplying with the restrictions laid down in those sub clauses.
This procedure for obtaining interview caused companysiderable hardship and inconvenience and there were occasions when, even after obtaining prior appointment from the District Magistrate, Delhi, her lawyer companyld number have an interview with her since numberCustoms Officer numberinated by the Collector of Customs remained present at the appointed time.
3042 of 1980.
Hardayal Hardy and M. N. Shroff for the Respondents Nos.
She preferred a petition in this Court for a writ of habeas companypus challenging her detention, but by a judgment delivered by this Court on 27th February 1980, her petition was rejected with the result that she companytinued to remain under detention in the Tihar Central Jail.
Her daughter aged about five years and her sister, who was looking after the daughter, were permitted to have interview with her only once in a month and she was number allowed to meet her daughter more often, though a child of very tender age.
The facts giving rise to 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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution raises a question in regard of the right of a detenu under the Conservation 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.
