In India, citizens have the right to life and personal liberty, which is guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution of. These Fundamental Rights embody the people's core beliefs and are protected from state acts, which means that no official authority can violate a citizen's fundamental rights unless the procedure established by the Constitution is followed.
To begin with, the term 'personal liberty' in Article 21 was construed to mean that the rights specified in Article 19 were not included. While article 19(1) deals with specific species or aspects of that freedom, 'personal liberty' in Article 21 would take in and constitute the remainder, according to the Kharak Singh [1] case. This was the Gopalan [2] manner of segregating Article 21 from Article 19. Nonetheless, the court granted the word "personal liberty" in Article 21 a very broad interpretation. The Court found that the phrase 'personal liberty' is used as a catch-all term that encompasses all of the rights that make up the 'personal liberties.'
Personal liberty
The terms life and personal liberty refer to a wide range of people's rights that have evolved throughout time as a result of the courts' interpretation of Article 21. We’ll look at how the Supreme Court arrived at those conclusions.
Right to privacy
The right to privacy is regarded a "penumbral right" under the Constitution, which means it is a right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court to be important to the fundamental right to life and liberty, while not being directly mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court derived the right to privacy from Art. 21 and several other constitutional articles, as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy. Various statutes contain provisions that either implicitly or explicitly guarantee this right to privacy, notwithstanding the fact that no single statute imposes a crosscutting "horizontal" right to privacy.
In the Kharak Singh case[3], the Supreme Court ruled that while night domiciliary visits by police (intruding into his home, knocking on his door, and disrupting his sleep and ordinary comfort) are an infringement of an individual's personal liberty under Article 21, secret picketing of the house by police or shadowing of his movements do not fall under Article 19 (1) (d).
Subha Rao J, on the other hand, advocated the minority viewpoint. He disagreed with the majority's assessment that Article 21 omitted what Article 19 guaranteed. He argued for an overlapping approach, in which Articles 21 and 19 are not mutually exclusive, but rather overlap.
With the passage of time, Subba Rao J's viewpoint has become widely accepted. In the Maneka Gandhi case[4], Bhagwati J agreed with the minority's approach in the Kharak Singh case, observing that "the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 has the broadest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute a man's personal liberty, and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct Fundamental rights and given additional protection under article 21."
Is surveillance of certain people against right to privacy?
In the case Govind vs State of Madhya Pradesh[5] , The Supreme Court took a more elaborate appraisal of the right to privacy. In this case, the court was evaluating the constitutional validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which provided for police surveillance of habitual offenders including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects.
The Supreme Court desisted from striking down these invasive provisions holding:
It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to surveillance.
As a result of Arts. 19(a), (d), and 21, the court recognized a limited fundamental right to privacy. As a result, the highest court believes that the right to privacy will have to be developed on a case-by-case basis. Assuming that the right to personal liberty, the ability to freely roam throughout India, and the freedom of speech result in an independent fundamental right of privacy that may be described as a fundamental right, we do not believe that the right is absolute.
A very important case dealing with right to privacy is R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, The Supreme Court was of the opinion that right to privacy is implicit under Article 21 . This right to privacy includes “Right to be left alone”. Without his permission, no one can write anything on his personal life, whether true or false, laudatory or critical. If he does so, he will be infringing on the person's right to privacy and will be held accountable in a damages case. If a person actively thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy, his or her position may be different.[6]
Woman’s right to privacy and Reproductive choices.
A woman's freedom to make reproductive choices encompasses the right to refuse sexual activity or to insist on the use of contraceptive measures such as sterilization treatments, as well as the right to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, and raise children.
A 2009 decision reaffirms that the absolute limitations of 'personal liberty' are impossible to define, but also dictates that such liberty must accommodate public interest. The right of a woman to make reproductive decisions has been deemed a facet of "personal liberty" under Article 21. In the case of Sucheta Srivastav, a 19-year-old orphan woman with slight mental impairment was discovered pregnant (supposedly after being raped) while staying in a government-run welfare institute.
Under the provisions of the "Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971," the Punjab High Court ordered her pregnancy to be terminated based on the report of an expert committee. The victim, on the other hand, had shown a desire to continue her pregnancy. One of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether the victim's Fundamental Right under Article 21 had been violated in the application of the 1971 Act.
The Supreme Court of the opinion that There is no dispute that a woman's right to make reproductive decisions falls under the definition of "personal liberty" as defined by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It's critical to understand that reproductive decisions can be used to both procreate and refrain from procreation. The most important aspect is to respect a woman's right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity.
The Court, on the other hand, found that there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the life of the foetus, and that, as a result, the termination of the pregnancy could only be permitted under the conditions set forth in the 1971 Act, which are to be viewed as reasonable limitations on the exercise of reproductive rights.
Right to travel abroad
The Supreme Court, in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer[7], New Delhi, interpreted the word "personal liberty" to include the right to go abroad within the meaning of Article 21.
The legality of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967, which authorized the government to confiscate a person's passport in the public interest, was challenged before a seven-judge Supreme Court Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. It was argued that because the freedom to travel abroad is a part of the right to "personal liberty," the contested provision did not define any mechanism to deprive her of her liberty, and so was in violation of Art. 21. The court determined that the proposed approach must pass the reasonableness test in order to comply with Art. 21's other fundamental rights.
When using the Passport Act's power of impounding passports, natural justice must be applied.
J. BHAGWATI made the following observation:
The principle of reasonableness, which is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness both legally and philosophically, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence, and it must be "right, just, and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all, and the requirement of Article 21 would not be met.[8]
Right against illegal detention
The petitioner in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh[9] was held by police officers and his whereabouts were not revealed to his family for five days.
The Supreme Court, taking seriously the police high-handedness and unconstitutional detention of a free citizen, established the following standards for arresting a person during an investigation:
If an accused individual is being held in custody, he has the right to have a friend, relative, or other person informed about his arrest and where he is being held, as far as practical. When the arrested person is brought to the police station, the officer must advise him of his right. It will be necessary to record who was informed of the arrest in the diary.
The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [10]established comprehensive guidance for central and state investigating agencies to follow in all cases of arrest and imprisonment until legal provisions are made in that regard as preventive measures, and held that any form of torture or brutal, inhuman, or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation, investigation, or detention, is prohibited.
Right to free legal aid & to appeal
The Supreme Court stated in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra that:
The two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; first, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal and second, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise" while holding free legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure.[11]
This right to free legal assistance is a government responsibility, and it is an inherent component of Article 21 in guaranteeing justice and rationality; it cannot be called government charity. In other words, an accused person who is too poor to afford counsel and is charged with a crime punishable by jail is entitled to legal assistance. The accused's attorney must be provided adequate time and resources to prepare his defense. If these safeguards of a fair trial are violated, the trial and conviction will be thrown out.
Right to bail
The Supreme Court has identified the core cause of protracted pre-trial detention in order to wash away today's unsatisfactory and unreasonable bail laws, which require just financial security from the accused and sureties. Because many of the defendants are impoverished and needy, they are unable to provide financial security. As a result, they must languish in prisons while awaiting their trials. However, the detention of people accused with non-bailable offences while their cases are pending cannot be questioned as a violation of Article 21 because it is legal.
In Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court concluded that the right to bail was included in the personal liberty under Article 21, and that its denial would be a deprivation of that liberty, which might be justified within the law's procedure.[12]
Right Against Solitary Confinement
It has been decided that a convict's fundamental rights are not completely stripped from him, and that his conviction does not turn him into a non-person whose rights are subject to the whims of the prison administration. As a result, any severe penalty imposed inside the prison system is contingent on the adherence of procedural safeguards.
The petitioner in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[13] was sentenced to death by the Delhi session court, and his appeal to the high court was pending. During the pendency of the appeal, he was held in Tihar Jail. He claimed that he had been held in solitary confinement following his conviction by the session court.
It was argued that Section 30 of the Prisoners Act did not authorize jail officials to commit him to solitary confinement, which was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and could not be left to the whims and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner's claim and ruled that the petitioner's solitary detention was in violation of Article 21.
Right against Handcuffing
Handcuffing has been deemed prima facie inhumane, irrational, overly harsh, and, on the surface, arbitrary. It was deemed unjustified and in violation of Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled in Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration that the Rules requiring every under-trial accused of a non-bailable crime punishable in upwards of three years in prison to be handcuffed were unconstitutional. The Court decided that handcuffing should only be used when there was a “clear and present danger” of the accused breaking free from police control while on trial.
Miscellaneous Landmark judgements
In the case District Registrar and Collector vs Canara Bank it was further established that the term "personal liberty" in Article 21 has the broadest meaning and encompasses a wide range of rights that go to make up a man's personal liberty, some of which have been elevated to the status of distinct Fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19. The right to personal liberty also entails a life free of encroachment, which is untenable in legal terms. Any law restricting a person's personal liberty must pass a three-part test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the method must withstand a Fundamental right test under article 19, and (iii) it must be liable to be tested under article 14[14].
A conjectural dialectic cannot justify the construction or reduction of personal liberty. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge believes the prosecution is likely to fail, it is prudent to provide the complainant, informant, or aggrieved party an informal hearing. A judge is required to carry out his difficult job despite any public pressure that may be applied to him. This was held in the case Sandeep kumar bafna v State of Maharashtra.[15]
Preventive justice entails taking steps to prevent illegal activities from being perpetrated. However, because a person's most fundamental human right, personal liberty, is violated, preventative detention rules are vigorously enforced. Furthermore, strict adherence to procedural protections, no matter how technical, is required. Because the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is so sacred and high on the scale of constitutional values, it is the duty of the detaining power to demonstrate that the contested detention was carried out in strict accordance with the law.[16]
It was held in the case of Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi Justice Bhagwati J upheld a detainee's right to have interviews with her friends and family members, ruling that personal liberty includes the freedom to socialize with family and friends, as well as the right to have interviews with her friends.[17]
A individual held in preventive detention wrote a scholarly book, but the authorities forbade him from sending it to his wife for publishing. The Supreme Court ruled in the case " State of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Pandurang " that it was a violation of the detainee's personal liberty since it would be unconstitutional under Article 21 to prevent a person from publishing a book without a legal provision to that effect.[18]
In the case of Sodham Singh, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 21 does not encompass freedom of trade or commerce." The right to carry on any trade or company and Article 21's concept of life and personal liberty are too far apart to be linked together."
In civil litigation, such as when deciding the paternity of a child, no participant can be forced to undergo a medical examination or blood group test against his will unless there is a statutory provision for it. From his refusal to take such a test, no negative conclusion can be formed about him. Otherwise, it would be a breach of his right to personal liberty under Article 21. The right of an accused person to be represented by a lawyer of his choosing is protected, and any interference would be a breach of Article 21.[19]
End-Notes:
- Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332
- A.K Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
- Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332.
- Maneka Gandhi v UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597
- Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1995 SC 264
- R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1978 SC 1548
- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer AIR ,1967 SC 1836
- Maneka Gandhi v UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597
- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
- in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
- Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 527
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
- District Registrar and Collector v Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496
- Sandeep Kumar bafna v State of Maharashtra , (2014) 16 SCC 623
- UOI v Chaya Ghoshal, (2005) 10 SCC 97
- Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
- State of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Pandurang, AIR 1966 SC 424
- Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal v State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 8 SCC 771