08 - Chapter 4
08 - Chapter 4
INTRODUCTION
Rigyeda II Recites -
“Grant us a hundred autumns that we may see the manifold world. May
we attain the long lives which have been ordained as from yore.”
Life is beyond price. Freedom and liberties are only for the living.
“The fundamental right to life ... is the most precious human right and ...
forms the arc of all other rights...” (para 5).
importance, because if one’s life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be
The word ‘life’ however doesnot mean mere animal existence. This
“... By the term ‘life’, ... something more is meant than mere
177
animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all
those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.... The deprivation not
only of life, but of whatever God has given to everyone with life, for its
This was accepted for the first time by a Constitution Bench in Kharak
Administration5
“... The question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only
to protection of limb or faculty, or does it go further and embrace
something more. We think that the right to life includes the right to live
with human dignity and all that goes along with its, 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 co-mungling with
fellow human beings.”
But the Court also recognised that the magnitude and content of the
development of the country; but still the concept of ‘life’ must include the
right to basic necessities and the right to carry on such functions and
178
activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human-self.
H.R. Khanna rightly observed that sanctity of life and liberty was not
that no one shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily without the authority of
law was not the gift of the Constitution. It was a necessary corollary of
the concept relating to sanctity of life and liberty, it existed and was in
Although right to life is basic and most fundamental of all the other
rights, yet the term ‘life’ has not been defined in the Constitution and
therefore we must turn to judiciary for its interpretation. The Supreme Court in
179
committed by State by lawful means.
human being. This is a fact that an accused / a convict does not forfeit his
being and has all those rights which a free person enjoys. The only
kind.
provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
India to the people in the country. Denial of this basic right means denial
of all other rights because none of other rights would have any utility and
from birth to death of every living being, but in broad sense, life means
vitality etc. The right to life does not merely mean the sanctity of life. It
180
potentiality to the highest level possible in the existing stage of our
member of a civilized society and have all the freedoms and advantages
phrase ‘due process’ in respect of life and liberty but in the final draft,
of the Japanese Constitution of 1946 was, substituted for the ‘due process
of law' because it was more definite and was free from the vagueness and
that every one has the right to life, liberty and security of person. This
181
Moreover, the amalgamation of right to life with that of personal liberty
has made the article absolutely sacred and not subject to any other
become a sanctuary for human values and therefore has been rightly
civilized society. Right to life and Personal Liberty has both negative and
conducive for living with dignity. Its negative content requires that none
just, face and reasonable procedure. The right to life and personal liberty
does not mean the continuance of. a person’s animal existence but a right
enjoyed.
to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the executive, and not from
the legislative action. The State could interfere with the liberty of citizens
if it could support its action by a valid law. But, since the passing of
the right to life and personal liberty of citizens not only from the
182
Executive action but from the legislative action also. Maneka’s case
opened up new dimension and laid down that it imposed a limitation upon
procedure which is reasonable, fair and just. The right secured by Article
foreigner can claim this right. However, Article 21 applies only to natural
21 can be claimed only when a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty
21. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions
are compiled, with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be
procedure prescribed by the law, provided that the procedure is just, fair not
reasonable.
the executive so that it may not proceed against life or personal liberty of
183
with the procedure laid down therein. Before a person is deprived of his
followed and must not be departed from to the detriment of the person
private individual and not by a under the authority of the State. By the use
by law. Law in this expression means State made law or enacted law and
not the general principles like that of natural justice. The procedure
narrowly and in a very literal sense. But, the Maneka Gandhi case
184
interpreted low liberally that now it covers in its ambit a variety of rights
possible manner. It does not simply mean physical life, but also cover
achievements. The right to life does not mean the continuance of person’s
personality and potentiality to the highest level possible in the existing stage of
that would go to make life agreeable. The right implies to reasonable standard
human right. Justice H.R. Klianna rightly observed that sanctity of life and
liberty was not something new when the constitution was drafted. It represented
185
its evolution from a State of truth and claw to a civilized existence.
Likewise, the principle that no one shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily
without the authority of law was not the gift of the Constitution. It was a
existed and was in force before the coming into force of the Constitution.16
Although right to life is basic and most fundamental of all the other
rights yet the term ‘life’ has been defined in the Constitution and
therefore we must turn to judiciary for its interpretation. The Supreme Court in
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P17 held that the word ‘life’ as it occurs in 5th and
person’s animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs,
his arms, legs etc.18 Justice KR. Krishna Iyer attaches great
there are chances of his committing a murder again. Special reasons must
be laid down by the judge pronouncing death sentence that why accused
186
is being deprived of his right to life (i.e, why is he being hanged) and why
in relasing tension and other stresses that led the accused to commit murder.20
by Justice HR. Krishna Iyer. He has pleaded that death sentence given to
Satwant and Kehar Singh found guilty of the then Prime Minster Mrs.
public interest. The authors, in the following pages have tried to highlight
When the Constitution was being framed, the world used in the
draft as prepared even upto the stage of the Advisory Committee was
“liberty” without it being qualified by the word “personal”. But then, the
include even the freedoms already dealt in Article 13” (Article 13 of the
187
Constituent Assembly about the addition of the word "personal" when the
draft was debated. The result is that Article 21 as it finally found place in
bodily restraint and "liberty" under the law, but extends to full range of
conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The width, scope and
The Bench felt its inability to hold that the term was intended to
"... On the other hand, (we) consider that ’personal liberty’ is used in
the Article as a compendious term to include within
188
itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the 'personal
liberties' of man other than those dealt with in the several clauses of
Article 19(1). In other words, while Article 19(1) deals with
particular species or attributes of that freedom, 'personal liberty' in
Article 21 takes in and comprises the residue."
for the development of human personality in its fullest extent and happy
life. Its purpose is to help the individual to find his own viability, to give
from alienating the individual from his impulses. But the scope of
189
opinion, this negative right of not being subjected to any form of
physical restraint or coercion that constitutes the essence of personal
liberty."24
Article 19 guarantees only some of the freedoms but does not mean that
citizens don't have other freedoms like freedom to eat what one likes. His
Lordship observed:
narrow definition of the term does not hold good. Its Scope has been
expanded to include within its ambit, the right to sleep, right to travel
speedy trial, right to free legal aid to the poor and needy29 and many
other rights. Thus, the expression "personal liberty" has been given the
190
ment of the individual.
Life is beyond price. Freedom and liberties are only for the living.
The term dignity has been derived from latin word ‘dignitas’ which
for each individual. As far as there are people who are concerned for you,
you have dignity. Having sexual intercourse other than the spouse is not a
case30 and held that the right to live is not merely confined to physical
existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live human dignity.
Bhagwati, J. stated that the fundamental right to life ... is the most
precious human right and ... forms the arc of all other rights .... In the
191
present case, the petitioner, a British national challenged the
could have interview with his legal advisor only once in a month and that
too only after obtaining prior permission of District Magistrate, Delhi and
order for detention could be made under Section 5 of the Act. The Court
while explaining the scope of the “right to life” enshrined under Article
21 observed:
The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all
that goes alongwith it, namely, the bare necessities 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.
to them to their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of
192
Article 21 of the constitution. Again, in the Board of Trustees Port of
drudgery through life and it has a much wider meaning. The Bench, after
Autyanyyprasi,34 it has been held that “life in its expanded horizons today
includes all that give meaning to man’s life, including his tradition,
culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure
Article 21 derives its life and breath from the Directive Principles
of State Policy and particularly Clause (e) and (f) of Article 39 and
193
health and strength of the workers working in factories, fields, mines,
project sites etc. The decision in Asiad’s case has heralded a new legal
various welfare legislations. Its a truth that man cannot enjoy life unless
judiciary has shown its deep concern for such people . Through judicial
activism it has given a new content and meaning to the letter of law. The
Supreme Court has held that right to live with human dignity is the
fundamental right of every citizen and the State is under duty to provide at
Right to Privacy -
things, which are private, away from the public gaze. There is a right to
live, but there is a right to privacy. Though it is true that the Indian
194
Constitution does not explicitly guarantee this right as a fundamental
right certainly the right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, should be
right in areas that remained away from the purview of courts. It also
Meaning of Privacy -
times, the historical context, the- state of the culture and the prevailing
notion of privacy and the govermnent, which seeks the means to protect
195
Right to Privacy is a right to be let alone. It is right of a person to
and an absolute or pure right springing from the instinct of nature. Right
chooses for himself to enjoy his life, his family life, honour and reputa
tion. The ancient text establishes that since time immemorial the Indian
purview the right to travel, religious freedom and conscience etc. The
196
under definition was expressed in the dissent of Black, J. in the same case
who was agreeable to view the right to privacy solely as a ground for
the nineteenth century when he wrote that "privacy" is synonymous with "the
crystallising the right of privacy with the famous article of two able
Volume 4. The root of the right started with lawyer's reaction against
time it has attracted all the academicians, Lawyers and the judiciary and
197
man with an understanding of the legitimate needs of the community would
was moved by Kazi Syed Karimuddin and it was also supported by Dr. B.R.
personal liberty.
of personal liberty. The right relating to privacy has had to pass through a
most strenuous struggle during the last four decades and it seems that it
would still have to struggle hard. The manner in which an eight-Judge Bench
198
Govind v. State ofM.P46 in 1975 and thereafter a two-Judge Bench in R.
and Liberty, is apt to remind us of the famous dictum of Justice Vivian Bose in
the more puzzled he would be "for it is not till one is learned in the law
English words, which any man of average intelligence, not versed in law,
or liberty "to be let alone" and to the "full range of conduct" which a person is
was thought that the Right to Privacy, having suffered death twice before
cinder," but "in Govind the cherished Right has risen Phoenix-like from,
199
Court has given the Right a new lease of life." During the recent times,
things have changed to a great extent and today man is asserting his right
legislatures have not yet recognized the right of privacy, our judiciary is
Article 21."
confined to any class, creed, colour or race. It is the birth right of a human
while raiding a brothel, proceeded to the bed room of a girl, and pushed
open the door even without the civility of a knock to prepare her for the
privacy' is available to a woman of easy virtue and no one can invade her
privacy. In the present case, a police Inspector visited the house of one
200
Banubai in uniform and demanded to have sexual inter-course with her.
On refusing he tried to have her by force. She raised a hue and cry. When
he was prosecuted he told the Court that she was a lady of easy virtue and
therefore her evidence was not to be relied. The Court rejected the
argument of the applicant and held him liable for violating her right to
this respect two leading decisions of the Supreme Court viz., Kharak
201
whether "surveillance" of the petitioner under U.P. Police Regula tions
amounts to infringement of Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court
after referring to the views of American judges on privacy and also to its
Fourth and Fifth Amendments observed that as such our Constitution
does not confer any right to privacy, but recognized that an unauthorised
intrusion into person's home and disturbance caused to him thereby is as
it were the violation of common law rights of man an ultimate essential
of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilization. Hence, Court
struck down the regulations that authorized domiciliary visits since it
was not a law but a mere executive instruction. Subba Rao, J. speaking
for minority, held that right to privacy though not expressly declared in
our Constitution, is an essential ingredient of the personal liberty.56
assertion that these Articles included right of privacy. This case came up
Singh's case for its decision. In Kharak Singh's, case, the U.P. Police
Madhya Pradesh under Section 46(2)(c) of the Police Act and hence were
held to have the force of law. In the instant case, the petitioner pointed
out that the police were making domiciliary visits by day and by night,
202
picketing his house and approaches thereto. Keeping a watch on his
irksome' or humiliating.
