Content of Right to Life
·
Francis Coralie v Union Territory of
Delhi (1981) - Right
to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it, namely 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.
·
Right
to means of livelihood is a part of
right to life (Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal
Corporation (1985)
·
Right
to Food (PUCL v Union of India (2001)
·
Right
to Dignified life of the prostitutes (Gaurav Jain v Union of India (1997)
·
Right
to primary education (Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
·
Right
to Shelter ( Gauri Shanker v Union of India (1994)
·
Right
to potable drinking water ( Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000)
·
Right
to seek a ban on injurious drugs to protect health of citizens ( Vincent
Punikurlangara v Union of India (1987)
·
Right
to life does not include right to commit suicide or die.( Gian Kaur v State of
Rajasthan (1996)
·
Active
Euthanasia and assisted death are offences but non-voluntary euthanasia is
permissible subject to certain conditions and safeguards Aruna Ramchandra
Shanbaug v Union of India (2011)
Evolution of Personal
Liberty
·
A K Gopalan v. State of Madras:
o
Petitioner
was detained under the harsh preventive detention act
o
Petitioner
alleged that procedure is not just
o
Court
stated that due process of law and procedure is not part of Indian constitution
o
When
person lawfully deprive of his right under Art.21 or 22 then he cannot ask for
other fundamental rights (14 & 19)
o
Law
means enacted law by the government so protection available is against
executive action
o
Personal
liberty means from physical restrain
·
Kharak Singh v State of UP:
o
Police
notification which allowed for untimely intrusion in house of suspects.
o
Unauthorized
intrusion into a person’s home and disturbance caused to him is a violation of
personal liberty.
o
Court
held that unauthorized entry into home by police and disturb sleep could be
deprived by procedure established by law but since this was administrative action
without backing of law is unconstitutional.
·
Govind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh:
o
Police
notification backed by statutory acts which allowed for untimely intrusion in
house of suspects.
o
Personal
liberty includes right to privacy but the Court upheld the violation of right
to privacy as the regulations had statutory backing.
·
R.Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu:
o
Every
citizen has the right to be let alone and the right to safeguard the privacy of
his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and
education among others.
o
No
one can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent
whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical.
·
State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar
Pandurang:
o
Right
of a prisoner to write and publish a book a part of right to personal liberty.
A prisoner is entitled to all his fundamental rights unless his liberty has
been constitutionally curtailed.
·
Satwant Singh v Assistant Passport
Officer:
o
Right
to travel is included within the expression ‘personal liberty’ and therefore no
person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure
established by law.
o
Every
citizen has the Right to go abroad.
·
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India:
o
“The
expression “personal liberty” in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers
a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some
of them have been raised to the status of distinct FRs and given additional
protection under Art. 19.”
·
Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT (2009):
o
Case
concerned with constitutionality of §377 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner
contended that the provision was violative of right of privacy of homosexuals.
o
Delhi
HC held that it was unconstitutional.
·
Selvi v State of Karnataka:
o
Involuntary
subjection to tests such as polygraph examination, narco-analysis and BEAP
violates right to privacy.
·
Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar:
o
Right
to speedy trial is a part of fair just and reasonable procedure and thus
protected by Article 21.
·
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of
India (1984):
o
Right
of bonded labor to be released and rehabilitated is a part of right to life and personal liberty
and right to live with dignity.
From Procedure Established
By Law to Due Process of Law
·
A K Gopalan v State of Madras: Took a strict interpretation of procedure
established by law and rejected due process of law. Case discussed in detail
above.
·
ADM, Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla:
o
Article
21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty against
its illegal deprivation by the executive and in case enforcement of Article 21
was suspended by a presidential order under Article 359, the Court could not
enquire whether the executive action depriving a person of his life or personal
liberty was authorized by law.
·
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India:
o
Maneka’s
passport seized under 10(3)(c) of Passport Act, 1967 which empowered authority
to do so in public interest.
o
Article
21 does not exclude Articles 19 and 14. A law prescribing a procedure for
depriving a person of his life and personal liberty will have to meet the
requirement of Article 19 as well the principle of reasonableness embodied in
Article 14.
o
Principle
of reasonableness an essential element of equality and non-arbitrariness
pervades Article 14 and must equally apply to procedure in Article 21.
o
Hence
procedure depriving a person of his life or personal liberty must be fair, just
and reasonable and not arbitrary, fanciful or capricious or oppressive.
o
The
case implanted procedural due process and not substantive due process.
·
Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1978):
o
Krishna
Iyer, J: True our Constitution has no ‘due process’ clause but after Cooper and
Maneka Gandhi, the consequence is the same
o
Desai
J: the word law in the expression ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21
has been interpreted to mean in Maneka Gandhi Case that the law must be right,
just and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive
·
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab:
o
The
Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 302 of IPC dealing with death
penalty as not violating Article 14, 19, and 21.
o
Justice
Bhagwati in his dissenting opinion for the first time declared a substantive
law as unreasonable and thus unconstitutional law.(Substantive Due Process). He
held that Section 302 read with Section 354 Cr PC was unconstitutional and thus
void.
·
T Sareetha v T Venkata:
o
Andhra
Pradesh High Court held Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act providing for
restitution of conjugal rights to be barbarous and savage remedy violating
Article 21 right to privacy and human dignity. The Court held that after Maneka
Article 21 is no longer confined to procedural reasonableness but extends to
substantive reasonableness.
o
Case
was overruled in Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha.
·
Selvi v State of Karnataka:
o
The
Court held that Article 20(3) forcing an individual to undergo lie detection
test violated standards of substantive due process.
·
Naz Foundation v. State of Delhi NCT:
o
Delhi
High Court held that Article 21 incorporates substantive due process and struck
down Section 377 as violating Articles14,15 and 21 of the Constitution and
therefore unconstitutional.
o
Case
was overruled in Suresh Kumar Koushal v
Naz.
.jpg)
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment