G.M. LODHA, J.—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. 3. Mr. Tibrewal appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the important judgment of the Honble 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.Coopers 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. Coopers 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." 4. In Anand Vardhan Chandal vs. University of Delhi. 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." 4. 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.". 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. 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 ones 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. 10. It would thus be seen that a convict, who undergoes a sentence in Jail is to be governed by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Prisons Act, the rules made under various other laws for the conduct of the convicts. He cannot straightaway claim fundamental right under Article 21. 11. Obviously, the petitioner, Anil Kumar Punjwani is a convict and is undergoing a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment in Ajmer Central Jail. In my opinion, therefore, neither the observations of Maneka Gandhis case nor the Delhi University case can provide him a right to go the University or College as a regular student and study there in any College or University. 12. It should not be forgotten that citizen has got various fundamental rights which have been enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. To illustrate, one has got a right of freedom of speech, association and trade. 12. It should not be forgotten that citizen has got various fundamental rights which have been enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. To illustrate, one has got a right of freedom of speech, association and trade. Article 19 reads as under:- "19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.-(l) All citizens shall have the right; - (a) to freedom of speech and expression, (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms, (c) to form associations or unions, (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India, (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India: and (f)......... (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade of business. (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of (the sovereignty and integrity of India), the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. (3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of (the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause. (4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or, prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of (the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause. (5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing, law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. (6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interest of general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, (nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to.— (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a Corporation owned or controlled by the State, or any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise." 13. But, all these rights are again subject to restrictions, limitations and regulations by law. The substance of the matter is that all fundamental rights in whatever form they are have got their own regulations, exceptions, limitations and unless in a given case they are unrestricted, they can be curtailed by valid law. In Gopalan v.— State of Madras (3) it was held that there is no scope of challenging the reasonableness of a penal law as a restriction upon the right granted by Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution. In D. B. M. Patnaik vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (4) the Honble Supreme Court again held that an imprisonment under a valid law puts an end to the freedom to move freely. The relevant observations in para 6 read as under:— "6. Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all fundamental rights which they otherwise possess, A compulsion under the authority of law, following upon a conviction, to live in a prison-house entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or the right to "practise" a profession. A man of profession would thus stand stripped of his right to hold consultations while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire hold and dispose of property for the exercise of which incarceration can be no impediment. A man of profession would thus stand stripped of his right to hold consultations while serving out his sentence. But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire hold and dispose of property for the exercise of which incarceration can be no impediment. Likewise, even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 14. The validity of the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Prisons Act, and other laws in which the petitioner is being detained in Jail as a convict has not been challenged before this Court. 15. The decision of the Delhi High Court, referred to above, taken to its maximum dimensions, can only mean that right to education is also included in Article 21 of the Constitution. Even if that is held to be so, can it be said that the later portion of Article 21, which provides that such a right exists, but no one shall be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established by law has become redundant. Can it be said that the exception carved out in Article 21 is not applicable, and the right of education is unrestricted, unlimited, unfettered fundamental right and no one can be deprived of it. To me, it appears that the answer does not require much reasons. If one can be deprived of the basic right to live by being hanged unto death, if he is convicted and punished for a capital sentence, or life imprisonment, it logically and legally follows that he is deprived of all other rights | like a right to go to the University or College and seek admission, right to seek employment and claim proper opportunity under Article 14 or 16, a right to do some business or profession or trade under Article 19 and a right to speech or assembly under Article 19. Once a prisoner is in Jail, he has got to be governed and his activities are to be regulated by the laws enacted in regulating the convicts in Jail, both of the Centre and the State. Once a prisoner is in Jail, he has got to be governed and his activities are to be regulated by the laws enacted in regulating the convicts in Jail, both of the Centre and the State. In D.B.M. Patnaik V. The State of A.P. (Supra) the] Honble Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 21 and observed as under;— "Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess. A compulsion under the authority of law following upon a conviction, to live in a prison-house entails by its own force the deprivation of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or the right to practise" a profession. But the Constitution guarantees other freedoms like the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the exercise of which incarceration can be no impediment. Likewise, even a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by! law." xxx xxxx xxxx "Whatever be the nature and extent of the prisoners fundamental right to life and personal liberty, they have no fundamental freedom to escape from lawful custody. Therefore, they cannot complain of the installation of the high-voltage live-wire mechanism on the jail walls to prevent escape of prisoners, with which they are likely to come into contact only if they attempt to escape from the prison." 16. The observation made in the above judgment also cannot be stretched or extended to hold that a prison convict has got a fundamental right to go out of the jail to have education in the University or Colleges while undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. The case would of course be different if the Government makes arrangements for some studies in the Jail at their own and permits them to appear in the examinations privately. I would not like to express any opinion so far as the rights and scope of the authority of the Government or the executive authorities is concerned, because that is not the question involved before me. 17. It has not been pointed out to me that there is any law under which a convict has got a right to go to the College or University for taking education. 17. It has not been pointed out to me that there is any law under which a convict has got a right to go to the College or University for taking education. It is a different thing that the executive authorities may in a given case either under the laws regulating the conduct of the convicts or executive authority permit a student to appear in the examinations either in Jail and decide it depending upon the circumstances of the case, but this court cannot intervane and interfere in the executive discretion of the Government authorities. This Court cannot further issue a direction to the Jail authorities to permit a student to go to College or University for regular studies throughout the year under section 482, Cr.P.C. 18. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a convict prisoner has got no fundamental right to assert claim and obtain a direction from this Court for being permitted to join College, School or University day to day for having his education outside the Jail premises. 19. The objection of the learned P.P. that under section 48?, Cr.P.C. no such directions can be issued is also of substance. Section 482, Cr.P.C. reads as under:— "482.—Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 20. A bare reading of the above section would show that the High Court can interfere, what is probably known, under its inherent powers to either prevent abuse of process of the Court or to secure ends of justice, or if it becomes necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. 1 am convinced that none of the conditions exist warranting interference under sec. 482, Cr.P.C. 21. The result is that this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is devoid of any force and is consequently dismissed.