The constitution upholds fundamental rights, which are the fundamental human rights that shield all citizens from governmental intrusion. The Indian Constitution’s third section addresses fundamental rights. There are several rights that the constitution specifically mentions. However, some rights were shaped by decisions made by judges. We refer to them as implicit fundamental rights.
Since existing laws could not be sufficient to handle new advancements, it is hard to pass legislation that would answer every requirement. They occasionally even leave a void, which led to the development of the essential implications’ doctrine.
francis coralie vs union territory of delhi Case Facts
- Regarding a detenu’s rights under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (also known as “COFEPOSA”), a writ petition under Article 32 has been brought before the court.
- Under Section 3 of COFEPOSA, the petitioner, a British national, was being held in Central Jail Tihar. She requested a writ of habeas corpus from the court to contest her detention, but her plea was denied.
- She had trouble getting in touch with her attorney and family while she was being held, especially her little daughter, who she was only permitted to see once a month in accordance with Section 3(b) (ii).
- Her lawyer’s interview was crucial to her defense because she was arrested while trying to transport hashish out of the nation. However, the interview was unable to proceed because of the onerous process outlined in S. 3(b) (i) requiring a prior appointment.
- The petitioner argued that because these clauses were arbitrary and irrational, they violated article 14 of the indian constitution and article 21 of the indian constitution.
francis coralie vs union territory of delhi Issues
- Is there a breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution in subclauses (i) and (ii) of clause 3 (b) of COFEPOSA?
- Is it possible that the Petitioner’s inability to see his legal counsel constitutes a violation of article 22 of the indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner claimed that it was discriminatory and unjust to only permit one interview with family members each month. This relates to the time when under-trial prisoners were granted the opportunity to interview a family member or friend twice a week under rule 559A and convicted prisoners once a week under rule 550 of the guidelines outlined in the Punjab jail supervision and management manual.
- The petitioner was also given a thorough explanation of Article 22 of the Constitution, which states that a person in custody may consult the attorney of his choice to represent him. She goes on to say that she was entitled to the opportunity to meet with the attorney of her choice under this clause.
- Requirements such as scheduling an interview in advance and having the Customs Officer present who has been nominated by the Customs Collector were unjust and arbitrary. Thus, it violates the constitution’s Articles 14 and 21.
Respondent:
- The respondent argued that the authority’s restrictions were fair, reasonable, and justifiable. Since Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution were not violated, neither were subclauses (i) nor (ii) of section 3(b).
- In answer to the petition, they stated that they had no objections if the petitioner was allowed to interview her sister and daughter twice a week, as is the situation with inmates awaiting trial, in lieu of once a month.
- Regarding her lawyer interview, they wouldn’t require the presence of an excise or customs officer during the interview.
francis coralie vs union territory of delhi Judgment
- The Court concluded that Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are violated by Subclause (i) of Clause 3 (b) of the COFEPOSA Act, which governs the petitioner’s access to a consultation with the attorney of his choosing.
- As a result, the clause must be declared unconstitutional and void. The court determines that it is reasonable for the Petitioner to have the right to meet with his legal counsel at any reasonable time during the day, provided that the Superintendent of the Jail grants the petitioner an appointment that is made as soon as possible.
- The Honorable Court also stated that the interview does not always have to be conducted in the presence of a designated officer from Customs, Central Excise, or Enforcement; however, if the officer’s presence can be easily arranged at the time of the interview without requiring a postponement, then that officer may be present; if not, any other jail official may, if deemed necessary, observe the interview; however, they may not do so in a way that would place them in hearing distance from the detainee and the attorney.
- As a result, the court granted the petitioner’s relief and accepted the writ petition.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
