| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Analyse the evolution of constitutional interpretation in India concerning personal liberty, with special reference to the A.K. Gopalan and Puttaswamy case. Conclusion: Way forward |
India’s journey of constitutional interpretation concerning personal liberty showcases a shift from a narrow, positivist approach to a broader, values-driven understanding of the right to life and liberty.
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950): The Supreme Court upheld his detention, interpreting Articles 21, 19, and 22 in isolation. It adopted a positivist approach, asserting that procedural “law” as stated in Article 21 referred merely to “any enacted law” by the legislature, without regard to its fairness or reasonableness.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Case (2017): The Supreme Court unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasizing that dignity and liberty are inextricable from the constitutional ethos.
From Gopalan to Puttaswamy: Core Themes in the Evolution
- From Procedural to Substantive Justice
- Gopalan limited personal liberty to compliance with procedural “law,” enabling oppressive statutes like the Preventive Detention Act.
- Puttaswamy embraced substantive due process, ensuring laws affecting liberty are just, fair, and reasonable.
- Dissent as Constitutional Ethic: Justice Fazl Ali’s dissent in Gopalan, once overlooked, became central in Puttaswamy, reflecting a restored emphasis on personal liberty as fundamental to constitutional values.
- Contextualizing Justice and Liberty
- Gopalan’s Era: Liberty was subjugated to state interests, reflecting the nascent state’s insecurities.
- Puttaswamy’s Era: Liberty and dignity emerged as inviolable, even amidst counter-terrorism and national security concerns.
- Ethical Imperative for Constitutional Justice: As the nation celebrates 75 years of the Constitution, it must critically assess its record on liberty and justice. Dignity, as envisioned in Puttaswamy, should inform judicial interventions to ensure that future generations do not confront the failures of constitutional morality seen in Gopalan’s aftermath.
Conclusion
The trajectory from A.K. Gopalan to Justice K.S. Puttaswamy underscores India’s evolving constitutional ethos—one that increasingly prioritizes the dignity and autonomy of individuals. However, the persistence of preventive detention and criminalized dissent indicates the need for sustained judicial vigilance. Only by aligning constitutional interpretation with ethical imperatives can India fully realize the ideals of justice enshrined in its Constitution.
