Matters Regarding Personal Liberty To Be Dealt Cautiously, Balance To Be Struck Between Respect For Fundamental...
Matters Regarding Personal Liberty: Cautious Approach & Balancing Act
1. Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Personal liberty is a broad concept that protects the individual’s freedom from arbitrary or unlawful state action.
It is one of the most precious rights and hence any restriction on it must be strictly justified.
2. Cautious Approach by Courts
The Supreme Court has consistently held that personal liberty is of paramount importance and any infringement on it must be examined with utmost care.
The Court balances the right of the individual against the interest of society and the State’s power to maintain law and order.
3. Balancing Fundamental Rights and Social Interest
While personal liberty is fundamental, it is not absolute.
Restrictions may be placed in accordance with law and for purposes like public order, morality, security, and health.
The law imposing such restrictions must be fair, just, and reasonable (not arbitrary or oppressive).
Key Case Laws Explaining This Balance
✅ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Landmark case expanding the scope of Article 21.
Held that "procedure established by law" must be fair, just and reasonable — not arbitrary.
Any law or executive action restricting personal liberty must pass the test of due process.
Balancing: The right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed unless the procedure is legally valid and just.
✅ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 (The Habeas Corpus case)
During the Emergency, the Court controversially held that even habeas corpus petitions could be suspended.
Later, this decision was overruled by courts and criticized for ignoring personal liberty.
This case illustrates the importance of personal liberty and the risks when the State's power is unchecked.
✅ Kharak Singh v. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295
The Court emphasized that personal liberty includes the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary state intrusion.
Restrictions on liberty must not be vague or arbitrary.
✅ Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Recognized the right to livelihood as part of personal liberty.
Held that the State cannot deprive a person of livelihood arbitrarily, as it is essential for life and liberty.
✅ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is part of personal liberty.
Courts intervene to protect prisoners’ fundamental rights and uphold human dignity.
✅ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
Decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.
Emphasized personal liberty includes privacy, dignity, and freedom of choice.
State’s interference with personal liberty must have compelling justification.
Principles Established by the Courts for Cautious Handling of Personal Liberty:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Procedure Established by Law | Any restriction must be backed by law that is just and fair. |
| Non-Arbitrariness | Law must not be vague or arbitrary. |
| Proportionality | Restriction should be proportionate to the interest sought. |
| Right to Fair Hearing | Individuals must have the opportunity to defend themselves. |
| Judicial Review | Courts closely scrutinize State action affecting liberty. |
Summary:
Personal liberty is a core fundamental right, but not absolute.
Restrictions can only be imposed by law that is reasonable, fair, and just.
The courts adopt a cautious, balanced approach, protecting liberty while recognizing legitimate State interests.
Every case involving personal liberty calls for a careful, context-sensitive assessment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments