(Guest)

Everyday violation of right of personal liberty (art. 21)

our right to personal liberty is in danger when:

1] the state dictates by passing law how should we conduct our business.

2] the state forbids use of black windscreen on car.

3] the state forces us to use set top box.

4] the state forces us to declare our PAN in bank account and everywhere.

5] the state through liberalization policy forces us to buy from multinationals instead of company of our choice.

6] the state increase the price of things forcing us to lower our standard of living.

7] the state puts a ban on dance bars of mumbai forcing us not to enjoy dances.

6] the state arranges a whole compartment in a train for women and in general compartment seats for women forcing us to utilize limited seating capacity or make a tiresome journey standing. it is a kind of punishment i think.

7] state puts a ban on old cars and forces us to buy new cars.

8] in any case where state forces us to do a particular thing against our will.

why nobody will file a suit against the state on these above mentioned cases on the ground of personal liberty?

Reply Follow

10 Replies

(Guest)

why you are so emotional? it is like in all of my thread your post is most meaningless chatter ever, sometimes it is harsh. why so?

1] some terrorist are hiding behind black car glasses is not a cause to ban all car glasses. some people do cyber crime, would you ban cyber activity?

2] why not de control? every body has a different problem. everybody comes from different family background. you apply same law for everybody. does it make any sense? would you apply the medicine of say cholerra to a person who has typhoid or malleria? there should be no rigid law that is applicable to everybody no matter what is the situation. this is against our liberty to conduct our business in a most beneficial way.

3] set top box is something that is forced upon us. this is my point. anything forced upon us violates our personal liberty.

4] who increase the price first you moron? isn't govt. first increase price of oil and price of all other things will soon start to increase just after oil price hike? you people are just best dumbo i have ever seen.

5] whats wrong in a dance bar now? ha? are you a gay? won't the big ass and s*xy curves of the dancing girls turn you on? if no, then either you are a gay or impotent. please consult some doctor.

govt. do not ban the rich night clubs that is going on inside rich hotels. your dearon females go to those night club and enjoy. you do the same.

all i want is that we should have options to make a choice of ourselves. we want both reliance and thele wala. then, we should make a choice ourselves. that is the very essence of personal liberty.

state cannot be human. it is an artificial person. it does not have any life and human feelings. so we, natural human, should guide state for our benefit. that benefit is personal liberty.

one more thing, you better understand what i am saying first. try to see things from my view point and then answer. then the discussion will be more meaningful.

(Guest)

govt. forces us not to go the prostitutes. it is also a violation of personal liberty because we are forced and left with no alternative.

govt. reduces interest rate forcing us to reduce our standard of living. this is alsoa violation of personal liberty.

(Guest)

of course shouting in the sky is better than shouting to some greatest dumbo of the century who does not know how their rights are violated.

people like you are the real problem in the country.

sumitbijuria (working) 07 May 2012

Mr. Arnab,

Do appreciate some of your views and also that we must raise voice when our personal liberty is/are violated. But certain imposition are though infringes our personal liberty but are for a secured society even if you donot accept it.

Please understand that govt cannot impose things on individual to individual basis rather on a genral basis. What may be against your will may be contrary to others. If you say so and demand so for a liberal society then what about the criminals raising the same voice as you on the name of violation of personal liberty, where the society lead to?

Please understand that law is same which also falls under a fundamental right as your so called glamourised right to personal liberty. Law decides on case to case basis but with application of same law.

Are you trying to say that there should be separate law like IPC, CRPC, CPC, etc. for middle class, lower middle lcass, BPL, etc.

Moreover, you are talking about something which is very complex and ambiguous. You are making a subjective comment.

You seem very possessed about your so called galomourised personal liberty that you have even gone to the extent of abusing Zeeshan on the context of dance bars. You may be dance bar freak not all, and if you are so why dont you call dance girls at your home and enjoy with all your family members. or you can even go to the rish hotels that you are talking about. Better you file a suit for such disparity taking in support of the such closed dance bar owners.

Please understand that right to personal liberty is not absolute.

1 Like

Democratic Indian (n/a) 08 May 2012

It appears that some people are not able to understand the real meaning of the content or the questions raised by author of this thread and jumping to their emotional conclusions. Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely for decoration purposes of the Constitution. Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is there for purpose of implementing Liberty in true letter and spirit in every law under the Constitution. Liberty is a natural right. Your Liberty or natural rights are not to be infringed unless you infringe on somebody elses Liberty or natural right. Therefore the spirit of Liberty in Article 21 demands malum prohibitum laws to be kept to the barest minimum. Malum in se laws should suffice when Liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S Lewis

(Guest)

Mr. sumit bijuria

i think democratic indian gives you enough reply. i am just enlightening you on certain points.

1] Please understand that govt cannot impose things on individual to individual basis rather on a genral basis.

that means govt. should ban something or make something available for entire public and not for individual. this means that the govt. should ban, say wine , for entire public without caring for what individuals think or desire about it. right? but the constitution which govorns the govt. care for individual citizen rather than general public. it grant liberty to individual citizen and not public in general. it means that govt. should make law for every individual citizen and not for public in general.

what about the criminals raising the same voice as you on the name of violation of personal liberty, where the society lead to?

criminal act which are mallum per se or malicious act in itself, like murder, robbery does not come within the ambit of art. 21 anyway. but acts which are mallum prohibitum or criminalized by govt.but are benign in nature comes under the ambit of art. 21. this argument won't hold water.

2] Are you trying to say that there should be separate law like IPC, CRPC, CPC, etc. for middle class, lower middle lcass, BPL, etc.

exactly. since no two individual are the same how come same law could be applied to two different individual? a law that will be good for poor must be bad for richs since rich and poor are opposite to each other.

3] Moreover, you are talking about something which is very complex and ambiguous. You are making a subjective comment.

it is not a subjective comment. it is an objective fact. some people just don't see it.

4] dance bar

now this is good point. look i like dance bar. zeeshan does not like it. if govt. bans dance bar for zeeshan then it ignore another citizen's choice, i.e. my choice.it damage my personal liberty granted to me by constitution. so here the decision of govt. is unconstitutional.

but on the other hand govt. does not ban dance bar but say that if zeeshan does not like it, he should not go to it. arnab likes it. so he will go there.then the govt. does not damage my personal liberty at all. this decision would not be unconstitutional.

this is the sum and substance of my entire argument. i thanked democratic indian personally for understanding my point and i urge you mr. bijoria to be a little more human than an emotional psychopath.

(Guest)

now the govt. by making right to education act 2010 forces all the school except the unaided ones to make 25% seat reservation for poor and economically backward kids. this way govt. takes away the autonomy of the schools both public and private. private schools are no longer center for excellence.

this way indian govt. for their political interest destroy the personal liberty of an artificial person called schools.