Judiciary’s Inconsistency in Dealing with Cases of Personal Liberty

Judiciary’s inconsistency in dealing with cases of Personal liberty

The recent rulings of the judiciary have defended the personal liberty of citizens. However, there are many instances where the judiciary failed to uphold liberty.

What is Personal liberty?

Personal liberty is an inalienable human right, or a natural human right. It is the freedom of one human being to determine and follow his own path in life.

What is the significance of Personal liberty?

Personal freedom is the literary term used to denote the ambiguity of freedom in a time of great change between the old age and new. The idea of personal freedom is the cornerstone of any democratic system, which assumes that each member of society possesses free will and can make his own decisions. Yet personal freedom is strictly limited by those boundaries that keep a society united: our own moral principles and common sense.

Constitutional Provision on Personal liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” 'Life' in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing.

The Supreme Court of India has pronounced that the right under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity which means that Article 21 is the breath of life for the rights it subsumes within itself. The right conferred by Article 21 pertains to liberty of person and not to liberty of action, i.e., it guarantees protection against unlawful detention of a person but not against lawful detention.

What are the recent rulings on Personal liberty?

The following rulings highlight the role of judiciary as the first line of defence against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens.

• In ‘Priya Ramani case’ the Delhi high court acquitted her against the charges of criminal defamation. Above all, the court made the following significant directives.
• In Disha Ravi’s tool kit conspiracy case’ the high court has granted anticipatory bail to Disha Ravi. It further observed that in a democracy, the right to dissent is a fundamental right.
• The judiciary in many earlier judgments has acted against the arbitrary use of Sedition laws. It has stated that free speech can be criminalized only when it is resulting in Public disorder.

What are the views of critics of the Judiciary?

A recent order of the Supreme Court found senior advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for two tweets, one relating to the Chief Justice of India astride an expensive motorcycle and the other a comment that the Supreme Court, in his opinion, played a role in the destruction of democracy in India over the last six years. We saw that there are many instances where the Judiciary failed to uphold the liberty of individuals.

• In Tandav case the court has denied anticipatory bail to Ms. Purohit, (head of Amazon Prime Video’s India Originals.)
• The court has shown unequal attitude towards ‘haves and have-nots’. For example, in Arnab Goswami case, the court granted quick bail by stating that deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many.
• The Supreme Court the guardian of people’s rights failed to quash unconstitutional laws. Rather, It allowed the continuance of these laws irrespective of their poor record in protecting personal liberty.