jk

1. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Art. 21 : No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law
Maneka Gandhi’s decision :
earlier protection against only arbitrary action;
not against legislative action available;
Two conditions applied in the provision
Available to ‘citizens’ as well as ‘non-citizens’

2. A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India,
‘Personal Liberty’ include the freedom of
movement also
and therefore Preventive Detection Act 1950 must
satisfy the requirement of Art. 19(5)
: restrictions on reasonable ground – (i) in the
interest of general public or (ii) for the
protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe
In this case Supreme Court interpreted the Law as
State made Law only; and exclude the
principles of natural justice

3. this view was changed in later decisions
In Kharak Singh v. State of UP;
Supreme Court held that,
personal liberty is not only limited to bodily
restraint or confinement to prisons only;
But is used as a compendious term inclusive of
wider attributes of freedom;
Kharaksing had been charged in a dacoity case;
Released on lack of evidence against him;
Kept under police surveillance

4. Police surveillance including :
Secret picketing of house by police;
Domiciliary visits at nights
Verification of his movements and activities
Visits to home at night to check his physical
presence at home;
Supreme Court held that
The domiciliary visits of the policeman were an
invasion on the petitioner’s personal liberty;
Violative of Art. 21

5. Art. 21 includes Right to Travel Abroad :
Satwant Singh v. Asstt. Passport Officer, New
Delhi;
Right to travel abroad is a part of person’s
personal liberty within the meaning of Art. 21
The Contention of Union Government was right
to travel abroad is not included in expression
‘personal liberty’ and Passport was a political
document to which no one had a legal, much
less a constitutional right;
Supreme Court upheld the plea of the petitioner

6. Maneka Gandhi case :
Supreme Court has given the widest possible
interpretation to the words ‘personal liberty’
Petitioner Maneka’s passport was impounded by
the Central Government u/s 10 (3)(c) of the
passport Act1967
Government authorized this act as “in the interest
of general public”;
The Government of India declined ‘in the interest
of general public’ to furnish the reasons for its
decision

7. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said
order on the following grounds that :
1. S.10(3) (c) was violative of Article 14 as
conferring an arbitrary power since it did not
provide for a hearing of the holder of the
passport before the passport was impounded;
2. S. 10(3)(c) was violative of Art. 21 since it did
not prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning
of that Article 21
3. S. 10(3)(c) was violative of Art 19(1) (a) and
(g) since it permitted imposition of restrictions
not provided in clauses (2) or (6) of Art. 19

8. The reasons for the order were disclosed in an
affidavit on behalf of Govt. that
the petitioner’s presence was likely to be required
in connection with the proceedings before a
commission of Inquiry
For the objection of ‘opportunity to be heard’;
the attorney General filed a statement that
petitioner can give a representation
which would be dealt with expeditiously in
accordance with law

9. Supreme Court held that
The Government was not justified in withholding
the reasons for impounding the passport from
the petitioner
Held that the procedure contemplated in Art. 21
could not be unfair or unreasonable
Equality or non arbitrariness pervaded in Art. 14
is an essential part of this fair procedure

10. J. Beg (dissenting judgment) :
The petitioner was deprived of her right to go
abroad; in accordance with the procedure
established by law (Passport Act 1967),
- Not arbitrary or unreasonable
- The Act laid down proper guidelines for the
exercise of the powers by the Passport
Authority
- Hence S. 10(3)(c) of Passport Act was not
violative of Artcles 14,19(1)(a) or (g) or Art. 21

11. Inter relation of Arts. 14, 19, and 21
Earlier in Gopalan’s case Supreme Court held that
these Articles are exclusive and not interrelated;
Present view :
After Maneka Gandhi case,
The Supreme Court overruled the old view and
held that
Art. 21 is controlled by Art. 19, that is it must
satisfy the requirement of Art. 19 also
The tests of reasonable restriction must be
fulfilled as mentioned in Art. 19(2) to (6)

12. Procedure established by Law
A.K. Gopalan’s case : He was a communist leader,
detained under Preventive Detention Act 1950;
The petitioner challenged the validity of the PDA
And his detention thereunder on these grounds :
1. The Act violated his right to move freely
throughout the territory of India; Art.19 and
detention is not as per Art 19(5);
2. Act deprives personal liberty and violated Art. 21
3. Procedure established by law is not fulfilled as
mentioned in Art. 21

13. In this case majority held that
The expression ‘procedure established by law’
must mean procedure prescribed by law of
the State;
Law should be reasonable law and not mere a
piece of enacted law;
Natural justice :
A law which deprived a person of his personal
liberty without complying with the rules of
natural justice could not be held to be valid
under Art. 21

14. It should be just, fair and reasonable law
Audi alterem partem – to listen the other side
Nemo judex in causa sua - No man shall be a
judge of his own cause

15. Art. 21 requires :
1. There must be a valid law
2. The law must provide a procedure
3. The procedure must be just, fair and
reasonable
4. The law must satisfy the requirements of Arts.
14 and 19, i.e. it must be reasonable
In this case to remove the defect, an order was
passed by the passport authority in
accordance with procedure established by law

16. Right to live with Human dignity
Right to live is not restricted to mere animal
existence,
It is more than just physical survival
It is right to live with human dignity
It is to have bare necessities of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter and
faculties for reading writing and expressing
ourselves in diverse forms,
freely moving about and mixing and commingling
with fellow human being

17. Right to livelihood
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR
1986 SC 180 known as ‘pavement dwellers case’
Petitioners were poor persons living roadside
The Municipal Authorities ordered to remove their
huts from pavement and public places
Petitioners challenged the validity of S. 313, 313-
A, 314 and 497 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act 1888
Under these sections, Municipal Authorities
empowered the said action,

18. • The petitioners contended that their right to
life has been deprived because
their right to livelihood has been affected
The Court held that the above sections of
Bombay Municipal Act were Constitutional
since they imposed reasonable restrictions on
the ground of general public
Public streets are not for carrying on trade or
business,
But Court took a humanistic view and guided to
Municipal Authorities to give them licences for
selling their goods in hawking zones

19. Right to life includes :
Right not to be compelled to a wife to live with
her husband whom she hates
The Court held that there is denial to dissolve the
marriage when the marriage has broken down
irrevocable
Case : Pragati Varghare V. Cyril George Varghese
AIR 1997 Bom. 349

20. Right to life includes :
Right to shelter
Right to life includes right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care and
shelter;
All civil, political, social and cultural rights under
UNDHR and Conventions
FR under Indian Constitution can not be
exercised without basic human rights
Right to shelter is opportunity to grow physically,
mentally, intellectually and spiritually
Case : Chameli Singh v. State of UP AIR 1996

21. Right to privacy :
In the popular case “Auto Shanker Case” ;
The Supreme Court has expressly held that “right
to privacy or right to be let alone is guaranteed
by Art. 21
The Court held that the State or its officials have
no authority in law to impose prior restraint on
publication of defamatory matter,
The public officials can take action only after the
publication if it is found to be false
R. Rajagopal v. State of TN AIR 1994 6 SCC 632

22. Virginity Test :
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that
Allowing medical examination of a woman for her
virginity would amount to violation of her right to
privacy & personal liberty under Art. 21
In this case the wife filed a petition for a decree of
nullity of marriage
On the ground that marriage had never been
consummated because the husband was impotent;
Husband took advert defence; and to prove that he
filed an application for her medical examination
that she is not virgin

23. Right to die – not fundamental right under Art.21
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
The Court held that S. 309 of IPC is not violative of
Art. 21 (punishment for attempt to commit
suicide)
Right to live with human dignity means the
existence of such right upto the end of natural life
Mercy killing is not allowed by law
Euthanasia – persistent vegetative state, does not
include the right to die
Case : Aruna Shanbaguh v. UOI

24. Prisoner’s right and Art. 21
Refusal to grant bail :- subject to certain
safeguards the appellants were entitled to be
released on bail
Right to free legal aid :- M.H. Haskot v. St. of MH
The Court held that free legal aid and speedy trial
are FR u/Art. 21
Free legal aid should be available both at trial and
appellate stage

25. Right against solitary confinement : a prisoner
sentenced of death penalty was kept under
solitary confinement;
The Supreme Court held that S. 30 of the Prison
Act does not empower the authorities to impose
solitary confinement upon a prisoner sentenced
of death
Solitary confinement is itself a substantive
punishment which can be imposed by the Court
of law ; not by the jail authorities
Case : Sunil Batra (No.1) v. Delhi Administration

26. Right to Fair Trial :-
Fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence
Denial of fair trial is crucification of human right
It is ingrained in the concept of due process of law
Right to Speedy Trial :-
Hussainara Khatoon (no.1) v. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by
number of undertrial prisoners who were in jails
in the State of Bihar for years awaiting their trial

27. Supreme Court held that :
Right to speedy trial is fundamental right implicit
in Art. 21;
Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice
Justice delay violates Art. 21
Compensation for denial of speedy trial :- the
delay in trial proceedings was caused due to
prosecution;
Appellant was awarded compensation as delay
violated his right to life ( right to speedy trial)

28. Protection against illegal arrest, detentions and
Custodial Death
Supreme Court laid down guidelines :
1. An arrested person is entitled to give
information of his arrest to his nearest friend or
relative,
2. Police officer shall inform the arrested person
about this right when he is brought to police
station
3. An entry required to be made in police Diary
as to who was informed of the arrest

29. Compensation to persons killed in Fake
Encounters :
Supreme Court held that killing of two persons in
fake encounter by the police is violative of Art.
21
And defence of sovereign immunity does not
apply in such case;
In this case court directed to take appropriate
action against the erring officers and to award
compensation to the family of the deceased
Case : People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI

30. Compensation to Rape Victim :
In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v.
UOI; petitioner Women’s Forum brought PIL
for the justice of four domestic women servants
who were raped by seven army personnel in a
running train while travelling
Supreme Court directed :
1. The complainants of sexual assaults cases
should be provided with legal representation
2. Legal assistance must be provided to them
3. Name of the victim should not be disclosed

31. 4. To set Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
8. Compensation to victims shall be awarded by
the Court on conviction of the offender
National Commission for Women be asked to
frame the scheme for compensation and
rehabilitation to ensure the justice to victims of
such crimes