Judgment :- In this writ petition, an Advocate for Chandraprakash Gajurel, a member of the Communist Party for Nepal (Maoist), hereinafter described as the prisoner, seeks for a Mandamus to permit a legal delegation from Europe comprising of three named individuals and the petitioner, to have interview with the prisoner. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 20.8.2003 at Chennai Airport for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of I.P.C. read with Section 12(1)(b)(d) of the Passport Act. 3. Even earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.27620 of 2003 to forbear the Union of India from in any manner deporting the prisoner without following the provisions under the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 and in W.P.M.P.No.33761 of 2003, this Court had issued orders that the respondents shall not consider the request for his deportation without further orders of this Court. It is also stated that even on an earlier occasion, when a delegation of lawyers from Germany visited the Central Prison, Chennai on 26.3.2004, they were permitted to have an interview vide G.O.Rt.No.1369 (Home) Department dated 25.3.2004. According to the petitioner, the said delegation was assisting the petitioner in seeking asylum to the petitioner from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Geneva (UNHCR). The application before the Commission was pending. 4. A second delegation of lawyers and Human Rights Activists have arrived at Chennai for the purpose of discussing with the petitioner about the legal issues arising for consideration in the context of his petition before the UNHCR. Along with the petitioner, they had visited the Central Prison, Chennai, on 11.3.2005 and had sought permission to have the interview. But the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent were not willing to meet the delegation. Thereafter, the delegation went to the office of the Secretary of Home Department and submitted an application for the interview. They were directed to meet the Deputy Secretary, who, in turn, directed them to meet the Additional Director General of Prisons. But the delegation could neither meet him nor were they given any proper reply as to why no permission could be granted, nor was any written order issued. Hence, the writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it is stated that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of several material facts. But the delegation could neither meet him nor were they given any proper reply as to why no permission could be granted, nor was any written order issued. Hence, the writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it is stated that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of several material facts. The advocates who were now representing the detenu as well as the wife and son of the detenu, were always permitted to have the interview. In fact, from January, 2005, till date, the wife of the petitioner had interviewed the prisoner on several dates as detailed in the writ petition, approximately at least 20 times. Likewise, the lawyers representing the prisoner also had interviews at least about 15 times from January, 2005. Even earlier, during the years 2003 and 2004 also, the prisoner's wife and the lawyers were frequently permitted. 6. The respondents further contend that the petitioner has no right to insist that the delegation from Europe should be permitted to have interview with the remand prisoner, who was a foreign national. According to the respondents, he tried to leave India from Meenambakkam Airport with a forged passport and he was caught red handed and he is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967. Even though bail was granted to him, he did not come out. 7. It is further stated that on an earlier occasion, German Consulate had issued a letter expressing no objection for permitting the delegation to have the interview. However, after the interview, the delegation misused the permission by convening a press meet and making false and unwarranted statements as against the State Government and the Government of India. The issue relates to foreign affairs policy of the Government of India. The petitioners/ delegation appear to have arrived without making any advance plan and they cannot insist that permission for interview should be granted immediately without the same being processed. 8. The respondents further contended that in view of Rule 532(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, permission for interview of foreign nationals can be granted only with the approval of the Government. Considering the political background of the remand prisoner, there may be unwanted repercussions and the Government of India have, in writing, imposed certain restrictions regarding the interview which are binding on the State Government. Considering the political background of the remand prisoner, there may be unwanted repercussions and the Government of India have, in writing, imposed certain restrictions regarding the interview which are binding on the State Government. The press statement already issued by the delegation during last year was against the interests of the Government of India. Therefore, the Government of India should have been impleaded and should have been put on notice. 9. Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, after narrating the facts as above, contends that the inaction on the part of the respondents was improper towards a delegation of Human Rights Lawyers who have come here by spending huge amounts. The respondents were acting oblivious of the rights of the petitioner and also the international treaties and conventions which were binding on the Government of India. Though a foreigner cannot claim to be treated equally with a citizen with reference to all the other fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, he cannot be deprived of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the law relating to the rights of a detenu under preventive detention which is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. 10. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in FRANCIS CORALIE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI ( AIR 1981 SC 746 ) and reliance is placed on the observation that the right to life enshrined under Article 21 cannot be restricted to a mere animal existence and that it meant something much more than just physical survival. Reference was also made to the observations recognising the rights of a detenu to have interview with a legal adviser of his choice. 11. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of P. Shanmugam, J. in P.NEDUMARAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. AND ANOTHER (2001-2-L.W. (Crl.) 805). The learned Judge, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court as above, held that it was no longer a facility or a privilege for a prisoner to have access to his relatives or friends and similarly, the right of a friend or a relative to interview him, and such a right was elevated to a fundamental right to a prisoner. 12. 12. Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, contends that issues relating to foreign policy are matters for the Central Government to decide and that the State Governments have no option except to conform to the directions which may be issued by the Central Government. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, on the last occasion when the team of Advocates were permitted to interview the prisoner, the team of Advocates had indulged in giving a press interview commenting on the policy of the Central Government, which led to serious embarrassment to the Central Government. This resulted in the Central Government informing the State Government that no permission can be given for such actions which are detrimental to the larger interest of the security and foreign policy relating to the Government of India. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor would also state that the representation as though the prisoner was kept in an isolated custody without any access to his friends and relatives are totally false. After referring to the counter affidavit, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the prisoner had been permitted interview with his wife, family members and Advocates on several and frequent occasions, which have not been disclosed in the affidavit. The prisoner being a foreigner, has no fundamental right as enshrined in the Constitution to the extent of corresponding with the press through his Advocates. 14. I have considered the submissions of both sides with the seriousness with which the issue requires to be dealt with. Undoubtedly as regards foreign policy and security of the country, the views of the Central Government have to prevail and the State Government cannot exercise its discretion independently, ignoring the problems which may be created to the Government of India. I had also perused the communication sent by the Central Government to the State Government immediately after the previous interview was permitted to the petitioner. The objection is only with reference to the press statement which appears to have been issued by the team of Advocates commenting on the foreign policy of the Central Government. Excepting for the said reason, the Central Government has not stated any other reason specifically to bar any interview by the lawyers for any special reason. In fact, as could be seen from the counter affidavit of the State Government, Advocates have been permitted to interview the prisoner till now. 15. Excepting for the said reason, the Central Government has not stated any other reason specifically to bar any interview by the lawyers for any special reason. In fact, as could be seen from the counter affidavit of the State Government, Advocates have been permitted to interview the prisoner till now. 15. It is true that the petitioner is a foreigner and cannot equate himself with prisoners or detenus who are citizens of this country. But nevertheless, the Supreme Court had not made any distinction between a foreigner or a citizen in the judgment reported in FRANCIS CORALIE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI ( AIR 1981 SC 746 ), cited above as far as rights guaranteed under Article 21. In fact, the writ petitioner in that case was a British national who was arrested and detained in Central Jail, Tihar, and after considering the mutual contentions, the Supreme Court had made it clear that the writ petitioner was entitled to the protection under Article 21. 16. The objection of the respondents is only in the context of what happened on a previous occasion while the last interview was conducted by the team of Advocates from Europe. The interviewing team appears to have given an interview to the press commenting on the foreign affairs and policies of this country. There is no other objection which is referable or personally against the prisoner. In the said background, the rights of the prisoner to be advised by a team of Human Rights Lawyers have to be considered. The issue need not be addressed on strict legal parlance. I am inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner only on a humanitarian background. The purpose for which the team of lawyers seek for interview is only to pursue their remedy before the U.N.H.C.R. and their application before the Commission for seeking asylum. As regards the conventions relating to human rights in the administration of justice and protection of persons subject to detention or imprisonment governed by Chapter VI of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 3 is as follows: "1. No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. " 17. There is no doubt about the fact that the said Conventions are adopted by the Indian Government as well. All that the petitioner seeks is that the prisoner should have the right to consult and take further steps to pursue the application for asylum. There can be no objection for the prisoner to pursue that remedy on the basis of the legal advise which may be tendered to him. 18. As stated earlier, the objection of the Government of India, as communicated to the State Government, is only in the context of the press interview which was given by the team of Advocates during their last interview. The said alleged act on the part of the interviewer can be certainly restrained by ordering and taking a specific undertaking from them and they may be permitted to interview the prisoner purely out of humanitarian considerations and not on the basis of any legal rights of the prisoner in terms of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual. The interviewing team may be directed to submit a personal undertaking individually and also by the petitioner that they will not resort to any press interview or cause any embarrassment to the Government of India by making any statement as regards foreign policy. The team may be permitted to have the interview with the prisoner. This right is given to the petitioner purely out of humanitarian considerations without going into the legal issues or adjudicating the rights of the prisoner as contended by both sides. The said legal issues can be considered in an appropriate case. 19. In the said background, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) The team of Advocates may be permitted to interview the detenu on any convenient date as may be fixed by the jail authorities. The date may be fixed on receipt of a letter from the petitioner/Advocate. 19. In the said background, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) The team of Advocates may be permitted to interview the detenu on any convenient date as may be fixed by the jail authorities. The date may be fixed on receipt of a letter from the petitioner/Advocate. (ii) The delegation is strictly restrained from issuing any public statement or giving any interview to the press regarding their interview with the prisoner or any matter concerning the prisoner. Though they are free to pursue their legal action for defending the prisoner or for seeking asylum in a lawful manner, the team shall not pass any comments on the foreign policy of the Government of India. The petitioner shall file such an undertaking before this Court as well as before the first respondent. (iii) On such undertaking being filed, the team of Advocates shall be permitted to interview the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.