203
The Supreme Court considered this type of information as
intrusion into the right of Privacy. Meera Mathur was ordered to be reinstated.
to tap telephones the Supreme Court has ruled that telephone tapping
The Court stressed upon the need to frame just and fair rules under the
Indian Telegraph Act. However, till such rules are framed the Court
opined that it is necessary to lay down guidelines for the purpose. It said
the govermnent could resort to telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Act
only with proper authorization by the Union Home Secretary or his counter-
204
tapping could be obtained from a senior officer not below the rank of
The Court further clarified that order for tapping of telephone shall
also directed both at the Centre and State levels to review any order
the State level would comprise of Chief Secretary and the Home
the details of these material being disclosed to the officials and other persons .62
judicially defined. Whether the right could be claimed or that it had been
infringed, would defend on the facts of the given case. But the right to
205
without interference, could certainly be claimed as liberty. The Court
life and an important facet of man's private life." Therefore, the Court
ruled that telephone tapping would infract Article 21, unless it was
upon individual privacy. The member nations have agreed to obstruct the
the understanding that individuals can legitimately claim that data about
over that data and its use. Thus, every individual has the desire to control,
Flowing from this, it is quite natural that individuals feel that the need for
206
opposing interests too, but protection is a process of finding appropriate
information. Therein only a single provision dealing with this and that
"Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time
being in force, if any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers
conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has
secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence,
information, document or other material without the consent of the
person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register,
correspondence, information, document or other material to any other
person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or fine which may extend to one lakh, or with both."
207
parties without the consent of the person who the information relates to.
Certifying Authorities under the Act. It is also apparent that the larger
was violative of Article 14, 19,20 and 21 of the Constitution. In this case
the two convicts who were confined Tihar Central Jail failed two
Section 56 of the Prisons Act. Sunil Batra was sentenced to death by the
District and Sessions Judge and his sentence was subject to the
208
Judge that was on 6th July, 1976 he was kept insolitary confinement till
Superintendent of Jail putting him into bar fetters. He was arrested on 6th
July, 1976 and detained under Section 3 of MIS A. Since the time he was
argument of the petitioners and held that section 30 of the Prison Act did
be imposed by a court of law. That, it could not be left to the whim and
to Section 30(2) of the Prison Act, 1894 “which provide for confinement
209
of a prisoner under sentence of death in a cell apart from other prisoners,”
magistrate. After this the said accused can be detained in police custody
or in jail only with the authority of the Court. But often we find in
the public interest petition the court warned that in some cases accused persons
were not produced before the judicial magistrates. Subsequent to their first
remand orders being passed by the judicial magistrates. This was plainly
210
contrary to law. The provision inhibiting detention without remand is a
police.
our legal system. The situation becomes more serious when the confined
case the Court noted the practice of placing the application made by a
against her wishes before the Supreme Court and half month after it was
be placed before' the Court forthwith. The two-Judge Bench of the apex
Court took a serious note and a direction was given to produce her before
allegations were correct and if so to set her after liberty. The Court
further said that as a long time has already elapsed and suitable action
against officials who were found responsible for this delay and also to
211
ensure that such aberrations were not repeated.
by the police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family for
informed the Supreme Court that the petitioner was not detained rather
he was kept by the police officer for helping them for detecting some
and illegal detention of a free citizen. Since the petitioner had been
released, there was no need to grant the relief by way of writ habeas
arrest of a person during investigation. This has been done with a view to
strike the balance between the needs of the police on the one hand and
at the hands of law enforcing agencies. The Court in this case held that a
of the police officer effecting the arrest that such arrest was necessary
and justified. Following are the guidelines laid down by the Court:
212
known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare, told as
far as practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being
detained.
(ii) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is
brought to the police station of this right.
(iii) An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was
under Article 11 of the. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But this
was held by the Supreme Court that to cast a person because of his
213
of Article 21, unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful
failure to pay inspite of his sufficient means and absence of more terribly
pressing claims on his means such as medical bills to treat cancer or
other grave illness."
a ground for depriving personal liberty. Justice KR. Krishna Iyer further
"where, the judgment debtor if once had the means to pay the debt but
subsequently, after the date of decree, has no such means or he had
money on which there are other pressing claims, it is violative of Article
11 of the International Covenant to arrest him and confine him in Jail so
as to coerce him into payment."
He furtherheld:71
basis of all human rights and the sanctom sanctorum of the constitutional
214
temple. If there were no right to life, there would be no point in having
the field of prisons has been emergence of the prisoner's right touchstone,
discourse has its roots in the United Nations initiatives concerning civil
and political rights at the international level, and the enactment of the
level, the real impetus came from the activist appellate court rulings,
down that all persons deprived- of their liberty shall be treated with
rights has brought in its wake new thinking about human sufferings and
the concept of right to life and personal liberty has acquired new
dimensions. The appalling and inhuman conditions inside the jails where
the accused and convicts were kept, had been the subject of criticism but
215
world this is a fact, now accepted almost universally that a convict does
not forfeit his basic rights, even when he is in jail. A prisoner does not
cease to be a human being and hence has all those rights which a free
man enjoys. Nothing concrete was done by the executive to define the
humanity has been implied. Justice KR. Krishna Iyer observed, "Basic
enforced within the prison campus." The then Chief Justice Chandra
"Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction, denuded to all the
issued several directions to the State that the convict be assigned work
216
intellectual or like type with a little manual labour. The Court took the
stand that a person goes to the prison mainly because of the Court's order
and therefore, the Courts have a concern about what happens to him from
the first day till the last day. The interventionist approach has grown and
was recognized that 'right to life' is more than mere animal existence.
discrimination was done with him. The Court restricted such treatment
217
prison for an offence, but his right to life cannot be extinguished even in
lodged in Pakud Sub-Jail in Santhal Pargana for the last 8 years without
their trial making any progress. They were compelled to work outside jail
walls for fetching water etc. but they were made to put leg irons. Justice
irons in violation to the decision of the Court nor could they be asked to
violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that the
would be violative of Article 21, unless the curtailment has the backing of
218
law.79 Further, the thread was picked up by Justice FR. Krishna Iyer in Prem
inhuman and, therefore, not reasonable, is over harsh and at the first flush
arbitrary.
