This document summarizes a presentation on the human rights case Francis Coralie vs The Administrator, Union territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746). It discusses the background of the case, facts of the petitioner (a British national) being detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, and her difficulties meeting with her lawyer and family. The legislative provisions and arguments are presented, focusing on rights to meet with family and lawyers under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that detained persons retain fundamental rights. It judged that the petitioner's right to meet with her lawyer was violated under Articles 14 and 21, and allowed the writ petition granting her relief.

1. PRESENTATION ON HUMAN
RIGHT CASE LAW
Francis Coralie vs The Administrator, Union
territory of Delhi,AIR 1981 SC 746
PRESENTED BY
PARTHASHREE MISHRA
BA LLB
REGD. NO. 1141843003
SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR

2. Background
 what is life& Justice P N Bhagabati’s view
Distinction between preventive detention
and punitive detention
Right of detenu under conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Smugling Activity
Act to consult the legal advisor and his
family.
Article 21, 22

3. Brief facts
• The petitioner is a british national arrested
and detained in central jail of tihar under
an order dated 23 nov 1969 issued u/s 3
of conservation of foreign exchange and
prevention of smuglling activity.
• She filed a writ petition on habeas corpus
challange her detaintion, but the petition
on 27 feb 1980 was rejected so she
detained in tihar central jail.

4. Facts..
• The petitioner experienced difficulty in having
interview with her lawyer , her family,and her
daughter aged 5 years and her sister who was
looking after the daughter were permitted to have
an interview with her only once in a month.
• Against her the criminal proceeding was pending
for attempting to smuggle hashis
• Her lawyer too find difficulty to meet her due to the
order by the dist. Magistrate,delhi&the conflict with
the custom officer,so she filed a petition uder
article 32.

5. Legislative provisions
• Constitution of India
Article 14
Article 21
Article 22
Article 32
• Conservation of Foreign Exchange &
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act

6. Argument advanced
• Here the petitioner have the right to meet there
family and lawyer under acticle 22 of Indian
constitution and police manual of punjab police
which was stated as followed:
• When prisoners are under trial according to rule
559(A)they can meet their relatives &frnds twice in
a week,rule 550-once in a week(manual for
superitendent&management jails in pujab)
• Article 22 –they can consult to the legal
practitioner of their choice.

7. observation
. Whether a person preventively detained
has any rights which he can enforce in a
court of law,once his freedom is curtailed
by detention in the jail,Does detenu have
any fundamental right?
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
reason of confinement

8. Judgement
We therefore of view that sub-clause(1)of clause
3(b) regulating the right of a detenu to have an
interview with a legal advisor of his choice violative
of article 14 and 21 must be held to be
unconstitutional and void.we think that it would be
quite reasonable if a detenu were to be entitled to
have interview with his legal adviser at any
resonable if a detenu were to be entitled to have
interview with his legal adviser at any reasonable
hour during the day after taking appointment from
the superitendent of the jail.
The writ petition was allowed and grant relief
because he want to meet her children and to
consult with her lawyer.