We need a pro-liberty judicial approach

We need a pro-liberty judicial approach

Article:

1. Writer, a former Judge of the Supreme Court has raised the concern over threat to Civil Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Important Analysis:

2. Article 21 of the Indian constitution places the civil liberty on the highest pedestal and it is the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold the same.
3. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India, the case concerning the Bhima-Koregaon accused, SC has failed to apply the ‘clear and present danger’ test, which, if would have applied, could have quashed the proceedings against all the five accused and consequently released them.
4. Supreme Court has ordered house arrest for them is not justified as the offence was not as grave or heinous as murder, or gang-rape.
5. So, the denial of their release even though their activity does not pose any clear and present danger of a violence is violation of Article 21.
6. Even in Abhijit Iyer-Mitra v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court refused bail to journalist Abhijit Iyer-Mitra over his alleged objectionable remarks against Odisha’s popular Konark Suns feelings, an offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. But on the principles laid down by the court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, bail should have been granted.
7. It is being argued, Supreme Court is deviating itself from its own precedents because the seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty.
8. Also, In GHANI V JONES, UK – Lord Denning held: The privacy and possessions of an individual were not to be invaded except for the most compelling reasons.