Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Recent judicial trends regarding life and personal liberty have stirred the conscience of an awakened citizenry. On one hand, we see individuals languishing behind bars for years without trial, their pleas for bail falling on deaf ears. On the other, we witness liberal bails and paroles granted to sentenced convicts in high-profile cases. In this polarized landscape, the jurisprudential wisdom of legends like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice H.R. Khanna—who championed liberty as the default and jail as the exception—appears to be drifting behind a cloud of uncertainty.
I find myself transported to my student days when a constitutional expert delivered an elaborate lecture. Right at the outset, he made a sweeping statement: “Even if we discard all parts of the Constitution except Article 21, our Constitution will still be complete in all respects.” He dwelt upon the fact that it is the shortest worded Article in the entire book. Instead of stopping short, he read out the entire Article word by word: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” I recall he took long pauses, in the style of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, intermittently pronouncing words like “Person,” “deprived,” “life,” “liberty,” “procedure,” “established,” and “law.” The lecture was highly thought-provoking. I sat long after it ended, questions swarming my mind: How could such a brief sentence encapsulate the longest written Constitution in the world?
Our Constitution is a massive document of twenty-two parts and twelve schedules, born from three years of deliberation. The makers examined global models, borrowing fundamental rights from the United States, the rule of law from the UK, federalism from Canada, and directive principles from Ireland. I kept on wondering about the need for involving so many luminaries for 165 working days if Article 21 alone was enough to encapsulate the entire ethos of the nation.
The deeper my search for answers went, the richer the “purposive interpretations” of the Article became. A look at the legislative intent behind the wording of the article led me to the dire need for a balance between human dignity and economic development, especially when our nation was struggling to choose its developmental model. Initially, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and his team debated whether to use the American “due process of law” or the “procedure established by law.” They chose the latter, which found an echo in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). In view of the expression “established procedure of law,” the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted “life” as mere physical existence and “liberty” as the absence of imprisonment.
It took us twenty-eight years to expand these horizons. In the landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court realized that the concepts of life and liberty are too precious to be adjudicated by procedures which are unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable. This ruling invoked Articles 14 and 19 to establish a “Golden Triangle,” insisting that fundamental rights must be read in their collectiveness, not in isolation.
Today, the Supreme Court sees Article 21 as the fountainhead of all aspects of our life, including basic, meta, and esteem needs. Therefore, in current constitutional jurisprudence, “life” stands interpreted as much more than animal existence and “liberty” as the “winged flights of flora and fauna.” This evolution has birthed rights to livelihood, shelter, education, health, a clean environment, privacy, and a fair trial. It has also created safeguards against handcuffed transport, bonded labor, custodial harassment, solitary confinement, and the human rights of prisoners. Expansive interpretations of the meanings of life and liberty are ever on the rise in sync with the changing times.
However, attempts to eclipse Article 21 institutionally are frequently reported. These pertain to difficult access to justice, cumbersome processes of law, and the perceived elitism of the courts. In these areas, the inability to invoke the “goddess of liberty” makes Article 21 feel like a stone-hearted, dry statue. Several ground-level “chinks” continue to dilute these protections. The right to a free state counsel often remains a myth for the marginalized. Conditions in jails are frequently horrific, making life behind bars a punishment before a verdict is even reached.
The use of “third-degree” torture remains a reality; searches and seizures are often manipulated. While the law presumes innocence until one is proved guilty beyond doubt, jail life is sickeningly stigmatic. Today, public perceptions hover over seeing “jail as the rule and bail as the exception” in many cases which do not fit in the ideological agenda of partisan politics. Unbridled discretion by law enforcement and the influence of ruling regimes can lead to the use of draconian enactments to settle scores.
To protect the concerns of life and personal liberty for all, there is an urgent need to introduce reforms in law enforcement, tame unbridled discretion, and develop transparent accountability for all stakeholders. Article 21 is a “living statue” and the heart of our fundamental rights. The Bar, the Bench, and the citizenry need to join heads, hands, and hearts together to simonize the ground-level operationalization of Article 21. Silver linings do emerge from judicial dispensations, but eclipsing clouds too appear on the firmament, as in the case of recent judgments of the apex judiciary. We must never forget that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.