1. Personal Liberty: Procedure Established by
Law:
• A.K.Gopalan VS. State of Madras ,[1950] SCR 88
• The petitioner, detained under the Preventive Detention
Act challenged the legality of detention under Art. 32 of
the Constitution on the ground that the said Act
contravened Arts. 13, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution
and was, therefore, ultra vires.
• The S.C. held- that Article 22 was a self-contained Code
and if personal liberty is taken away by the State in
accordance with the procedure established by law i.e. if
the detention was as per the procedure established by
law, then it cannot be said that the law was violative of
provisions contained in Articles 14 ,19 and 21 of the
Constitution.
Personal Liberty: Procedure Established by Law:
Fair, Just and Reasonable
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) (1978).
• The view expressed in A. K. Gopalan’s case was revisited in
this case after about 28 years.
• The main issues were whether the right to go abroad is a
part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and
whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as
required by Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The SC held that the right to go abroad is a part of the right
to personal liberty under Article 21.
• The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an enabling
law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. “The
procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and
reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. ”
Personal Liberty: Procedure Established by Law:
Fair, Just and Reasonable
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) (1978).
• The view expressed in A. K. Gopalan’s case was revisited in
this case after about 28 years.
• The main issues were whether the right to go abroad is a
part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and
whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as
required by Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The SC held that the right to go abroad is a part of the right
to personal liberty under Article 21.
• The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an enabling
law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. “The
procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and
reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. ”
LIFE AND LIBERTY: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant
Shukla- OVERRULED
• In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd.) Vs. Union of India and
ors. , (2017) 10 SCC 1 para 121 (Nine Judges), the apex
Court overruling the majority view expressed in ADM
Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521, held-
• “The view taken by Justice Khanna must be accepted,
and accepted in reverence for the strength of its thoughts
and the courage of its convictions...”
• Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. in his concurring judgment said:
“...the ADM Jabalpur case which was an aberration in the
constitutional jurisprudence of our country and the
desirability of burying the majority opinion ten fathom
deep, with no chance of resurrection.”
Posts
0 Comments