By- AREEF MOHAMMED

PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL

LIBERTY

• It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty

except according to the procedure established by law.
• It contains 3 key points i.e
• (a) LIFE;
• (b) PERSONAL LIBERTY;
• (c) PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
• First we will discuss procedure established by law then life and personal
liberty.
Cont….

• To understand the procedure established by law , we have to look first

what is “Due process of law”.
• DUE PROCESS OF LAW:
• Due process of law checks whether the law enacted is fair and not
arbitrary.
• American constitution follows due process of law
• The due process of law gives wide scope.
• It gives wide scope to the court to grant protection to the rights of its
citizen.
• The state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person
 Cont….

• PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW:

• It signifies that if the method for establishing a law has been followed correctly,
a law that has been duly enacted by the legislature or the body in question is
valid.
• The judiciary asses the procedure of the legislation and its competence only.
• Compared to 'due process of law it is narrow in scope.
• The Supreme Court, while determining the constitutionality of the law
examines whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned or
not. It judges its procedure.
• The state can deprive the basic rights if followed the proper process.
CONT…

• BUT NOW ,
• The rigid and inflexible following of the procedure established by the law may
raise the risk of compromise to life of personal liberty of individuals due to
unjust law made by the law making authorities which happened in the case of:-
• (1) A.K GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRASS-1950
• Facts – A.K Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained under
preventive detention act 1950, and he challenged his detention on the ground of
that his civil liberty was being hampered.
• Held – SC held that he was detained according to the procedure established by
law.
 Cont…

• (2) KHARAK SINGH V. STATE OF U.P -1963

• Facts –Kharak singh was arrested for dacoity and he was acquitted by the court by lack
of evidence . Then what happens he was arrested under the U.P police regulation act
under chapter 22 of their manual .
• This case is the restrictive interpretation of A.K Gopalan which was taken up for the
first time.
• Held- SC held that the particular act has impacted on the right to life , protected under
article 21 of the const. which implied the right to life with human dignity and not mere
animal existence. Court considered that the power to enter someone’s house in the
middle of the night to confirm their presence ran contrary to this right.
 Cont…
• (3) MANEKA GANDHI V. U.O.I- 1978
• Facts- passport of maneka Gandhi was impounded under section -10(3)(c) of passport act 1967.
she was not given any reason for the impounding. So, without having the passport she cant
travel , then she filled a writ petition under article-32 for violating of her liberty under article 21
of the constitution.
• Held – The 7 judge bench was of the opnion that art-19 and art-21 go hand-in-hand and the
procedure established by law restricting this rights should stand the scrutiny of the other
provisions constitution as well including art-14 .
• This is the reason we called art-14,19,21 as the golden triangle.
• This case also highlighted the doctrine of due process of law.
• Test of inclusiveness- the interrelation btwn these three article
• Procedure established by law includes due process of law – it should follow the principle of
natural justice( fair, just ,reasonable and it is based on the concept of fair and equity)
Cont….

• Supreme court also over ruled A.K Gopalan case and ruled that a law
should be just, fair and reasonable and and article -21 can be invoked
against arbitrary executive and legislative action- if the action is not just,
fair and reasonable.
• This was the landmark decision which widened the scope of art-21
considerably .
 FACETS OF LIFE AND LIBERTY

• (1) RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY:-

• Occupational health and safety association v. Union Of India 2014:
• The protection of health and strength of workers and their access to just and humane
conditions of work were taken as essential conditions to live with human dignity.
• Navtej Singh johar v. U.O.I 2019
• Section 377 was held unconstitutional in so far as it criminalizes homosexual acts between
consenting adults, human dignity is an important consideration of this judgment because
human dignity is not a straight jacket idea. Rather , it involves all those rights and
freedom which enables a person to live without enchroachment upon his her self respect,
pride and safety.
Cont…

• Joseph shine v. U.O.I 2019-

• Offence of adultery is unconstitutional- 497 of IPC
• Held unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the women's right to
dignity and hence it infringes art-21 of the constitution.
• (2) RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD-
• Olga tellis v. Bombay municipal corporation 1986-
• It is also known as pavement dweller case
• Held – right to life include right to livelihood.
 Cont…

• (3) RIGHT TO HEALTH AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE-

• Paramanand katara v. U.O.I 1989-
• Supreme court held that all doctors (private and govt.) are obliged to extend medical assistance to
injured immediately without asking for legal formalities.
• (4) RIGHT TO DIE-
• Section 309 of IPC – criminalises attempt to suicide, with the convicted person facing upto two
years of imprisonment , or a fine , both.
• P. Rathinam v. U.O.I –
• Keeping article 21 as well as the principle of natural justice in mind, the 2 judge bench ruled that
right to life also included the right to not live a forced life. Therefore, section 309 of IPC was
declared viod.
• Given permission to commit suicide -legal
Cont…..

• Gian kaur v. state of Punjab 1996-

• In this case the supreme court over ruled the rathinam case and concluded that
suicide is being an unnatural termination of life, it was against the concept of life.
• Aruna shanbaugh v. U.O.I 2011-
• Court held that passive euthanasia can be allowed in certain cases.
• Common cause ( registered society ) v. U.O.I 2018-
• Court decided that the right to life with dignity under article 21 includes a right to
die with dignity.
• Living in ventilator is not considered to be a dignified life.
 Cont…

• (5) RIGHT TO PRIAVCY-

• Justice K.S Puttaswamy (rtd.) and anr. V. U.O.I 2019-
• Known as aadhar case
• In this case the aadhar ( targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies , benefits and
service) act 2016, was held to be constitutional, but some individual sections violating
fundamental rights were struck down.
• (6) RIGHT TO SLEEP-
• Ramlila maidan v. home secretary – U.O.I 2012-
• Court held that every person is entitled to sleep as comfortably and freely as he brethes. If
any persons sleep is disturbed without any reasonable justification, it amounts to torture and
is violation of his human right
 Cont…

• (7) RIGHT TO EDUCATION-

• Mohini jain v. state of Karnataka 1992-
• Right to education at all levels was held to be a fundamental right
• Unnikrishnan v. state of A.P 1993-
• Known as capitation fee case.
• Supreme court RTE as fundamental right flowing from art 21 but right to free education is
available to the children until they complete the age of 14 years, after that obligation of state
to provide education is subject to economic capacity and development.
• Finally, art 21 (A) was inserted by 86th amendment by 2002-
• Which guarantees that state shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children's
of 6 to 14 years of age.
 Cont….
• (8) RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID-
• M.H Hoskot v. state of maharasthra
• Sheela bharse v. U.O.I
• (9) RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARRASMENT OF WOMEN AT WORK PLACE-
• Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan 1997
• (10) RIGHT AGAINST TORCHER-
• Sunil bhatra v. Delhi administration 1980
• (11) RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL-
• Hussainara Khatoon v. home sec. Bihar 1980
• (12) RIGHT TO INTERVIEW WITH LAWYER AND FAMILY-
• Frnacis corallli v. U.T of Delhi 1981
Cont…

• (13) RIGHT AGAINST DEATH SENTENCE-

• Bacchan singh case, macchi singh case, mithu case
• (14) RIGHT TO POLLUTION FREE ENVIRONMENT-
• M.C mehta v. U.O.I
• Vellore citizens v. welfare forum
• (15) RIGHT OF COMPENSATION OF CUSTODIAL DEATH-
• D.K Basu v. state of West Bengal 1987