wages. It is not only the legal right of a workman to have wages for
reforms and appoint a high powered committee within a year to look into
prisoners. Justice Bhawani Singh speaking for the Court directed that
behalf1 The perusal stands as a strong testimony to the fact that courts in
India are contributing a lot to provide reliefs to the prisoners as and when
prison authorities go astray and flout the spirit of laws designed to protect
219
of prisoners classification into 'B' and 'C' on the basis of social, economic
backgrounds and life style have been resolved by the Duggal Committee
Report 1997, which has suggested that such law and practice is violative
arrested and put in jeopardy of his life or personal liberty. The Court
observed:84
220
legal assistance to prisoners in jails, the Court directed the Inspector
221
Law."86 The rights inherent in Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution
the problem. Justice A.S. Anand who delivered the judgment on behalf of the
lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become a law
permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to
life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a
established by law. Justice Kuldeep Singh, in the above said case, proceeded
222
Right to Speedy Trial -
The most glaring malady which has afflicted the judicial system is
the tardy process and inordinate delay that takes place in the disposal of
increasing every day. Krishna Iyer, J. and Bhagwati, J. were aware of all
on
reasonable and not oppressive or fanciful. If the procedure is not just, fair
The apex Court has observed that in the broad sweep and content of
"No procedure which does not ensure reasonably a quick trial can be
regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fail foul of Article 21.
There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial
we mean reasonably expeditious trial, in an integral and essential part of
fundamental right to life, liberty enshrined in Article 21."
223
90
example, State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjabi Shah, T.V.
Justice A.P. Sen and. justice Baharul Islam reaffirmed that Article 21 of
that denial of a speedy trial may with or without proof of something more
be denied a fair trial. Further, 'a fair trial implies a speedy trial'. In Kadra
"3 more years have passed, but they are still rotting in jail, not knowing
what is happening to their case. They are perhaps reconciled to their
fate, living in a small world of their own cribbed, cabined and confined
within the four walls of the prison. The outside world just does not exist
for them. The Constitution has no meaning and significance, and human
rights no relevance for them. It is a crying shame upon our adjucatory
system which keeps man in jail for years on end without a trial."
224
undertrials. In this case Justice Krishna Iyer found that two petitioners
had spent seven years in jail without trial. He found further that the
Court and was insensitive to the plight of the undertrials rotting in jails
for long years. He found that even Magistrates "have bidden farewell to
attention to the failure of the police to investigate promptly and the prison
staff to find out how long these undertrials should languish in jail. In the
fact of this failure of the limbs of law and justice, the Judge wondered
like any of us. 'If the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be
salted"? He ordered the release of the two petitioners on their own bonds
too, undertrials face similar trials and tribulations. The Court found in
this case that the respondent was in jail since November, 1978 awaiting
trial. The counsel for the respondent alleged that there were serious
225
charges against the petitioner, but when directed by the court to produce a
was unable to do so. On the contrary the counsel informed the Court that
in some cases the petitioners had been tried and acquitted. The Court,
therefore, ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 500 deploring the
facts too shocking for words. Out of 16 prisoners, who were of unsound
mind at the time when they were admitted into prison, 14 were there for
two to three decades. Some of them had regained sanity but not freedom.
Six of the prisoners, who had not regained sanity, were in prison for over
was not the place for treating the mentally sick. Out of two persons
released from jail, one had spent 35 years and the other 29 years in jail.
The cases of remaining eight are also tragic. One of them had spent in all
37 years in jail before court ordered his release, quashing the charge that
sanity but not freedom in 1966. Another prisoner had become sane in
226
1961 but he too was in prison till 1982.
Bench speaking through Jeevan Reddy, J., has traversed the entire
the matter which have any relevance to speedy trial were convassed
before the Court and the Bench did full justice to the submissions. The
petitioners A.R., Antulay and Ranjan submitted before the Court that the
years must be counted from the registration of the crime till the conduct
of the trial; retrial ought not to be ordered beyond this period and the
on the State of Bihar coming on appeal against the Full Bench Judgment
of the Patna High Court have been noted in / paragraph 21, wherein
227
of the Vlth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
specifically providing for the right of speedy trial, did not incorporate the
justice and fairness with many other interests which are compelling and
fundamental right, i.e., the right to equality in Article 14, It was further
urged that the Court must respect legislative policy and statute of
It was contended that there may be some kinds of delay which would
was also urged that the delay is usually welcomed by the accused and an
accused cannot raise this plea if he has never taken steps to demand a
speedy trial. The final submission was that possibility of prejudice is not
The Court started its own discussion from paragraph 26 and first noted
the sixth amendment to the American Constitution and then stated that it was
228
Maneka Gandhi's case that this article got unshackled. Hussainara
decisions were then noted and in paragraph 40 it was observed that the
right to speedy trial has since been embedded in the statutory law. In this
paragraphs 42 to 46. The Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court,
against which the criminal appeal had been filed, the same being
Madheshwar Dhari Singh v. State cf Bihar 1 (YJ was taken note of and dealt
with in paragraphs 47 and 48, in which the High Court put an outer limit
of 10 years for offences punishable with capital sentences and 7 years for
stating "One may ask—speedy means, how speedy? How long a delay is
too long"? and it was noted that even in the United States, the Supreme
Court has refused to draw a line. The Bench further stated that except for
the Patna decision, which was under appeal, no other decision of any
High Court in the country taking such a view was brought to its notice.
The outer limit even did not function in the United Kingdom. In
paragraph 52, the 'demand' rule was not accepted by stating that an
accused does not prosecute himself, and so, it is the obligation of the
229
promptitude. Of course, the Bench observed that if an accused demands
speedy trial and yet he is not given one, the same may be a relevant
that consequence may follow; but in a given case, the facts including the
nature of the offence may be such that quashing of charges may not be in
the interest of justice. It was pointed out that after all, every offence,
The Court, after applying its mind to all the relevant considerations
230
all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal, revision and re-trial. That is how this Court has
understood this right and there is no reason to take restricted
view.
