Judgment

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 and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) to have interview with a lawyer and the members of her family. 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 Nov. 1979, issued under Sec. 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. She preferred a petition in this Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her detention, but by a judgment delivered by this Court on 27th February, 1980, (Reported in AIR 1980 SC 849), her petition was rejected with the result that she continued to remain under detention in the Tihar Central Jail. Whilst under detention, the petitioner experienced considerable difficulty in having interview with her lawyer and the members of her family. 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 not allowed to meet her daughter more often, though a child of very tender age. It seems that some criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner for attempting to smuggle hashish out of the country and for the purpose of her defence in such criminal proceeding, it was necessary for her to consult 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 could take place only in the presence of a Custom officer nominated by the Collector of Customs. This procedure for obtaining interview caused considerable hardship and inconvenience and there were occasions when even after obtaining prior appointment from the District Magistrate Delhi, her lawyer could not have an interview with her since no Customs Officer nominated by the Collector of Customs remained present at the appointed time. The petitioner was thus effectively denied the facility of Interview with her lawyer and even her young daughter 5 years old could not meet her except once in a month. This restriction on interviews was imposed by the Prison Authorities by virtue of Clause 3 (b) sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the Conditions of Detention laid down by the Delhi Administration under an Order dated 23rd August 1975, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of the COFEPOSA Act. These two sub-clauses of clause 3 (b) provided inter alia as under :

"3. The conditions of detention in respect of classification and interviews shall be as under-

(a) ..............................

(b) 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 :-

(i) Interview with legal adviser :- Interview with legal adviser in connection 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 nominated by the local Collector of Customs/Central Excise or Deputy Director of Enforcement. who sponsors the case for detention;

(ii) Interview with family members :-

A monthly interview may be, permitted for members of the family consisting of wife, children or parents of the detenu ...................."

The petitioner therefore, preferred a petition in this Court under Article 32 challenging the constitutional 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 a