Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Presentation on human right case law

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Presentation on human right case law

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Legislative provisions • Constitution of India Article 14 Article 21 Article 22 Article 32 • Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act
  6. 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. 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. 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.

×