Constitution of Bharat: Article 21: Part 8

 Here are 15 landmark judgments on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution from its inception to the Emergency period:

Supreme Court

1. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This case was the first to interpret Article 21. The Supreme Court held that "procedure established by law" does not mean "due process of law," and thus, the state can deprive a person of life or personal liberty as long as there is a law in place.

2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that domiciliary visits by the police were unconstitutional as they violated the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of Article 21 by linking it with Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live with dignity and the right to travel abroad.

4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal (1995): 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.

9. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21.

10. 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

11. State of Gujarat v. Gurbachan Singh (1976): 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.

12. State of Maharashtra v. Narasu Appa Mali (1959): The Bombay High Court held that preventive detention laws could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, including Article 20.

13. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venkata Reddy (1963): 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.

14. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1976): 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.

15. State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal K. Patel (1967): 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.