Back
P.N.BHAGWATI, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Francis Coralie Mullin – Appellant
Versus
Administrator For The Union Territory Of Delhi – Respondent
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 n
Based on the provided list of case laws, the central case referred to is *Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi* (AIR 1981 SC 746 / (1981) 1 SCC 608).
### Analysis
None of the cases identified in the provided list are categorized as overruled, reversed, or bad law. The case *Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi* is consistently cited by the Supreme Court and various High Courts as a authoritative, landmark precedent regarding the interpretation of Article 21 and the right to life with human dignity.
**1. Followed and Relied Upon**
The overwhelming majority of the provided entries fall into this category. The courts consistently "follow," "rely on," "refer to," or cite the principles established in *Francis Coralie Mullin*.
* **Examples:**
* IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS vs . - 2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3317: "We follow the view expressed by this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin v."
* Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh VS State of Maharashtra & others - 1987 0 Supreme(Bom) 229: "This view is reiterated in the case of (Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UTA Delhi)..."
* Ganeshkumar VS Principal Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3314: "It is useful to refer to a paragraph from a judgment of this Court in Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C..."
* Ganapathy Iyer S/o. Late Subramanian VS State of Kerala - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 220: "In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator... the Apex Court held that..."
* **Reasoning:** These cases treat the precedent as established law, applying its rationale regarding the right to life, the right to dignity, and prison reform to current legal questions.
**2. Distinguished/Analyzed (Contextual Application)**
Some entries analyze the scope of the case to determine its applicability to specific, narrow facts (e.g., distinguishing between detainees and other categories of persons).
* **Examples:**
* P. K. M. ABOOBACKER VS UNION OF INDIA - 1990 0 Supreme(Kar) 165: "Referring to Francis Coralie Mullin's case, again, it was held... now, this judgement is not an authority for..."
* **Reasoning:** This is a standard judicial practice and does not indicate the precedent is "bad law," but rather that the court is defining the boundaries of the established rule.
None. The treatment of the primary case (*Francis Coralie Mullin*) is overwhelmingly positive and consistent across all entries provided. The metadata entries consist of variations in case citations, typographical errors in names (e.g., "Francie Coralie," "Francis Colaria"), or different report references (AIR vs. SCC vs. SCR), but the treatment remains consistent regardless of these variations. No entry suggests any court has invalidated or reversed the ruling.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
