Courts doing wonderfully well in protecting the right to life, says senior counsel
HYDERABAD: Senior counsel L. Ravichander said that courts were fortifying and expanding the applicability of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) since Independence by way of several judgments.
He stated that from the judgment in the A.K. Gopalan case in the 1950s, the Menaka Gandhi case during the Emergency by the Supreme Court to the directions of a division bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of advocate Eunice Lalnunmawli, directing the Telangana police to pay compensation for her illegal custody, had enlightened about how Article 21 is helping people lead a dignified life and enjoy personal liberty, irrespective of whether the individual in an Indian or a foreigner.
Ravichander was delivering a lecture titled ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty — Article 21 of Constitution: A case study’ at the Telangana State Bar Council, organised by the Nyayavadi Parishad- Telangana unit, here on Friday.
He said that even ancient kingdoms gave priority to the right to life and personal liberty. After independence, courts were safeguarding the same by expanding the applicability of Article 21 to include health, environment, education, dignified life and the rights of the common people, those facing mental health challenges, victims and prisoners.
Emphasising the ‘due process of kaw’, he recalled that the apex court had held in ‘A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras’ on the preventive detention of the communist leader, that under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, the court needed to apply a due process of law standard.
“Similarly the judgment rendered by Justice Khanna in the ADM Jabalpur case during the emergency is still respected by all,” Ravichander said.
Criticising the comments that the judiciary is overactive or over-stepping into the prerogatives of the executive wing with judgments under the guise of Article 21, Ravichander said, “We are hearing this from 1950 to 2022. But, when the democratic governments are trying to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the law, the judiciary comes in to protect the fundamental rights of the people.”