3. The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point
of view of accused are:
(a) The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be
as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not
be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration
prior to his conviction;
(b) The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation
and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged
investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and
(c) Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of
the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death,
dis-appearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise.
4. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that it is usually the
accused who is interested in delaying the proceedings. As is often
pointed out, "delay is known defence tactic." Since the burden of
proving the guilt of the accused lies upon the prosecution, delay
ordinarily prejudices the prosecution. Non-availability of
witnesses, disappearance of evidence by lapse of time really work
against the interest of the prosecution. Of course, there may be
cases where the prosecution, for whatever reason, also delays the
231
proceedings. Therefore, in every case, where the right to speedy
trial is alleged to have been in-fringed, the first question to be put
and answered is—who is responsible for the delay? Proceedings
taken by either party in good faith, to vindicate their rights and
interest, as perceived by them, cannot be treated as delaying
tactics nor can the time taken in pursuing such proceedings be
counted towards delay. It goes without saying that frivolous
proceedings or proceedings taken merely for delaying the day of
reckoning cannot be treated as proceedings taken in good faith.
The mere fact that an application/petition is admitted and an
order of stay granted by a superior court is by itself no proof that
the proceedings is not frivolous. Very often these stays are
obtained on ex parte representation.
232
advantage. As has been observed by Powell, J. in Barker "it
cannot be said how long a delay is too long in a system where
justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate." The same ideal has
been stated by White, J. in U.S. v. Ewell,103 in the following
words:
"the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial is necessarily
relative, is consistent with delays, and has orderly
expedition, rather than mere speed, as its essential
ingredients; and whether delay in completing a
prosecution amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of
the rights depends upon all the circumstances."
233
speedy trial cannot be put against the accused. Even in
U.S.A., the relevance of demand rule has been substantially
watered down in Barker and other succeeding cases.
234
of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the
prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time,
it is the duty of the Court to weigh all the circumstances of a
given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The
Supreme Court of U.S.A. too has repeatedly refused to fix any
such outer time limit in spite of the sixth Amendment. Nor do
we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the
guarantee of right to speedy trial.
The law laid down as above was then applied to the two cases at
hand and in both of them quashing was refused, though in one case
(Antulay's) the Special Court had been constituted in 1982, and in the
other (Ranjan's), the accused had been arrested in 1975; instead, direction
speedy trial would prove merely an 'abstract right' and the whole 'digging'
235
shall go waste.104 It is high time for the Supreme Court to prescribe some
'reasonable time limit' within which a case must be finally disposed of.
The apex court has also propounded following three principles in the case of
months from the date of filing of the compliant or lodging of the F.I.R. if
the investigation is not completed within this time, the case against the
child must be treated closed. (2) If within three months, the chargesheet is
of not more than seven years, the case must be tried and disposed of
within a further period of six months and this period should be inclusive
superior court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the
Thus, the position is that the child offenders, below the age of 16
236
for seven years or less, have fundamental right of speedy trial. Once it
has been ruled by the apex court that the right to speedy trial is an
Supreme Court has not so far issued writ of mandamus against the State
One of the notable cases on speedy trial reported during the year 1996
long period were brought to the notice of the Court. The Supreme Court
released on the conditions laid down by it in the order. The Court also
laid down guidelines and issued directions for the disposal of other
237
offences relating to army, navy and air force; offences against public
tranquillity; offences relating to public servants; offences relating to. coins and
and offences against the State. These direction shall be valid for all the
States and Union Territories and would apply not only to pending cases
but also to the future cases. Some of the directions were clarified and
t f!7
modified by the apex Court in the subsequent cases.
reasonable. It follows from this that if a person faces a trial which may
to be fair. One of the attributes of fair trial is that the same has to be open. In
Nine Judges made some very important observations as to why trial must
observed that public trial in open court is essential for the healthy,
the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial
238
administration of justice. It was then observed that public confidence in
and must permit the public admission to the Court room. It was, however,
pointed out that cases may occur when the requirement of administration
of justice itself may make it necessary for the court to hold trial in
Camera. This view was by stating that despite the importance of public
to do justice between the parties who bring their causes before it, and so,
if a judge trying a case is satisfied that the very purpose of finding truth
of his inherent power to hold the trial in camera either partly or fully.
Section 327, Cr. P.C. states that the court shall be open to which the
public generally may have access in so far as the same can conveniently
contain them.109 The point, however, came up before the Supreme Court
Gandhi murder case) that whether holding of trial in jail satisfied this
239
requirement. The Bench comprising of three Judges opined that because
the trial took place in jail, it did not cease to be open, in view of the language
used in Section 327 of the Code. It was further held that merely because
measures, the trial did not cease to be open. Ojha, J. referred to the
attend the trial has a right to go and attend the same, subject to the
premises. Ray, J. pointed out that though public trial in open court is a
rule, yet in cases where the ends of justice would be defeated if the trial is
held in public, in that case the court has inherent jurisdiction to hold trial
in camera. Shetty, J. opined that jail is not a prohibited place, nor can jail
can be held in jail. The learned Judge further pointed out that there
stage, to achieve which the Presiding Judge must have full control over
the court-house and the accused must have all facilities to have a fair trial
240
and all safeguards to avoid prejudice.
to enhance the sentence by acting upon plea of guilty? The court opined
that it would be not reasonable and fair, and what the appellate or
and, sentence and remand the case for trial, so that if the accused can, if
embodies the principles of fair trial. The court opined that the purpose of
vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence. The
241
object which such a provision seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with
State of J&K. The petitioner was detained in custody and was not
Constitution.
Right to Bail -
surety for his appearance at the trial, because the guilt of the accused is to be
bail has a long history with its roots in English and American Law. In
medieval England, the custom grew out of the need .to free untried
prisoners from disease ridden jails while they were waiting for the
242
responsibility for assuring their appearance at trial. If the accused did not
appear, his bailer would stand trial in his place. Under the early English Law,
for him and acted as surety for his appearance in the court. If the accused
was not delivered, the surety then used to be liable. Later, the friend
could pledge his property such as his house or land, but still remained the
provides the necessary relief. The system of bail is, therefore, an essential
guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for liberal approach in the
dealing with liberty of citizens who are innocent in the eyes of law, until
system, recognized by Articles 19,21 and 22. After all personal liberty of
243
Article 21.115 It is a settled law, that grant of bail is a rule and refusal of
be an innocent until final decision of the Court holding him guilty of the
and against the principles of equity, fair play and natural justice.
exercised not casually, but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to
244
While dealing with the question whether some constraints and
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was
observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab that in order to meet the
reasonable, and so, word may not be read in the section to make it unjust
or unfair. On the basis of this judgment, it can be stated that if a bail order
what was stated therein in this regard shall apply to cases of post-arrest
bail also.
'appearance of the accused was necessary for the grant of bail? Some of
the High Courts were of the view that accused must appear physically
before bail was granted. The words "appears" or "is brought before a
court" in Sections 496 and 497 (Sections 436 and 437 of the new Code)
the idea that the accused is produced before a court and has surrendered
245
submitted that the former view appears to be more correct and based on
sound reasons.
was advocated for releasing the accused pending trial. But / the problem
of bail generally hinges upon the discretion of the Court. This system of
bail is very discriminatory where the poor are priced out of their liberty in
the justice market and it remains a remedy only for the rich. In the instant
case, it was stressed that instead of financial loss, other factors such as
obligation. The enquiry into the solvency of the accused can become a
source of great harassment to him and often result in denial of bail and
discrimination.
246
the only deterrent against fleeing from justice. The courts mechanically insist
that accused should produce sureties; and must establish their solvency to be
able to pay the amount of the bail in case the accused fails
lawyer who get. them released on bail. The erratic system of bail is an
deterrent against fleeing from justice but there are also other factors
which act as equal deterrents such as family tie, roots in community, job
concern to provide for legal aid so that equality before law becomes
of social and economic justice and ensure equality before law and equal
247
protection of law to all citizens. According to the penal law of our
shown that it is an irony of fate that operation of our legal system does
not provide sufficient means by which a poor and illiterate person who
has been convicted and sentenced could know what is the infringement of
law on his part for which he is convicted or what the law is.
dealing with equal justice and free legal aid. In 1978, the apex court took
down that Article 21, read with Articles 39-A and 142, requires, inter
court shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the sentence
248
prisoner's defence, provided the party does not object to that lawyer.
the Constitutional obligation does not arise only when the trial
commences, but also when the accused is for the first time produced
before the Magistrate. It is at this stage that the accused gets his first
opportunity to apply bail and obtain his release as also to resist remand to
police or jail custody and so the accused needs competent legal advice
Justice Bhagwati stated that the scope of the right to free legal aid
involves the duty of every Magistrate and Sessions Judge to inform the
accused produced before them of their entitlement for free legal services
irrespective of the offence the accused is charged with. The apex Court
249
has directed all the State Governments to make provision for grant of
free legal service to the poor accused person. Legal aid got embedded in
Court held that a writ will not be issued to enforce the provisions of
equivalent to the scale of fee which was being paid to the Government
legal aid at state cost. In the instant case, four accused were tried under
Section 506 Indian Penal Code without the assistance of a lawyer. They
were convicted and before the High Court it was pleaded that they were
not given the assistance of a lawyer. The High Court dismissed the
appeal with the plea that they were required to ask for a lawyer. The
Supreme Court confirmed the Courts view but made certain observations
m respect of legal aid. It was held that free legal assistance at State cost is a
250
specific application by such poor or ignorant person for such a legal
assistance.
two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has again observed recently in State of
settled that the right to legal aid and speedy trial are parts of the guarantee
case, it was held that in a fit case the Court can direct the ruling
politicians to carry out the Directive Principles even through these are
observed that to provide free legal aid is State duty and not Governments
charity.
Civil and Political Rights which provides that in the determination of any
251
not have legal assistance of this right and to have legal assistance assigned to
without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means
suggested for making provisions of free legal assistance by State for all
punishment and it were only the number of offences which have varied
Legal Provisions -
regulate the penal law in India. In the objects and reasons of this code, the
framers had observed that the death penalty should be sparingly inflicted.
252
thereof (Section 132);
(iii) Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent
person suffers death (Section 194);
(iv) Murder (Section 302);
(v) Murder by life convict (Section 303);
(vi) Abetment of suicide of child or insane person (Section 305);
(vii) Attempt to murder by a life convict, if hurt is caused (Section
307); and
(viii) Decoity with murder (Section 396).
Out of these eight offences, for which death penalty has been
307), Judge is left with no discretion but to punish the offender with
from these offences, death penalty has been prescribed under special laws
viz., the Air Force Act, 1950; the Army Act, 1950; the Navy Act, 1957;
the Indian Railways Act, 1890; and the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, POT A.135 The penalty of death can be
253
of Sessions has to be confirmed by the High Court of the State before the
sentence is executed.
The Judicial trend in India reveals that it has always upheld right of
the State to kill a wrong doer. It may, however, not be denied that the
par excellence, attempts have been made from time to time to attack the
of fair, just and reasonable procedure has been evolved by the apex Court
for the deprivation of life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has
held that the procedure for the deprivation of life and personal liberty
must be fair, just and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.
It may be seen that the judiciary has shown its preference to life
19 and 21 of the constitution, was raised for the first time in Jagmotian
254
Singh v. State ofU.P131 The Court negatived the contention and held that
execution. Further, apex Court showed its positive trend towards the
philosophy of life and went a step forward stressing the view point that
hands of law. Justice Krishna Iyer delivering the majority judgment, which was
Law."
The Court held that death penalty can not be given unless it is
shown that murderous appetite of the convict is too chronic and deadly
that ordered life of a locality or society or a prison itself will be no more if this
agree with the view point coined by the Court. He, while delivering
dissenting opinion, held that it was not legally permissible for this court
255
while hearing an appeal in particular case when a capital sentence is
The Court did not support the view point expounded in Rajender
Prasad's case. It was held by the Court that in Bachan Singh v. State of
Constitution. The Court, however, relaxed its earlier trend and held in another
of Sanjay and Gita Chopra147 are some of the cases in which death
death was upheld having regard to "the magnitude, the gruesome nature
of the offences and the manner of perpetrating them." It was also pointed
out that any leniency shown in the matter of sentence would not only be
misplaced but will certainly give rise to and foster a feeling of private
256
revenge among people leading to destabilization of the society. Similarly, in
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab,149 the apex court upheld the death
sentence because the attack was cruel in-as-much as the appellant had
chopped off the neck of the deceased, have given repeated blows by
gandasa on the body of another deceased who was a young girl, indeed
his own uncles daughter, which had been done to see that she did not
escape. The brutality of the crime prevailed over the judges to approve
speaking for the court relied on Bachan Singh and Jagmohan Singh for
his brother's daughter aged seven years in a lonely place in forest and
thereafter murdered her. Dr. A.S. Anand and Faizan Uddin, JJ. observed
that the evidence on record indicated how diabolically the accused has
conceived of his plan and brutally executed it and such calculated, cold
blooded and brutal murder of a girl of a very tender age after committing
rape on her would undoubtedly fall in the category of rarest of the rare
257
consequently confirmed the sentence of death. Further, death sentence
instant case it had been very clearly established that the appellant had
committed one of the most heinous crimes by killing his poor wife who
was in advanced state of pregnancy and three minor children for no fault
on their part. The appellant had a solemn duty to protect them and to
maintain them but has betrayed the trust reposed on him in a very cruel
did not even spare his mother who tried to prevent him from committing
such unpardonable crime. G.N. Ray and G.T. Nanavati, JJ, observed that
the court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment was not
awarded for a crime which had been committed not only against the
individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and
victim belonged. The court further observed that there was no justification
ruling, the Supreme Court has held that in a murder case if the sessions
court awards death penalty to an accused and refers the matter to the High
Court for confirmation of the sentence, the latter should consider the
258
gave capital punishment, the apex court said: "It is the duty of the High
Bench headed by Justice G.B. Pattanaik said, "the proceedings before the
entire facts and law so as to come to its independent conclusion but while
doing so, the High Court cannot also totally overlook the conclusion
convicted by Sessions Court for murdering his wife and two daughters
aged six and two years on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the
High Court, before whom the accused did not file any appeal, acquitted
him of all charges. Mr. Justice Pattanaik said the High Court did not
without examining the conclusion of the trial judge, "in a most slipshod
upholding the conviction passed by the trial court. Terming the acquittal
259
formidable circumstances forming into a completed chain and pointing
"unerringly to the irresistible conclusion" that the little girl Gangu was
when the High Court side-stepped all such circumstances and exonerated
the culprit of such a grotesque crime", Mr. Justice Thomas said while
writing the judgment. Referring to the manner in which the accused first
lured the child to a lonely place and then raped and killed her, the Bench
said: 'We would have concurred with the trial court's view that the
extreme penalty of death can be chosen for such a crime...." The Court
awarded him life sentence keeping in mind that the accused was once
acquitted by the high court but observed "this case is perilously near the
260
out of the breakdown of the constitutional machinery, and the financial
nothing in Article 19 shall restrict the power of the State as defined in Part
III of the Constitution to make any law or to take any executive action
which the State would, but for the provisions of Part III be competent to
automatically comes into life and begins to operate and any law
to be done before the law so ceases have effect. But no action will be for
anything done during the emergency even after the emergency is over.
261
The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 has made two
armed rebellion. Secondly, it has inserted a new Clause (2) in Article 358
which says that nothing in Clause (1) shall apply to—(a) any law which
does not contain a recital to the effect that such law in relation to the
otherwise than under a law containing such recital. This clause makes it
clear that Article 358 will only protect emergency laws from being
challenged in a court of law and not other laws which are not related to
the emergency. Prior to this, the validity of even other laws, which were
fundamental rights is that the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and .19 are
other words, it can be concluded that Articles 226 and 32 are made
262
ineffective in emergency.
he may, by order, declare that the right to move any court for the
order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement such
(2) and (3) of Article 359 provide that such an order may extend to the
whole or any part of the territory of India, and an order made under Clause
(1) shall as soon as possible be laid before each House of Parliament. The
Presidential Order.
263
REMEDY IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
AND LIBERTY
A right without a remedy is like a writ in the water.(This accounts
for the importance of "ibi jus ibi remedium." As Article 21 forms the arc
and make basic right to life and liberty available to them, it is necessary
the judiciary is the armoury of law. But the weapon can be used, misused,
The, law of habeas corpus was evolved to free citizens from the
without a conviction.157
and State High Court under Article 226 to issue writ of Habeas
Corpus.
264
(i) arrest under any law providing for preventive detention if the
detention is not in accordance with provisions thereof or is
mala fide;158
(ii) arrest under any law when the arrest is not in accordance
with the provisions of that law;159
(iii) where the prisoner is detained on the basis of remand orders
passed mechanically;
(iv) where remedy of bail is available but the prisoner challenges
his detention as illegal;161
(v) where the convicts are forced to undergo sentence in
violation of their rights as provided in Article 21 of the
Constitution;162
(vi) where convicts or under-trial prisoners are subjected to
blinding and torture in violation of the provisions of Article
21 ;163
speedy trial.165 In Sunil Batra case it was held that the essence of the
matter is that in our era of human rights consciousness, the habeas writ
has functional plurality and the constitutional regard for human decency
265
and dignity is tested by this capability. In so far as approach to the court is
concerned, anybody acting pro bono publico can knock the door of the
court for this relief. Even a letter or a telegram is treated as a petition, for
this writ.166
Compensation -
not only can the victim of a crime suffer substantial physical, moral and
material damage, but society also can suffer, in that its ethical principles
..have been violated and one or several of its members has suffered an
victims of certain offences are paid compensation by the State for the
266
compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed
Rights states that “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or
where the petitioner was released from the jail in 1968 but was acquitted
after 14 years by the Court. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the
acquitted by the Sessions Court on June 30,1968 but was released from jail
only on October 16,1982 when the Court intervened. In this case the Court
was factually convinced that there was violation of the right to life and
disturbing" the court asked the Patna High Court to find out if there were
any other detenues suffering a fate similar to Rudal Shah. The Rudal Shah
decision being first of its nature made it amply clear that through the
267
and this decision has been followed in number of decisions by the
Constitution. In this case the Court noted that the police officer acted in
police officers acted deliberately and mala fide and Magistrate and Sub-
268
Police Commissioner, Delhi Headquarter™ a labourer was taken to
police station for doing some work. He was severely beaten when he
demanded wages and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. It was held that
the State was liable to pay compensation and accordingly directed to the
sum of Rs. 75,000 was paid to the mother for the death of her 9 years old
undertrial prisoner, who was handcuffed both of his arms were tied by a
and directed the Inspector of Police who was responsible for this, to pay
269
directing payment of compensation but held that the police officer was
the Court found that it cannot be straight away made without giving the
Rs. 1,50,000 to the mother whose son had died in police custody. The
also observed that forging of "new tools" had become necessary for doing
accused while the deceased was serving his sentence under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code. The Court in this case held that the death of
protect him and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the widow and
children of the deceased. The court also took the same view in
270
Bodhisatta Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty175 and awarded an interim
compensation of Rs. 1000 p.m. to the victims of rape until her charges are
decided by the trial court. In this case the complainant was a student in the
Baptist College, Kohima and the accused was a Lecturer in that college.
According to the F.I.R. filed by the complainant, the accused not only
putting her vermilion on her forehead and accepted her as his wife but
role in protecting the rights of the people as it is evident from the plethora
position to expose the area of darkness which has evaded the executive of
Indian democratic set up. In the present scenario the life and personal
271
the essential rights propounded by Supreme Court under Article 21 are
medical aid; live in healthy environment, access to road, live with human
trial, fair trial, bail, legal aid, illegal detention and custodial violence etc.
The real success of Indian Courts lies in the fact that' they have to a great
Criminal law, Industrial Law, Labour Law and Property Law. The
accused with a zeal to protect the interests of the innocent and prevent
society. Time has shown that the higher judiciary is not only worthy of trust
in the matter of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, but it has
paid worthy tributes to those who sacrificed their lives to attain this
important right for the people of India, by giving it the scope and meaning
272
our Constitutional values and made some fundamental rights living
humanity. Further, its active role has also created a climate of transparency
utilized for public good and always in public interest and in the service of
the people.
273
NOTES
I0'Bansal, V.K., “Right to life and Personal Liberty in India (1987), p. 49.
15' Ibid
274
18.
Id. at 1302
25Matp. 110.
27'Supra 13; also see Satwant Singh v. A.P.6., AIR 1967 SC 1836.
35' Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar AIR 1988 SC 1782.;
M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416.
275
of Police, Hyderabad, AIR 1998 AP 302. and Philips Alfred Malvin v.
Y.J. Gonsalvis, AIR 1999 Ker. 187.
39Ibid.
276
48 AIR 1953 SC 278 at pp. 281-82 quoted in A.M. Bhattacharjee, op.
cit., p. 104.
49 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
60‘ Ibid.
277
66> AIR 1987 SC 2021.
69' Ibid.
71 Ibid., at p.475.
278
84 Ibid
96 Ibid
87' Ibid.
mAIR 1967SCI.
118' See, State of UP. v. Kailash, AIR 1955 All. 98; State ofM.P.
v. Narayan Prasad, AIR 1963 M.P. 276; Public Prosecutor v. G.
Manikya Rao, AIR 1959 AP 639; State v. Dallu Punja, AIR 1954
280
M.P. 113 and State v. Om Prakash, 1973 Cr. LJ. 824 (H & P).
120‘ Factors for the release of the accused on bail are emphasized in
126‘ Ibid.
Rights, 1966.
132'See 14th and 18th Report of the Law Commission of India which
suggests for free legal aid to the accused, who remain undefended due to lack
of sufficient means, tried before court of sessions.
133‘ Nishtha Jaswal, Role of Supreme Court with Regard to the Right to
Life and Personal Liberty, (1990), p. 165; also see P.L. Mehta and Sunil
281
Deshta, "Capital Punishment in India: Retrospect and Prospect," Civil &
Military Law Journal, July-Sept., 1996, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 190-98.
134' The Supreme Court has struck down this section of Penal Code as
135‘ See Section 73 of the Air Force Act, 1950; Section 71 of the Army
Act; 1950; Section 81 of the.Navy Act; Section 126(2) of the Indian Railway
Act, 1980; and Section 3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1977.
282
149'AIR 1988 SC 747.
1984 SC 1622.
152'AIR 1996 SC 786; also see Shankar Alias Gauri Shankar v. State of
Tamil Nadu (1994) 4 SCC 478; Jashubha Bharat Singh Gohil v. State of
Gujrat, (1994) 4 SCC 353; and Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration,
1994 (supply) 3 1234 SCC 367.
156‘Hari Swamp, For Whom The Law is Made (1981), p. 5; also see
Nishtha Jaswal, Role of the Supreme Court with Regard to the Right to
Life and Personal Liberty (1990), p. 375.
283
known as Bhagalpur Blinding case.
284