RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: A STRIVE FOR JUSTICE

ABSTRACT:
Right to life and personal liberty is the primordial right which every human being
everywhere at all times ought to have. In India, right to life and personal liberty is given in
Article 21 of the Constitution. This aimed at achieve ‘justice’ mentioned in the Preamble
through all-round development of the citizens. There is no doubt that Indian Judiciary lived
up to the expectations of the Constitution makers both in interpreting and implementing
Article 21 though initially, there was a little amount of hesitation. Since its broad
interpretation given in the Maneka Gandhi’s case it has always been a source of heated
debate, especially in the light of recent developments in this regard. This is an attempt to
highlight some of the extended areas of “right to life and personal liberty” and to find out its
effects on the administration of justice.
KEY WORDS: Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Article 21, Extended Interpretation,
Supreme Court, Judicial Activism, Controversies.

INTRODUCTION:
Right to life and personal liberty is the primordial rights necessary for the
development of human personality. It is the moral right which every human being
everywhere at all times ought to have. Right to life and personal liberty is the modern name
for what have been traditionally known as ‘natural right’. It is also regarded as one of the
important inherent and inalienable fundamental right which enables a man to chalk out his
own life in the manner he likes best.
The root of right to life and personal liberty was first highlighted in the British Magna
Carta 0f 1215. In black & white which speaks that, “No free man shall be taken, or
imprisoned or deceased or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor will the King
pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the
land”.1

11
Learned author A V Dicey states about this insertion of Personal Liberty in English law that, the right to
personal liberty as understood in England means in substance a person’s right not to be subjected to
imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. A V
Dicey, “Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution”, 10th Edn., 5th Indian Reprint 2008, Universal
Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. P 189.
 Right to life and personal liberty get Constitutional attention as a fundamental right
for the first time through the amendment of the U.S. Constitution which lays down inter alia
that; “No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of
law”.2 It paved the way for the constituent body of different democratic countries to insert
right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right in their respective constitutions.
Right to life and personal liberty has also find its place in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights through Article 3 which speaks that, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person”. Apart from it Article 9 of the same Document provides that; “No one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” 3 It clearly indicates that the
international community is also akin to protect the life and liberty of individuals.
However, all of these   have considered human being only as a physical entity and
attempted to safeguard him from the excesses by rulers or by State itself. But, in India, right
to life and personal liberty has envisaged the human being in totality and strived for his all-
round development, prosperity and freedom (altogether justice) from suffering and attempted
to protect his life and limb from any kind of external aggression by state or its agencies such
as the government departments, legislature, administration, local authorities exercising
statutory powers.
Bearing the inspiration by the Indian values and ethos most commonly expressed in
one of our Shanti Mantra: “…Sarve bhavantu sukhinah
Sarve santu niraamayaah
Sarve bhadraani pashyantu
Maakaschit duhkha bhaag bhavet…”
framers of our Constitution perceived the human being beyond a mere physical entity and
incorporated Article 21 which speaks that; “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” in Part III of the
Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Right.
The object of this fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon
personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law and
to make an environment where justice shall triumph. It clearly means that this fundamental
right has been provided against State only. If an act of private individual amounts to

2
V Amendment to the Constitution of USA, 1791
3
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10th December, 1948.
encroachment upon the personal liberty or deprivation of life of other person; such violation
would not fall under the parameters set for the Article 21.4
MEANING OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY:
The right to life and personal liberty of a person is one of the oldest concepts to be
protected by national Courts. In India, the concept of right to life and personal liberty given in
Article 21 has received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has
rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint; 5 and has held that
it encompasses those rights and privileges which have long been recognized as being
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men 6. The meaning of the right to life and
personal liberty was well explained by the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh 7, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police
Regulations which provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits and secret
picketing. Both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the
term ‘right to life and personal liberty’ by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v.
Illinois,8 which held the term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The
prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which the life
was enjoyed. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorising domiciliary
visits at night by police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of right to
life and personal liberty and thus unconstitutional. The Court also observed that the right to
life and personal liberty mentioned in the Constitution of India is the right of an individual to
be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed
or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 9 the Supreme Court reiterated the above
observations and held that the right to life and personal liberty included the right to lead a
healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would
even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives
meaning to a man’s life. It also includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the
right to repose.

4
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. v. Dy. EA Group, AIR 2006 SC 1489.
5
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
6
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
7
AIR 1963 SC 1295
8
(1877) 94 US 113
9
AIR 1978 SC 1675
MEANING OF PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW:
The expression ‘procedure established by law’ has been subject matter of
interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that the Court in this
process of judicial interpretation has enlarged the scope of the expression. Earlier, the
Supreme Court of India took the view that procedure established by law in Article 21 means
procedure prescribed by law and as enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the
American ‘due process of law’.10 But, the Supreme Court later observed that the procedure
prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘just, fair and
reasonable’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’, otherwise it would be no procedure
at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.11
Thus, now the procedure established by law has acquired the same significance in
India as the due process of law clause in America. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer has said that,
though our Constitution has no due process clause but after the verdict of Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India12 (hereafter, Maneka Gandhi’s case) the consequence is the same and as
much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of the due process clause in American
Constitution.13
The Supreme Court of India in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India14 observed that, the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no
one shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty without the procedure
established by law. The Court held that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of
life of non-smokers without any process of law. Taking into consideration the adverse effect
of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed for the prohibition
of smoking in public places. It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and
the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibition of smoking in public places
such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions etc.
Thus it is well established that the ‘procedure established by law’ to deprive a person
of his life and personal liberty, must be ‘just, fair and reasonable’ and that it must not be
‘arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’.

10
Supra, note 6
11
Supra, note 7
12
Ibid note 6
13
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675
14
AIR 2002 SC 40
EXPANDING HORIZON OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY:
The interpretation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in Maneka Gandhi’s case has ushered a new era of expansion of the
horizons of right to life and personal liberty. The wide dimension given to this right now
covers various aspects which the founding fathers of the Constitution might or might not have
visualized. After the instant case, the Supreme Court breathed substantive life into Article 21
by subjecting state action interfering with a person’s right to life and personal liberty to a test
of reasonableness; requiring not only that the procedures be authorized by law, but that they
are ‘just, fair and reasonable’. This transformation paved the way for a substantive re-
interpretation of constitutional and legal guarantees and positive judicial intervention.15
In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the petitioners passport was impounded ‘in public interest’
by an Order Dated July 2, 1977. The Government of India declined ‘in the interests of the
general public’ to furnish the reasons for its decision. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the Order. The petitioner contended
before the Court that the Order of the Government of India does not prescribe ‘procedure’
within the meaning of Article 21 and if it is held that procedure has been prescribed, it is
unfair, unjust and unreasonable. The Supreme Court held that the order passed against the
petitioner was neither fair nor proper according to the procedure established by law.
The decision given by the Supreme Court in this case is historic and landmark
because it is the first of its kind which enhanced the scope of right to life and personal liberty.
Specifically, Maneka Gandhi’s case recognized an implied substantive component to the
term ‘liberty’ in Article 21 that provides broad protection of individual freedom against
unreasonable or arbitrary curtailment.16 The humane approach adopted by the Indian judiciary
with regard to interpretation and implementation of Article 21 in this case grew leaps and
bounds and paved way for multi-faceted development of a citizen. This also led the way for a
dramatic increase in constitutional protection of human rights in India under the mantle of the
Public Interest Litigation movement (PIL)17.
The expanding horizon of right to life and personal liberty is one of the historical
developments of Indian Constitutional law. Here, I would like to proceed to discuss few of
them in a nutshell which has occurred due to changing interpretation of right to life and
personal liberty.

15
M. P. Jain, ‘Indian Constitutional Law’, 6th Edn., Reprint 2012, Wadhwa, Nagpur. p 1185
16
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat AIR 2009 SC 740
17
P M Bakshi, “Public Interest Litigation” 1st Edn., 2006, Ashok Law House, Delhi, p 34.
HUMAN DIGNITY:
In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 18, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court stated that, “the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and
all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings”.
Justices Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, in Deepak Bajaj v. State of
Maharashtra19, held that reputation, which is sine qua non of dignity of a person, is part and
parcel of his right to life and personal liberty. This observation is mostly warranted in the
present scenario where suspicion has become the driving force for the police to pick up and
detain individuals in utter violation of their right to life, dignity, and reputation.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
Maneka Gandhi’s case gives a beneficial impact on the administration of criminal
justice in India.20 After few years of this case, Justice Krishna Iyer while speaking for
21
majority in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration made it clear that when a person gets
arrested, he steps into the prison cell with his fundamental rights intact and not in devoid of
them. He also made it amply clear that Article 21 is to be interpreted in the widest possible
sense so that the right to life and personal liberty can be used as an effective weapon against
the mischief committed by the authorities while administering criminal justice. The Supreme
Court, inspired by such a noble interpretation given to Article 21 in the instant case has held
several rights entitled to an accused in a civilized society to be under the ambit of right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India.22
In Selvi v. State of Karnataka23, Supreme Court over ruled the fortune of country’s
expert agencies specialised in conducting Narco-Analysis test, Brain Mapping Test and
Polygraph Test. Relying on the language used in Article 20(3) the Apex Court said that
conducting such tests is violative of the citizens ‘right against self-incrimination’. The Apex
Court went on record to further more and declare Narco-Analysis test is violative of right to

18
AIR 1981 SC 746
19
AIR 2008 SCC 798
20
M. P. Jain, ‘Indian Constitutional Law’, 6th Edn. Reprint 2012, Wadhwa, Nagpur. p 1197
21
Supra on note 9
22
The right against solitary confinement (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675), right against
hand cuffing (Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1535), right against bar fetters
(Charles Sobhraj v. Suptd. Tihar Central Jail AIR 1978 SC 1514), right against custodial death (D K Basu v.
State of WB AIR 1997 SC610) etc.
23
AIR 2010 SCC 1076
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. However, this decision
attracted a lot of criticism on many grounds.
ADMINISTRATION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE:
While establishing that the right to life and personal liberty stated in Article 21
includes right to live with dignity and freedom from exploitation, the Supreme Court, in
unequivocal terms,   put the concept of social justice on a higher pedestal in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India and others 24. In this case the Supreme Court held that; “Article 21
assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The state is under a
constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any
person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to
wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. Both the
Central Government and the State Government are therefore bound to ensure observance of
the various social welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing
to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the directive principles of
the state policy.”
The Court further opined that the Directive Principles of the State Policies as
enumerated in Part IV of our Constitution are not enforceable in a Court of law. Nevertheless,
they are fundamental in the governance of the nation.25 The right to live with human dignity
enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and
particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore,
it must include protection of the health and strength of workers men and women, and of the
tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a
healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and
humane conditions of work. The Supreme Court in the instant case held that where a law has
already been enacted to enforce Article 21 with reference to the Directive Principles of the
State Policies it can compel the state to implement the said legislation in letter and spirit.
In 1993, relying on the above connotation the Apex Court ruled that the right to
education until the age of fourteen year is a fundamental right and therefore falls under the
protection of Article 21 in conjunction with Article 41.26 Subsequently, this attitude of the
Supreme Court was clearly exhibited in a catena of cases.27 These sincere, committed and

