Let's focus on landmark judgments on Article 22 of the Indian Constitution from 2014 onwards:
Supreme Court
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court held that inordinate delay in the execution of death sentences amounts to torture and violates Article 21 and Article 22.
J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka (2017): The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor's decision to appoint a temporary Chief Minister was valid under Article 22(3).
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2019): The Supreme Court held that the Governor's discretion in appointing the Chief Minister cannot be questioned under Article 22.
Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for a fair trial under Article 22.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, upholding personal liberty under Article 22.
K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 22.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 22.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018): The Supreme Court upheld the right to marry a person of one's choice under Article 22.
Deepak Misra v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the protection of personal liberty under Article 22.
Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 22.
High Courts
State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Dutt (2013): The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of Sanjay Dutt under the Arms Act, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty under Article 22.
State of Gujarat v. Dhaval Patel (2015): The Gujarat High Court ruled that preventive detention must adhere to the procedural safeguards under Article 22.
State of Rajasthan v. Rajesh Kumar (2016): The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the rights of detainees to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a lawyer under Article 22.
State of Kerala v. K. Rajendran (2017): The Kerala High Court ruled on the procedural safeguards required for preventive detention under Article 22.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (2018): The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of preventive detention and the necessity of timely communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22.
State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Ganesan (2019): The Madras High Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for a fair trial under Article 22.
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh (2020): The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled on the procedural safeguards required for preventive detention under Article 22.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (2021): The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of discrimination and the application of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 22.
State of Gujarat v. Yatinbhai R. Patel (2022): The Gujarat High Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for a fair trial under Article 22.
State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Kumari (2023): The Bombay High Court ruled on the illegality of detention without proper adherence to Article 22 safeguards.
These cases reflect the judiciary's efforts to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and to adapt to the changing needs of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment