Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi

Facts

• Francis Coralie Mullin, a British national, was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA)
• Rules restricted her access to legal counsel and family, permitting interviews with her lawyer or child only in the presence of a customs officer and at limited intervals
• She challenged these restrictions as violative of Art.21 and Art.22(1)

Issue

1. Whether restrictive rules limiting a detenu's access to legal counsel and family violate the right to life and personal liberty under Art.21, and what is the scope of "life" under that Article.

Held

• The right to life under Art.21 means something far more than mere animal existence; it includes the right to live with human dignity
• This encompasses adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself, and the right to move freely and mix with fellow human beings
• Even a detenu under preventive detention does not lose all fundamental rights; only such rights as are expressly and reasonably curtailed by the law of detention are affected
• The restrictive rules limiting access to a lawyer were held unreasonable and arbitrary, violating Art.21 and Art.22(1), and were struck down

Ratio Decidendi

Article 21's guarantee of "life" is an expansive concept including the right to live with human dignity and its constituent elements; detention under a valid preventive detention law does not extinguish all other fundamental rights of the detenu, and restrictions on access to legal counsel or family must themselves be reasonable and proportionate.