24
AIR 1984 SC804
25
Article 37 of Constitution of India, 1950
26
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. AIR 1993 SCC 645
27
Paramananda Katara v. UOI AIR 1989 SC 2039 (right to get Doctors assistance), People’s Union for Civil
Liberties v. UOI AIR 2001 SC 454 (right to food) etc.
development oriented efforts and inclusive approach by the Indian judiciary resulted in a
most comprehensive and benevolent articulation and execution of right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY:
After expanding the horizon of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, the
Supreme Court of India from time to time interpreted it broadly so as to protect the
environment and to infuse real life in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution.28 In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India 29, Justice Kuldip Singh described
the Government’s role in the protection of fundamental rights as; “It is the obligation of the
state to assume such responsibility and protect its citizens”. The Court held that the
government’s obligation to protect fundamental rights forces it to protect the environment.
Supporting the instant opinion in Delhi Pollution Case30, the Supreme Court held that
Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life must be interpreted to include the
“right to live in a healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance,” and
“without avoidable hazard to the people and to their cattle, house and agricultural land, and
undue affection of air, water, and environment”.
RIGHT TO DIE:
Is right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 inclusive of right to
die? After long controversies this question was finally answered in great detail in Gian Kaur
v. State of Punjab31, here it was held that word ‘life’ is to be read in consonance with word
‘dignity’ so far as Article 21 is concerned, but right to life in no stretch on imagination shall
include right to die. ‘Right to life’ means ‘right to life with human dignity’ it shall not include
right to end life even under medical supervision by way of administration of lethal drugs or
otherwise.
32
A legal breakthrough came about with Aruna Shanbaug case whereby the Apex
Court for the first time offered legality to the concept of euthanasia or mercy killing in some
form.33 A person in a persistent vegetative state (PVC), deriving his existence from life
support system can apply for euthanasia, but here also his death shall not be occasioned by

28
RLEK, Dehradun v. State of U. P. AIR 1985 SC 652, M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIR 2000 SC 1997, Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. AIR 1995 SC 593 etc.
29
AIR 1990 SCC 663
30
M. C. Mehta v. UOI AIR1998 SC 2963
31
AIR 1996 SCC 648
32
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and Others AIR 2011 SCC 986
33
However, there are some conditions attached to it.
administration of lethal injection or otherwise but by merely removing the life support system
from which he (patient) draws his existence.
Henceforth, it will not be wrong to say that with sociological and psychological
development of the society, right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution of India is
witnessing tremendous development and truly it is a welfare piece of legislation. The
humanitarian approach and explanation to right to life and personal liberty by the Indian
judiciary made an excellent role model for the entire world. It is difficult to find such an all
encompassing and integral human approach elsewhere in the globe. 

JUDICIAL PRO-ACTIVISM AND RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY :

The scope of Article 21 of the Constitution has been considerably expanded by the
Courts in India, which has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to mean the right to
live a civilized life in modern social structure. In this part, I would like to highlight the cases
primarily relate to the modern approach of Indian judiciary by applying its pro-judicial
activism which demonstrated the enhanced interpretation of right to life and personal liberty
in a different way.
Prof. M. P. Jain argues that judicial interpretation of Article 21, which provides that
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law,” has led to a vast extension of substantive rights.34 He rightly depicts this
interpretation as the Indian version of the American concept of due process of law. But the
scope of the expansion into the substantive domain engineered by the Indian Court far
exceeds that of its American counterpart.35 Now instances have come where the Judiciary has
shown their pro-activeness. It is quite well that the Court has now realized its proper role in a
Welfare State, and it is using this new strategy not only to help the ‘have-nots’ by enforcing
their fundamental rights but also for the transformation of the whole society as an ordered
and crime free one. But, still, there should be some limit or self-restraint on the part of the
court. In my opinion, the judiciary should give top most priority for the cases that greatly
affect the human life system rather pronouncing some controversial decisions in the wake of
enhancing the right to life and personal liberty. There is a twofold reason in this respect;
firstly, the execution of such decisions may create a vacuum in the society and secondly, it is
highly impossible to implement such a decision in a country like ours.

