Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: https://indialegallive.com/column-news/defence-supreme-court-article-32-liberty/
The debate over Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been central to several landmark Supreme Court decisions, particularly personal liberty, bail, and due process rights.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, there was an understanding to protect the right to life and freedom. The members strongly believed that legislative convenience should not come at the cost of individual liberty. Despite their aims, Article 21 initially lacked a clear reference to due process rights, creating ambiguity in interpretation.
Article 21 states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law." The phrase was initially understood narrowly and focused on whether the legal procedure was followed rather than on the law's fairness or justice. However, with time, the judiciary broadened its understanding of Article 21 to include principles of natural justice and due process.
The Supreme Court ruled on the consequences of prolonged trials under strict legislation like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court concluded that an accused individual cannot be kept indefinitely, stating the right to life and liberty as "fundamental and sacred." This ruling established that the judiciary must defend personal liberty even under restricted regulations.
The Court emphasised that legislative limitations cannot prohibit a constitutional court from awarding bail where an individual's rights under Article 21 are at risk. This assurance of personal liberty is consistent with the long-held belief that bail should be the rule, not the exception.
The Court examined the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and emphasised that statutory provisions should not undermine fundamental rights, including life and personal liberty. The Court highlighted that "deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception" should be the guiding principle for assessing laws affecting human liberties.
|
A.K. Gopalan v/s State of Madras (1950) |
A. K. Gopalan was imprisoned under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. He filed an appeal, saying that his imprisonment violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld his imprisonment, claiming that Article 21's "procedure established by law" did not include the "due process of law" concept. This decision initially limited the scope of personal liberty by allowing the state to detain persons without a fair trial, as long as the method was legal. |
|
Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978) |
The officials detained Maneka Gandhi's passport without explanation. She claimed this violated her rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour, declaring that the right to live with dignity is part of the Article 21 right to personal liberty. The Court that any law affecting human liberty must be equitable, fair, and reasonable, integrating the principles of natural justice and due process. |
|
Vishakha v/s State of Rajasthan (1997) |
The Supreme Court recognised the right to be free of sexual harassment in the workplace and developed the Vishakha Guidelines to ensure a safe working environment for women as well as processes for dealing with sexual harassment charges. |
|
Naz Foundation v/s Union of India (2009) |
The Delhi High Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised consenting same-sex relationships. The Court decided that Section 377 violated the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality. |
|
Puttaswamy v/s Union of India (2017) |
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision underlined that privacy is fundamental to life and liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. |
|
Sabarimala Temple Case (2018) |
Women of menstruation age (10-50 years) have traditionally been barred from entering the temple of Lord Ayyappa in Kerala. The Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged this practice claiming that it violates women's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court found the practice unconstitutional, saying it was discriminatory and violated the right to equality. |
|
Anuradha Bhasin v/s Union of India (2019) |
The Supreme Court has ruled on the legitimacy of the internet shutdown and transportation restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir. The court argued that the limits violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. |
Must Read Articles:
Source:
PRACTICE QUESTIONQ.Which of the following are the reasonable restrictions to the right to personal liberty? 1. Preventive detention under specific laws 2. Conviction for a serious criminal offence 3. National security concerns 4. Mental health issues Select the correct answer using the codes given below: A) 1, 2 and 3 only B) 2, 3 and 4 only C) 1, 3 and 4 only D) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Answer: D Explanation: Statement 1 is correct: Preventive detention is the detention of an individual without trial to prevent them from committing a future infraction. It is frequently employed in situations involving suspected danger to public order or national security. Statement 2 is correct: When someone is convicted of a major crime, their right to personal liberty may be limited as punishment. This is a widespread and commonly recognised constraint that serves the objective of upholding law and order. Statement 3 is correct: When an individual's actions threaten national security, their liberty can be restricted to ensure the state's and its citizens' safety and security. Statement 4 is correct: Individuals with serious mental health issues who threaten themselves or others may be held for treatment and safety purposes. |
© 2024 iasgyan. All right reserved
