G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) ANIL Kumar Punjwani, a convict of Ajmer Central Jail, has filed this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. for getting permission for admission in the law studies of the College. He has been convicted by the Addl Sessions Judge, Jaipur City for an offence under section 307, I. P. C. read with section 109 I. P. C. This conviction has been upheld by this Court in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 318/79. He is undergoing a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he has completed his 2nd and 3rd year Arts Studies while in Jail. Since, he is anxious to continue his studies, he should be allowed to join the law classes, so that he may be able to appear in the law examinations. Mr. Tibrewal appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the important judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1 ). The relevant portion of para 54 reads as under: - "we do not think that this would be a correct way of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution conferring fundamental rights. The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights rather than attenuate their meaning and content by a process of judicial construction. The wave length for comprehending the scope and ambit of the fundamental rights has been set by this Court in R. C. Cooper's case and our approach in the interpretation of the fundamental rights must now be in tune with this wave length. We may point out even at the cost of repetition that this Court has said in so many terms in R. C. Cooper's case that each freedom has different dimensions and there may be overlapping between different fundamental rights and, therefore, it is not a valid argument to say that the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 must be so interpreted as to avoid overlapping between that Article and Article 19 (1 ). The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Art. 19. " In Anand Vardhan Chandal vs. University of Delhi. (2) the Delhi High Court considered the implications of Article 19 (1), 21 and 41 in order to decide whether right to education is a fundamental right and whether it includes the right to participate in the activities of Students' Union. The Court observed as under:- "the right to education is also included in Article 21 of the Constitution. The expression 'liberty' in Article 21 includes opportunity to participate in the activities of Students' Union. The student has, therefore, a fundamental right to educate himself by participating in the activities of the Students Union including election of its office bearers under sub-sections (A), (b) and (c) of Article 19 (1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution. ". On the basis of the above observations, Mr. Tibrewal has argued that right to education is a fundamental right and, therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to join the College. The learned p. p. has opposed this application. According to her, even the fundamental rights can always be curtailed according to the procedure established by law.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate first to read Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution reads as under:- "21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established bylaw. " The proviso or the rider in the form of exception is contained in the later part of this Article wherein the constitutional Pandits and the founding fathers enacted that a person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. All laws whether of preventive detention or providing punitive punishments are made by the Legislature according to the Schedule of powers and division between the State & the Centre the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure have been enacted by the Parliament and they are valid laws of the land. Every person, who is convicted of an offence and sent to Jail is deprived of his liberty, but since it is done in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, i. e. , the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws, no grievance can be made by a convict that even though he has been convicted by a criminal court for a sub- stantive offence, he has got a fundamental right of liberty, and, therefore, he should not be sent to Jail, The deprivation of the right of one's life or personal liberty is permissible according to the procedure established by law. If that would not have been permissible, neither any person could be sent to Jail nor any person can be hanged in spite of capital sentence by a competent court. It would thus be seen that Article 21 nowhere provides blanket right of life or liberty. It is well established that according to the very wordings of this Article the normal right to live and of liberty can always be restricted, limited, curtailed taken away or deprived by valid laws of the land. ;