Preventive detention interview limits must be reasonable: family contact and legal consultation cannot be made illusory.

Preventive detention conditions must satisfy Articles 14 and 21 and cannot make fundamental rights illusory. A restriction limiting a detenu to one monthly interview with family and friends was held excessive and arbitrary because personal liberty includes maintaining social contact subject to reasonable prison regulation; the detenu was entitled to at least two interviews a week. Restrictions on consultations with a legal adviser were also struck down because prior permission and the mandatory presence of a sponsoring officer were cumbersome and unreasonable. Consultation with counsel was to be allowed at a reasonable hour on appointment with the jail superintendent, without requiring the officer's presence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether restrictions confining a detenu to one monthly interview with family members and friends are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21. (ii) Whether restrictions requiring prior permission and the presence of a Customs, Central Excise or Enforcement officer for interviews with a legal adviser are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21.

Issue (i): Whether restrictions confining a detenu to one monthly interview with family members and friends are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21.

Analysis: The right to life under Article 21 was held to include the right to live with human dignity, and personal liberty was held to include the ability to maintain social contact with family and friends, subject to reasonable prison regulation. Preventive detention does not extinguish fundamental rights except to the extent inconsistent with incarceration, and any restriction must be reasonable, fair, just, and non-arbitrary. A monthly interview, when undertrial and convicted prisoners were permitted more frequent interviews, was held to be an excessive and arbitrary restriction.

Conclusion: The restriction permitting only one interview per month was unconstitutional and void in so far as it applied to the detenu; the detenu was entitled to at least two interviews a week with relatives and friends.

Issue (ii): Whether restrictions requiring prior permission and the presence of a Customs, Central Excise or Enforcement officer for interviews with a legal adviser are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21.

Analysis: The right of a detenu to consult a legal adviser of choice was held to form part of personal liberty and the right to live with human dignity. A procedure that made consultation dependent on prior appointment with the District Magistrate and the mandatory presence of a sponsoring officer was found to be cumbersome, impractical, and liable to render the right illusory. The requirement lacked a satisfactory rationale and was held to be unreasonable and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The restriction governing interviews with a legal adviser was unconstitutional and void; consultation was to be allowed at a reasonable hour on appointment with the jail superintendent, without insisting on the presence of the sponsoring officer as a condition precedent.

Final Conclusion: The detention conditions regulating family interviews and access to legal advice were struck down to the extent found unreasonable, and the petitioner obtained relief enforcing a more liberal and constitutionally compliant interview regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention laws and prison regulations must satisfy Articles 14 and 21, and any restriction on a detenu's access to family or legal counsel must be reasonable, fair, just, and non-arbitrary so as not to make constitutional rights illusory.

---