Constitution of Bharat: Article 21: Part 9

 Here are some landmark judgments on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency period (1975-1977):

Supreme Court

1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This case is also known as the "Habeas Corpus Case." The Supreme Court ruled that during the Emergency, the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 21 was suspended. This judgment is widely criticized for its interpretation of Article 21 during the Emergency.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): This case involved the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The Supreme Court held that the suspension of fundamental rights was valid under Article 359 of the Constitution.

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although this case predates the Emergency, its principles were tested during the Emergency. The Supreme Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered by Parliament, even during the Emergency.

4. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970): This case established that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and the right to travel abroad.

5. 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.

High Courts

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.