To an excellent degree, the Supreme Court of India finds its energy in Article 21 of the Constitution, for the factor that much of its judicial activism has been primarily based upon translating the scope of this Post. Majority of the PIL circumstances have really been submitted beneath this Article only. The Supreme Court is now known as an activist court docket. There has truly been no change within the phrases utilized in Short article 21, however there has truly been a modification in the technique it has been interpreted.
Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay
The scope of the Post has expanded considerably publish the Maneka Gandhi determination. This shall be seriously evaluated in the following couple of pages. ARTICLE 21
The Article reads- “No individual shall be disadvantaged of his life or individual liberty except according to process developed by regulation.” Constituent Assembly Argument Over Post 21 India’s constitutional system was rooted in the traditions of British parliamentary sovereignty and authorized positivism. Therefore, the event of a strong Supreme Court challenging parliamentary laws through substantive due process was unlikely given this conventional historic context.
However except for the historical custom of British rule and legal positivism, 2 particular historic factors directly influenced the Constituent Assembly to obviously leave out a due procedure provision in the part on Essential Rights.
The very first was the impact of United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on Constitutional Adviser B.N. Rau, who traveled to Britain, Ireland, the United States and Canada in 1947 to meet jurists referring to the drafting and framing of the Indian Constitution.
The 2nd factor was the turbulent and disorderly interval of widespread violence that gripped Northern India on account of the partition of Muslim Pakistan from Hindu India, which led the of the Indian Constitution to take away the due course of clause from their draft constitution for the defense of particular person liberty.1 The Constituent Assembly of India initially included a due course of provision in the Essential Rights provisions linked with preventive detention and specific liberty within the initial draft variation adopted and released in October of 1947.
At this level, a majority of members of the Constituent Assembly favored inclusion of a due course of clause, as a end result of it would provide procedural safeguards in opposition to detention of individuals with out trigger by the federal government. However, Rau had succeeded in qualifying the phrase liberty with the word “personal,” effectively limiting the scope of this clause as making use of to individual liberties, and never property rights. After this draft model was revealed, Rau embarked upon a multi-nation journey to the United States, Canada, and Ireland to satisfy with jurists, constitutional scholars, and other statesmen.
In the United States, Rau met with American Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a scholar of Harvard Law professor James Bradley Thayer, whose writings about the pitfalls of due course of as weakening the democratic course of had already impressed Rau previous to the go to. In his meeting with Rau, Frankfurter indicated that he believed that the power of judicial evaluate implied in the due course of clause was each undemocratic and burdensome to the judiciary, because it empowered judges to invalidate laws enacted by democratic majorities.
2 Frankfurter had a lasting impression on Rau, who upon his return to India, became a forceful proponent for eradicating the due process clause, finally convincing the Drafting Committee to rethink the language of draft Article 15 (now Article 21) in January 1948. In these meetings Rau apparently was in a place to convince Ayyar, the essential swing vote on the committee, of the potential pitfalls related to substantive interpretation of due course of, which Frankfurter had discussed extensively with Rau. Ayyar, in in the end upholding the new position on the ground of the Assembly in December 1948, supported eradicating the due course of clause on the grounds that substantive due process might “impede social legislation.”
With the swap in Ayyar’s vote, the Drafting Committee endorsed Rau’s new most well-liked language-replacing the due process clause with the phrase “according to the procedure established by regulation,” which was apparently borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.3 Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Immediately after the Constitution turned effective, the question of interpretation of the words “life and private liberty” arose earlier than the court docket in the case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.four In this case, the Petitioner had been detained beneath the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention on the bottom that it was violative of his Right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), which is the very essence of non-public liberty assured by Article 21 of the Constitution.
He argued that (i) the phrases ‘personal liberty’ include the freedom of motion additionally and therefore the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 must additionally fulfill the necessities of Article 19(5). (ii) It was additional argued that Article 21 and Article 19 should be learn together as Article 19 laid out the substantive rights whereas Article 21 provided procedural rights. (iii) It was also argued that the phrases “procedure established by law” truly meant “due strategy of law” from the American Constitution which incorporates ideas of pure justice and the impugned law doesn’t satisfy that requirement.
Thus the principle query was whether Article 21 envisaged any procedure laid down by a regulation enacted by a legislature, or whether the procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. On behalf of Gopalan, an argument was made to steer the Supreme Court to carry that the courts might adjudicate upon the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act, or for that matter, any law depriving an individual of his personal liberty. Majority Decision in Gopalan
The Supreme Court ruled by majority that the word ‘law’ in Article 21 couldn’t be read as that means rules of natural justice. These rules were vague and indefinite and the Constitution couldn’t be read as laying down a obscure normal. The Court additional interpreted the time period ‘law’ as ‘State made law’ and rejected the plea that the term ‘law’ in Article 21 meant jus naturale or principles of pure justice. Justice Fazl Ali’s Dissenting Judgment
Justicle Fazl Ali in his dissenting judgment observed that preventive detention is a direct infringement of the proper assured in Art. 19 (1) (d), even if a narrow development is positioned on the stated sub-clause, and a lawrelating to preventive detention is therefore topic to such limited judicial evaluate as is permitted by Art. 19 (5). There is nothing revolutionary within the view that “procedure established by law “must embrace the four rules of elementary justice which inhere in and are at the root of all civilized systems of law, and which have been acknowledged by the American Courts and jurists as consisting in (1) notice, (2) alternative to be heard, (3) neutral tribunal and (4) orderly course of procedure.
These four ideas are really totally different elements of the same right, particularly, the proper to be heard before one is condemned. Hence the phrases “procedure established by law “, whatever its precise meaning be, should essentially embrace the precept that no person shall be condemned with out hearing by an neutral tribunal. Relationship amongst Articles 21, 22 and 19
An attempt was made in Gopalan to establish a hyperlink between these three Articles. The underlying purpose was to influence the Court to adjudge the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act. It was due to this fact argued that when a person was detained, his a quantity of rights underneath Article 19 were affected and thus, the reasonableness of the law, and the procedure contained therein (regarding affordable restrictions), should be justiciable as regards to Arts. 19(2) to (6). Rejecting the argument, the Court identified that the word ‘personal liberty’ beneath Article 21 in itself had a complete content and ordinarily, if left alone, would include not only freedom from arrest or detention, but additionally various freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19.
However, studying Articles 19 and 21 together , Article 19 must be held to cope with a couple of particular freedoms talked about therein and not with freedom from detention whether or not punitive or preventive. Similarly, Art. 21 must be held as excluding the freedoms handled in Article 19. The Court dominated that Arts. 20 and 22 constituted a comprehensive code and embodied the whole constitutional safety in relation to life and personal liberty and was not managed by Article 19.
Thus, a law depriving personal liberty needed to conform with Arts. 20 and 22 and never with Art. 19, which lined a separate and distinct floor. Article 19 might be invoked only by a freeman and never one under arrest. Further, Article 19 could possibly be invoked solely when a regulation directly attempted to manage a proper mentioned under it. Thus, a regulation directly controlling a citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression might be examined beneath the exception given beneath Art. 19(2); and a regulation that does not instantly control the basic freedoms under Article 19, couldn’t be examined underneath the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. This judicial strategy meant that a preventive detention regulation can be legitimate, and be within the phrases of Article 21, so long as it conformed to Article 22. Due Process of Law
The V Amendment of the US Constitution lays down inter alia that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property, with out due process of regulation.” The use of the word ‘due’ on this clause is interpreted to mean ‘just’, ‘proper’ or ‘reasonable’ based on judicial review. The courts can pronounce whether or not a legislation affecting a person’s life, liberty or property is affordable or not. The court docket may declare a legislation invalid if it doesn’t accord with its notions of what’s simply, honest and cheap. Thus, this clause known as the ‘due course of clause’ has been essentially the most significant single supply of judicial review in the US.
