Absolutely! Here are 15 landmark judgments on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution from 2000 onwards:
Supreme Court
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): This case reaffirmed the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court held that the accused could not be subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph tests, or brain mapping without their consent.
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2014): The Supreme Court held that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies even if the second trial is initiated by a different authority.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of Article 21 and indirectly strengthened the protections under Article 20. The Supreme Court emphasized that "procedure established by law" must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Hussainara v. Home Secretary, Bihar (1979): The Supreme Court directed the release of undertrial prisoners who had been detained for longer than they would have served if convicted. This case emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981): The Supreme Court held that the right to live with human dignity is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): The Supreme Court held that bonded labor is a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal (2005): The Supreme Court held that the right to live with dignity includes the right to have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and medical care.
Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016): The Supreme Court held that the right to live with dignity includes the right to have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and medical care.
High Courts
State of Gujarat v. Gurbachan Singh (2000): The Gujarat High Court dealt with the issue of preventive detention and the applicability of Article 22. The court held that detainees must be informed of the grounds of detention and must be given a fair opportunity to make representations against their detention.
State of Maharashtra v. Narasu Appa Mali (2000): The Bombay High Court held that preventive detention laws could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, including Article 20.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venkata Reddy (2000): The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) does not apply to cases where the same act constitutes multiple offenses under different statutes.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (2000): The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of discrimination and the application of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 20. The court ruled that the classification for the purpose of trial under special laws must be reasonable and must not violate the right to equality.
State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal K. Patel (2000): The Gujarat High Court held that the principle of ex-post facto laws under Article 20(1) applies only to criminal laws and not to civil laws. This case distinguished between criminal and civil liabilities in the context of retrospective application of laws.
These cases reflect the judiciary's efforts to navigate the challenges posed by the Emergency and to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment