MODULE 3 Flashcards
(22 cards)
Ajay Hasia V Khalid Mujib
SC has declared that it has a special responsibility to enlarge the range and meaning of the fundamental rights and to advance the human rights jurisprudence
Two fold contribution of judiciary
Substantial expansion of concept of Human rights under Article 21
Procedural Innovation of PIL
Francis corallie Mullin V administrator,UT of Delhi
SC held that life couldn’t be restricted mere animal existence or physical survival. The right to life means the right to live with dignity and all that goes with it- the basic necessities of life such as adequate nutrition,shelter, clothing, facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself
Hussainara Khatoon V . home secretary, Bihar
If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable fair or just it would fall foul of article 21. Therefore right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part of right of life and personal liberty
Deoraj Khatri V State of Bihar
80 suspected criminals were brutally blinded by police. SC condemned it as a barbaric act and a crime against mankind
Sheela Barse V State of Maharashtra
Court has confronted with custodial violence against women and it laid down guidelines against torture and I’ll treatment of women in police custody and jails
Rudul shah V State of Bihar
SC has read into article 21 a right to monetary compensation for deprivation of life and liberty in the hands of the state
Parmannada katra V Union of India
Right to life and personal liberty encompasses right of the workers to health and medical aid
Other right of life
Right to receive instant medical aid in case of injury
Right of child to receive free education up to 14 age
Principle of PIL
We cannot write off the weaker victims of injustices; the court’s door when they knock shall open
New challenge and opportunities for commited lawyers and social groups to serve the unequal segments of society better
To avoid abuse of PIL
Primary facie information calls for examination
Credentials of informants
Specific nature of allegetion
Gravity or seriousness of the complaint
Other relevant circumstances
Use its own investigative faculties
Sunil Batra V Union of India
A letter from Batra entertained
Issues entertained by PIL
Solitary confinement
Conditions of under trial prisoners
Sexual exploitation
Sexual exploitation of blind girls in schools
Environmental pollution
Ill treatment of freshers in college
Conditions of children in children’s home
Better roads
Land entitlement
Minimum wages
Illegal sale of babies
Detention of mentally ill persons
Bonded labours
Conditions of mental hospitals
Deaths at alleged police encounters
New devices to assist in PIL
Special inquiry
Fact finding commission
Scheme remedies
Post decisional monitoring
A nation wide legal aid scheme
ADM Jabalpur V Shukla
The object of making certain general aspects of rights fundamental is to guarantee them against illegal invasion of these rights by executive legislative or judicial organ of the state
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
Fundamental rights are the modern name for what have been traditionally known as natural rights
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989):
Restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored.
Preventive Detention Laws
Preventive Detention allows authorities to detain a person without trial to prevent possible future offences.
Article 22(3)–(7):
Preventive detention permitted up to 3 months without advisory board review.
Advisory Board must consist of High Court judges.
No right to counsel or detailed reasons.
Laws:
National Security Act (NSA), 1980
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA)
Criticism:
Violates principles of natural justice
Used for political suppression or against minoritie
Caselaws of preventive detention
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initially upheld preventive detention.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Overruled Gopalan; due process and fairness are essential under Article 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Right to privacy upheld even in the context of state surveillance.
Derogation from Rights During Emergency
Emergency Provisions (Articles 352–359):
During a national emergency (Art. 352), the President can suspend certain Fundamental Rights under Article 359.
Parliament can legislate on State List (Art. 353).
Article 358: Automatically suspends Article 19 during emergency (only for external aggression or war).
Important Notes:
44th Amendment (1978):
Article 20 (protection against conviction) and Article 21 (right to life) cannot be suspended, even in emergency.
Emergency can only be declared on the basis of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Case Law of emergency
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) (Habeas Corpus case):
Held that no right to life exists during emergency. Criticized heavily.
Overruled by: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Upheld Article 21 as inalienable and fundamental.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and limited Parliament’s power to destroy fundamental rights.
India and ICCPR Derogation Clause (Article 4):
Article 4 of ICCPR permits states to derogate from certain obligations during emergencies.
India has ratified ICCPR but has not officially invoked or adopted the Article 4 derogation clause.
Instead, India relies on its own constitutional emergency framework (Art. 352–359)