It was contended in Gopalan that the expression process established by regulation in Art. 21 was synonymous with the American concept of ‘procedural due process’, and subsequently, the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act, or for that matter, of any law affecting a person’s life or private liberty, ought to adjust to the rules of natural justice. The Supreme Court rejected this rivalry giving several causes: i) The word ‘due’ was absent from Article 21.
ii) The fact that the phrases ‘due process’ had been dropped from draft Article 15 (present Article 21), signified the intention of the Constituent Assembly, that was to keep away from the uncertainty surrounding the due course of idea within the USA. iii) The American doctrine generated the countervailing but difficult doctrine of police energy to restrict the ambit of due process, i.e., the doctrine of governmental power to regulate private rights in public interest. If the doctrine of due process was imported into India, then the doctrine of police power may also have to be imported, and which would make things very difficult. The ruling thus meant that to deprive an individual of his life or personal liberty- i) There should be a law
ii) It should lay down a procedure
iii) The government should comply with this process while depriving an individual of his life or personal liberty. Criticism
Gopalan was characterised because the ‘high-water mark of legal positivism.’ Court’s approach was very static, mechanical, purely literal and was colored by the positivist or imperative principle of regulation, which studies the legislation as it is. Article 21 was interpreted by the majority to imply that Art. 21 constituted a restriction solely on the executive which could not act with out legislation and that it was not relevant in opposition to legislative power, which could make any regulation to impose restraints on personal liberty, nevertheless arbitrary they may be.
GOPALAN TO MANEKA: 1950-1977
Gopalan held the sector for almost three many years. It could be noticed throughout this period from the courtroom choices that the two major points settled within the case [that is, firstly that Articles 19, 21 and 22 are mutually unique and unbiased of one another, and secondly that Article 19 was to not apply to a legislation affecting private liberty to which Article 21 would apply] obtained diluted to a fantastic extent till finally in Maneka Gandhi’s case this position was reversed. The choices immediately continuing Gopalan’s case were selected the same foundation.
For example, in Ram Singh v. Delhi5, where an individual was detained beneath the Preventive Detention Act for making speeches prejudicial to the upkeep of public order, at a time when public order was not contained under Article 19(2), the Supreme Court refused to assess the validity of preventive detention under Article 22 with reference to Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) stating that even when a proper underneath Art. 19(1)(a) was abridged, the validity of the preventive detention order could not be considered close to Art. 19(2) because of the Gopalan determination that legislation authorizing deprivation of personal liberty didn’t fall under Art. 19 and its validity was to not be judged by the criteria in Art. 19.
The beginning of the model new trend may be present in RC Cooper v. Union of India6, where Article 31(2) which had been amended to dilute the protection to property, the Court established a link between Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) and Article 31(2). But the draconian Gopalan ruling found its method back and reached the lowest point in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla7, remembered as the black day in Indian Constitutional historical past.
In this case the political dissenters of the Indira Gandhi authorities had been arrested and Shivkant Shukla contended that this was in violation of their right to life and personal liberty and so the writ of habeas corpus must be issued. Court held that through the interval of emergency, an individual might be detained and his proper to life and private liberty under Article 21 could possibly be suspended, and such suspension couldn’t be challenged and the writ of habeas corpus couldn’t be issued in the course of the emergency. This case showed that Article 21 could not play any function in offering any protection towards any harsh regulation in search of to deprive a person of his life or liberty. It is the dissenting judgment of Fazl Ali J that was subsequently utilized within the choice in Maneka Gandhi’s case and the cases after that, regarding the proper to life and personal liberty. MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8 and ever since, the Supreme Court has shown larger sensitivity to the protection of non-public liberty. The court has reinterpreted Article 21 and overruled its Gopalan decision and which, in the words of MP Jain, could be considered a highly creative judicial pronouncement on the a half of the Supreme Court. In this case, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Central Government beneath the Passport Act in the curiosity of the basic public, as was provided beneath S. 103(c) of the Passport Act. This was challenged on the bottom of being arbitrary to Article 21 and also because this was accomplished without affording her a chance to be heard.
The Court noticed that as the proper to journey overseas falls beneath Article 21, rules of pure justice should be observed and the proper of listening to ought to be given, even though not expressly offered for under the statute. Some of the principle propositions laid down by the court in this case are as follows: 1. The courtroom reiterated the proposition that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are inter-related and never mutually unique.
This implies that a legislation prescribing a procedure to deprive an individual of their private liberty, should conform to the provisions beneath Article 19. Moreover, the process established by law beneath Article 21 should meet the necessities of Article 14. According to K. Iyer, J, no Article in the Constitution pertaining to a Fundamental Right is an island in itself. Just as a person isn’t dissectible into separate limbs, cardinal rights in an natural structure have a synthesis. Here, the dissenting judgment of Justice Fazl Ali in Gopalan’s case was followed.
2. The court docket emphasized that the expression ‘personal liberty’ was of the widest amplitude masking a selection of rights which go to represent the non-public liberty of man. Some of those attributes have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given further protection under
3. The most vital aspect of Maneka’s determination is the reinterpretation by the court of the expression ‘procedure established by law’ used in Article 21. It now means that the procedure must satisfy sure requisites in the sense of being fair and affordable. The process cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. The reasonableness must be projected in the process contemplated by Article 21.
IMPACT OF MANEKA GANDHI’S DECISION
Article 21 which had lain dormant for nearly three decades was dropped at life by the Maneka Gandhi choice. Since then Article 21 has been on its method to emerge because the Indian model of the American concept of due process. It has become the source of many substantive rights and procedural safeguards to the folks. Some of the broad fields of this impact might be mentioned as under: 1. Interpretation of the Word Life
In Francis Coralie9 the Supreme Court, following the principle laid down in Maneka Gandhi’s case, has interpreted the meaning of life as has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois10, and held that the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 doesn’t connote merely bodily or animal existence but embraces one thing extra.
As recently as 2006, the Supreme Court has observed that Article 21 embraces within its sweep not solely physical existence but also the standard of life. These cases only replicate a part of the scope and ambit of the word ‘life’ underneath Article 21, which has been extended extensively by the Supreme Court through the years proceeding Maneka. There have been a quantity of areas during which the Supreme Court has associated some of the Directive Principles of State Policies to the word ‘life’ beneath Article 21 and made it enforceable as a basic right. A classic example of that is the big variety of setting associated cases filed by MC Mehta.
2. Personal Liberty
It doesn’t imply merely the freedom of body, i.e., freedom from physical restraint or freedom from confinement throughout the bounds of a prison. The expression ‘personal liberty’ just isn’t utilized in a slim sense however as a compendious time period to include inside it all those number of rights of an individual which go to make private liberty of a person.
To begin with, the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 was interpreted in order to exclude the rights mentioned beneath Article 19. The view was expressed in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh11 that whereas Art. 19(1) handled particular species of that freedom, ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 would take in the residue. This view was adopted in Gopalan’s case as properly. But the minority view expressed by Justice Subba Rao adopted a a lot wider idea of ‘personal liberty’. He differed from the majority view that Art. 21 excluded what was assured by Art. 19. He pleaded for an overlapping strategy of Arts. 21 and 19. In a latest judgment of 2009, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration12, the Supreme Court asserted the strict boundaries of ‘personal liberty’ but that such liberty must additionally accommodate public interest. A woman’s right to make reproductive choice has been held to be a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ throughout the which means of Art. 21.
Ordinarily, the word legislation in Article 21 denotes an enacted law, i.e., a regulation made by the Legislature. But in AK Roy v. Union of India13, the question was whether or not an ordinance in the context of National Security Ordinance, 1980, promulgated by the President to offer for preventive detention in sure cases and connected issues, a law? The petitioner argued that since this was made by an govt it was not regulation and could not, thus, deprive a person of their ‘personal liberty’. The Supreme Court held that an ordinance handed by an government is properly within the which means of ‘law’ and should subsequently, even be subject to Fundamental Rights, similar to an Act of the Legislature.
After Maneka Gandhi, it’s now established that the process for functions of Art. 21 must be cheap, truthful and simply. The Supreme Court has reasserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab14 that the procedure contemplated by Art. 21 is that it have to be ‘right, just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In re The Special Courts Bill, 1978, the Special Courts Bill proposed that a particular court can be constituted to strive sure individuals holding high political offices in the course of the emergency of 1975-1977. The special Court was to be presided over by a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court, to be appointed by the Central Government in session with the Chief Justice of India.
The accused may enchantment to the Supreme Court towards the verdict of the particular Court. For the procedure to be simply, truthful and reasonable, the Court suggested sure modifications: There should be a provision for transferring a case from one particular court to another in order to avoid the potential of a trial the place a decide could additionally be biased towards the accused Only a sitting High Court Judge should be appointed, for the retired Judge would hold the workplace as a Judge of the particular court through the pleasure of the government, and the “pleasure doctrine was subversive of judicial independence.” Instead of mere consultation, the Chief Justice’s concurrence must be there, which might encourage confidence not only of the accused but also of the complete neighborhood within the special Court. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AFTER MANEKA
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh15, the Supreme Court has noticed that an arrest may cause incalculable hurt to a person’s reputation and vanity. Arrest ought to be made not merely on suspicion however solely after an affordable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of the criticism and an affordable belief to the person’s complicity and at the equal time as to the need to impact arrest. Speedy Trial
Speedy trial has not been mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution. Yet the Court has declared this as a fundamental proper in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (I).sixteen In this case, the undertrials were in prison for a protracted time frame, awaiting their trials. Bhagwati, J. held that although, in contrast to the American Constitution speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a basic proper, it’s implicit within the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case.
This place was reiterated in Hussainara Khatoon(No. 2) and Hussainara Khatoon(No. 3). In a big judgment in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. RS Nayak17, the Supreme Court has laid down pointers for the speedy trial of an accused: i) Fair, simply and cheap process implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right within the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the proper of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal curiosity also, does not make it any-the-less the proper of the accused. ii) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all of the stages, particularly the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, attraction, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there’s no reason to take a restricted view. iii)
The issues underlying the Right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are: (a) the interval of remand and pre-conviction detention must be as quick as attainable. In other phrases, the accused shouldn’t be subjected to pointless or unduly lengthy incarceration previous to his conviction; (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial ought to be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well end in impairment of the flexibility of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. In Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration18, it was held that the follow of preserving undertrials with convicts in jails offended the test of reasonableness in Art. 19 and fairness in Art. 21. Prison Administration
In Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration19, the necessary question before the court docket was whether or not solitary confinement imposed upon prisoners who have been under sentence of demise, was violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21. It was held that underneath Sections seventy three and 74 of the IPC, solitary confinement is a substantive punishment, which could be imposed by a court of law, and it cannot be left within the caprice of jail authorities. It additional noticed that if by imposing solitary confinement there could be complete deprivation of camaraderie amongst co-prisoners, comingling and speaking and being talked to, it would offend Article 21 of the Constitution.
The liberty to maneuver, combine mingle, discuss, share company with co-prisoners if substantially curtailed, would be violative of Article 21 unless curtailment has the backing of regulation. Here we see the excessive regard that the Supreme Court gives to human life and personal liberty, however a person’s jail sentence. In Prem Shankar
v. Delhi Administration20, the Supreme Court has held that handcuffing must be resorted to solely when there’s clear and current danger of escape. Even when in extreme instances, handcuffing is to be placed on the prisoner, the escorting authority must document simultaneously the explanations for doing so, otherwise the process would be unfair and bad in legislation. This is implicit in Article 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the procedure for deprivation of life and liberty. Legal Aid
In Hussainara21, the Supreme Court has noticed that it’s an important ingredient of affordable, honest and just process to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court’s course of that he ought to have legal companies out there to him. Providing free authorized service to the poor and the needy is an essential element of any reasonable, fair and simply procedure. In Suk Das22, the Court quashed the conviction of the appellant as a end result of the accused remained unrepresented by a lawyer and so the trial became vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity. The court held that free legal assistance at the value of the State is a Fundamental Right of a person accused of an offence and this requirement is implicit in the requirement of a fair, just and affordable process prescribed by Article 21. Public Interest Litigation
One of the most effective instruments advanced by the Supreme Court for attaining social justice is Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Any person with a enough curiosity and performing bona fide can file a PIL in the Supreme Court beneath Art. 32 or Art. 226. If there’s a violation of any elementary proper or authorized duties and there’s authorized injury to an individual or a class of individuals who are unable to strategy the court by ignorance, poverty or by any incapacity, social or economic, any member of the public can make an application for an appropriate course or order or writ earlier than the High Court under Article 226 and earlier than the Supreme Court underneath Article 32 for redressal. This was the gist of the principle laid down in SP Gupta v.
Union of India23, in which the Court has given considerable relaxation to the doctrine of locus standi. PILs have played an important position in the fields of jail reforms, gender justice, surroundings safety, baby rights, education, wherein the courtroom has continually made an try and uphold the worth of a dignified human life, which isn’t merely confined to access to meals, shelter and clothes, but goes much beyond. For occasion, in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan24, an incident of rape was held to be violative of not solely the right to gender equality under Art. 14, but additionally of the right to life underneath Article 21.
The Supreme Court has laid down specific pointers as to what constitutes sexual harassment at workplace, placing the duty on the employer to make sure the protection of their employees, additionally making it obligatory for all public offices to have a Women’s Cell, the place the ladies employees could take their grievances. These guidelines can also be discovered within the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013. In MC Mehta v. Union of India25, the Supreme Court has developed the idea of absolute liability regarding the payment of compensation by an enterprise engaged in harmful and dangerous actions. The Supreme Court has also exercised epistolary jurisdiction, whereby a letter has been handled as a petition before the court.
In Labourers Working on Salal Hydroelectric Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir26, litigation was began on the basis of a letter addressed by the People’s Union for Democratic Rights to Mr. Justice D.A. Desai enclosing a duplicate of the information merchandise which appeared within the problem of Indian Express pointing out that a lot of workmen engaged on the Salal Hydro Electric Project have been denied the good thing about varied labour laws and had been subjected to exploitation by the contractors to whom totally different portions of the work have been entrusted by the Central Government. In all of those cases, and a variety of others, a mirrored image of Maneka’s choice can be discovered, whereby the Court has tried to uphold the sanctity of a dignified human life.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MANEKA’S DECISION
The sort of wide interpretation that has been given to Article 21 submit Maneka, has not been given to some other provision. Article 21 learn with Articles 32 and 226, has turn out to be crucial weapon of judicial activism. By relating Directive Principles of State Policy with Fundamental Rights, court is granting treatments on an ever increasing scale. But it must be remembered that Directive Principles are non-justiciable in nature and can’t be enforced. Yet, the Supreme Court has gone to nice lengths to implement these by relating them to proper to life. But balancing of conflicting interests is an important perform of law. Function of regulation is
social engineering. This must be carried out by each, the Legislator as properly as the Judiciary.
Justice Cardozo also says that the court can evolve a process for coping with the social ills. Thus, where legislators fail to steadiness the pursuits, it’s the Court which should do it. The courtroom shall be criticized for judicial over-reach, that is, for endeavor the facility of the legislator and laying down a regulation, as it happened in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan. But it have to be realized that the place the Legislators fail, the court has to step in. The gaps must be filled. Thus, from the angle of Roscoe Pound’s social engineering concept, which may be very relevant within the current scenario, court’s actions cannot be termed as judicial overreach. CONCLUSION
Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s case became the basis of the court’s selections in subsequent cases pertaining to not solely Article 21 expressly, but wherever the court docket discovered a relation between life and another facet of it. The Court developed a principle of ‘inter-relationship of rights’ to hold that governmental motion which curtailed both of those rights should meet the designated threshold for restraints on all of them. In this fashion, the Courts included the guarantee of ‘substantive due process’ into the language of Article
21. This was followed by a sequence of choices, the place the conceptions of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ had been interpreted liberally to include rights which had not been expressly enumerated in Part III.27 The width of Article 21 will hold expanding so lengthy as our Supreme Court upholds its title of the activist courtroom, and intervenes dutifully to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The Court has, thus, played the function of a social engineer, continuously making an effort to stability the conflicting pursuits of the state with these of the society and the people.
1. Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain, Sixth Edition (2013). 2. Constitutional Law of India, J.N. Pandey, Forty Third Edition (2006).