It is most refreshing, most rejuvenating, most rejoicing and most realistic that a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Parveen vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 750-751 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 4292-4293/2020) while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical and convincing terms that:
Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel who has been engaged by the Legal Services Authority, Rohtak. Liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner."

This notable judgment was delivered just recently on November 16, 2020. We can thus see for ourselves that the Apex Court has given topmost priority to the personal liberty of a citizen which is extremely satisfying to see!

It goes without saying that this exemplary judgment has to be applauded, admired and appreciated in no uncertain terms as it very rightly upheld the fundamental tenet enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution that:
No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Who can deny or dispute it? It certainly deserves to be emulated by all the courts.

To start with, this noteworthy judgment delivered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee first and foremost sets the ball rolling in para 2 after granting leave in para1 by observing precisely that:
By a judgment dated 12 January 2015, the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in Criminal Case No 85-2 of 2013 and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years."

As a corollary, it is then pointed out in para 3 that:
Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2015 was filed against the judgment of conviction before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was admitted to bail. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction while dismissing the appeal on 10 July 2017."

Needless to say, what then ensues is consequently stated in para 4 that:
The appellant filed a revision, CRR No 1316 of 2018, before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. During the pendency of the revision, the appellant was enlarged on bail on 16 April 2018. The revision was filed before the High Court through the Legal Services Authority, Rohtak. The High Court by its order dated 11 February 2020, dismissed the revision in the absence of the appellant and his advocate, observing as follows:

"Perusal of file shows that this revision has been taken on board six times, including today. On four occasions, none came forward to represent the petitioner in the span of approximately one year and four months. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that petitioner or his counsel is no more interested in pursuing this revision.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, is directed to issue warrants of arrest of the petitioner to undergo remaining sentence.

A copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for compliance.""

Going forward, it is then disclosed in para 5 that, "On 16 July 2020, the High Court dismissed the application for restoration of the revision on the ground that no ground for restoration has been established."

To be sure, it is then brought out in para 6 that, "Notice was issued by this Court on 12 October 2020. In pursuance of the notice, Mr Vishal Mahajan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has appeared on behalf of the first respondent – State."

Most significantly and most remarkably, the Bench then very rightly opts to observe elegantly, eloquently and effectively in para 7 in most uncertain terms that, "The High Court, in our view, was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant's advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions. Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the Legal Services Authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner."

As it turned out, the Bench then rules clearly, categorically and convincingly in para 8 that:
In the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court dated 11 February 2020 and 16 July 2020. CRR No 1316 of 2018 is restored to the file of the High Court. Since during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant was admitted to bail by this court and the appellant was on bail during the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the order enlarging the appellant on bail shall continue to remain in operation pending the disposal of the revision by the High Court. The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of the revision."

Now coming to the concluding paras, it is first observed in para 9 that, "The appeals are accordingly disposed of." Lastly, it is then observed in para 10 that, "Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

Before winding up, it would be imperative to once again reiterate that this extremely laudable, learned, latest and landmark judgment delivered by three learned Judges of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee certainly deserves to be emulated by all the High Courts especially the High Courts! This judgment is very brief but what makes it most special is that it attaches paramount importance to the personal liberty of citizens! Very rightly so!

It cannot be denied that if Arnab Goswami was able to step freely out of prison after 8 days, it is only and only because of the Bench of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee of Apex Court who were listening his interim bail plea along with three others! The Apex Court order came on separate appeals filed by the three accused against a Bombay High Court order of November 9 refusing them interim bail. Arnab was lodged at Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai after his arrest on November 4. All the High Courts must now introspect most seriously that why they fail to speak in favour of personal liberty of citizens which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution which clearly states that, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

It may be recalled that in Arnab Goswami's case who is the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV Channel, while asking every High Court to "exercise your jurisdiction to protect human liberty...the ultimate reason for our existence as Constitutional courts," the vacation Bench of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee pulled up the state governments for going after individuals they do not agree with. While being critical of the Maharashtra government over its handling of the case involving Goswami and two others, the Bench said that, "If this is what our state governments will do to people who have to be nailed, I think the Supreme Court has to be there for every citizen."

What more can the Supreme Court say than this what Justice Dr DY Chandrachud who minced no words to state in simple, straight and suave language in Arnab Goswami's case that, "If this court does not interfere today, we are travelling on the path of destruction. Forget this man (Goswami). You may not like his ideology. Left to myself, I will not watch his channel. Keep aside everything. If this is what our state governments are going to do to people who are to be nailed, then the Supreme Court has to intervene. There has to be a message to HCs - Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty. We are seeing case after case. HCs are failing to exercise jurisdiction. People are in jail for tweets." Justice Chandrachud very eloquently said that, "And we are deeply concerned about this. If we don't present human liberty in these kind of things..Forget the way he speaks and his channel and everything, we are concerned with something far broader. And that is what is of concern to me..values of human liberty which our Constitution has ascribed to our polity."

Furthermore, Justice Chandrachud also rightly sought to send a loud and clear message that, "Let's send the message across to every High Court. Please exercise your jurisdiction to protect human liberty. Because that's the ultimate reason for our existence as constitutional courts."

In conclusion, it is high time and now all the courts must always accord the highest priority to the personal liberty of citizens. We are not enslaved anymore as we most unfortunately were prior to 15 August, 1947. Now we are a free nation and every citizen is entitled to live a free life and even police cannot randomly at the behest of the State Government or Central Government arrest them and then harass them for no rhyme or reason! Only then can we really call ourselves as being free and independent in the real sense!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.