[Answered] Examine how recent decisions of the Supreme Court of India have strengthened the constitutional framework for personal liberty, particularly with reference to bail jurisprudence. In what ways do these decisions reflect the original intent of Article 21?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Despite the absence of explicit due process provisions, the Supreme Court of India has progressively interpreted Article 21 in ways that uphold personal liberty.

Strengthening Constitutional Framework for Personal Liberty

• Bail and Due Process Rights: Recent Supreme Court decisions have advanced the argument that even under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 remains paramount as courts retain the discretion to grant bail, especially when trials are delayed.
• Constitutional Courts’ Supremacy in Protecting Personal Liberty: The Court’s ruling reflects a sophisticated understanding of due process rights, stating that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 is “overarching and sacrosanct.” The Court held that even restrictive statutory provisions cannot overrule this fundamental right.
• Pro-Bail Approach Revived: The jurisprudential principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” first championed by legendary justices like Krishna Iyer, has been reaffirmed by the Court. Recent decisions emphasize that laws like the PMLA and UAPA should align with the higher constitutional right to life and liberty.

Reflection of the Original Intent of Article 21

• K M Munshi’s Vision: Despite Article 21 ultimately excluding the explicit phrase “due process,” recent decisions have fulfilled K M Munshi’s vision by ensuring that personal liberty remains protected against the arbitrary use of statutory powers.
• Constitutional Primacy Over Penal Statutes: The Supreme Court’s recent rulings, particularly in cases involving the UAPA and PMLA, reflect the Constituent Assembly’s emphasis on safeguarding personal liberty. These decisions assert that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution cannot be diluted by restrictive statutory provisions.
• Endorsement of Fundamental Freedoms: The recent judicial trends in bail jurisprudence reflect a clear endorsement of the founding fathers’ and mothers’ vision for India—a vision where personal liberty and due process lie at the core of fundamental freedoms. These decisions reaffirm the Assembly’s belief that laws must not curtail individual freedom without providing robust procedural safeguards.

Conclusion

Recent Supreme Court rulings on bail have reinforced the constitutional protection of personal liberty, upholding the original intent of Article 21. By stressing due process, timely trials, and the right to life and liberty, these decisions reflect the Constituent Assembly’s vision of safeguarding individual freedom from arbitrary state power, ensuring Article 21 remains central to justice and liberty in India.