34
Jain M. P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edn. Page 1188
35
S. C. Kashyap, “Judiciary-Legislature Interface”, Subhash C. Kashyap (ed.), Judicial Activism and Lokpal,
Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi, 1997, p.71.
 It was in July 2009, that a judgment of Delhi High Court gave green signal to
consensual sexual intercourse between same sex adults36. Judicial interpretation of right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 formed the crux of this judgment. It was a
celebration time for gay rights activists. But, the judgment gathered a lot of fume and
criticism because it carries a threat to the age old culture, values and taboo prevalent in our
society. However, in no time an appeal to the Supreme Court was filed against the decision
rendered by the Delhi High Court. The case is still pending in the Apex Court.
Again, a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief
Justice K G Balakrishnan, J.J. Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan attacks on the social setup of
India by offering legality to live in relationships and consensual pre-marital sex between
adults, in March 201037, stating that Article 21 is not only a welfare piece of legislation but
also a progressive piece of legislation.
The Supreme Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 38 held that the
Constitution of India casts a higher role on judiciary with a great obligation as the sentinel to
defend the values of the constitution along with the rights of the Indians and for that Courts
must act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness
their power in public interest. But, here we have witnessed the opposite role play of the
Court. The above two decisions neither represent our values nor render any public interest at
present or in future. This is not judicial activism; rather it is judicial aggressivism.39
Recently, the Supreme Court in Ram Dev’s case40 held that right to sleep is included
under the ambit of Article 21 stating that a sound sleep is an essential ingredient of good
health. Now a question comes before us that can this type of right be executed and enacted as
law by the legislature? In order to preserve and protect the essence of our Constitution, a
creative judiciary is must, but this sort of judicial interpretation should be with clear vision
and intelligence. As too much judicial activism would produce an adverse impact on the
position of the Judiciary itself. In my opinion, it tends to lower the judicial independence in
particular and acceptability of judgments in general.
Aiding to my contention, we have witnessed so many earlier decisions of Supreme
Court giving directions which are not yet executed by the concerned authority. The Supreme

36
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277
37
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Another AIR 2010 SC 3196
38
AIR 2000 SC 3751
39
J. Markandey Katju, “Lessons in judicial restraint”, The Hindu, July 20, 2012
40
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.... v. Home Secretary and Others AIR 2012 SCC 156
Court of India in one of its landmark decision in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India41 observed
that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any
process of law. Pursuing with its decision the Supreme Court issued directions to the Union
of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take effective steps for prohibition
of smoking in public places. Several State Governments enacted laws for prohibition of
smoking in public places inconformity with this direction. In this manner the Supreme Court
gave a wider interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon to
include the rights of non-smokers. But unfortunately, execution of these laws has been
seemed to be totally ignored by the executing authorities. At present, violation of this
direction could be seen in every public place of the country. In my opinion, this type of
incidents tends to lower the integrity of the Apex Court.
CONCLUSION:
Indian Judiciary provided excellent elucidation to right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court not only explored the instinctive
humane qualities of the Article 21 but also established certain procedure to implement them. 42
This makes “Rule of Law” magnificent and meaningful. Each interpretation or the procedure
laid down with regard to Article 21 is particularly aimed to achieve ‘justice’ mentioned in the
Preamble through all-round development of the citizens. Each explanation provided vis-a-vis
Article 21 attempts to fulfil the basic needs of the human being while safeguarding ones
dignity43.
It is difficult to find such noble, lofty, dignified illustrations and interpretations as
provided by the Supreme Court of India to the concept of right to life and personal liberty
elsewhere in the world. The Indian concept did not confine the right to life and personal
liberty only to ones physical entity. It means to strive for all-round development of a person
so that justice shall triumph and the term law can be use in the sense of ‘Jus’ and ‘lex’ both.
But, the road does not end here. Let’s keep on striving for justice with the help of
right to life and personal liberty incorporated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which
encapsulated the task of – “Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu”  i.e. MAY ALL BE HAPPY.

41
Supra on note 14
42
Laxmikant Pandey v. UOI AIR 1984 SCC 244, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC
43
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SCC 260
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BOOKS

1. Bakshi P. M., “Public Interest Litigation” 1 st Edn., 2006, Ashok Law House, New
Delhi.
2. Dicey A. V., “Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution”, 10th Edn., 5th
Indian Reprint 2008, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
3. Jain M. P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edn., Reprint 2012, Wadhwa, Nagpur.
4. Seervai H. M., Constitutional Law of India, 3rd Edn., 1983, N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd.
Bombay.
5. Shukla V. N., Constitution of India, 2007, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

ARTICLES

1. Andhyarujina T. R., “Disturbing trends in judicial activism” The Hindu, August 6,

2012.
2. Kashyap S. C., “Judiciary-Legislature Interface”, Subhash C. Kashyap (ed.), Judicial
Activism and Lokpal, 1st Edn. 1997 Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi,
3. Katju Markandey J., “Lessons in judicial restraint”, The Hindu, July 20, 2012.