LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Naga Balaji (Law Student.)     21 May 2016

Judiciary not to violate right to life art 21 ofconstitution

Judiciary shall not violate Right to Life under Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950, because this article is independent of Definition of State under Article 12 of Constitution of India, 1950. Judiciary can be insulated from challenge of Right to equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950 because this Article 14 provision should depend on the meaning of State under Article 12 of Constitution of India but in case of Article 21 it is not so. Framers of Constitution had not even given chance to judiciary to violate article 21 of Constitution through its words in Part III of Constitution(Fundamental rights Part in Constitution). Beyond this technical interpretation factually and in terms of equity this is obviously justified.



Learning

 3 Replies

Democratic Indian (n/a)     21 May 2016

Good observation. Equality before law is also very important. If equality before law is subverted under any color or excuse, the result is nothing but tyranny and injustice. All Constitutional guarantees will become meaningles.

 

There are many foundational fundamental human rights, principles or grundnorms under Part III that cannot be touched by the State, including the executive, legislature and judiciary. That is why they have been guaranteed. If they are violated, then the very purpose of the guarantees gets defeated. They have been discussed in some detail in the following thread https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Objections-against-proposed-arms-rules-2015-121734.asp

1 Like

Naga Balaji (Law Student.)     22 May 2016

Thank you, The link u sent is most wonderful, still reading.. Further, i wish to support your legal preposition regarding the issue of fundamental right violation by judiciary, i found a judgment of apex court. This Hon’ble Court in Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010, 2010 (3) SCC 192 Page 211 “40. In this context another aspect is of some relevance and it was pointed out by Justice Hidayatullah, as His Lordship was then, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. - [AIR 1967 SC 1]. In a minority judgment, His Lordship held that the judiciary is a State within the meaning of Art. 12. [See paras 100, 101 at page 28, 29 of the report]. This minority view of His Page 212 Lordship was endorsed by Justice Mathew in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) [at page 1949, para 1717 of the report] and it was held that the State under Article 12 would include the judiciary. This was again reiterated by Justice Mathew in the Constitution bench judgement in the case of State of Kerela and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others [AIR 1976 SC 490] where Justice Mathew's view was the majority view, though given separately. At para 89, page 515 of the report, his Lordship held that under Article 12, `State' would include `Court'. 41. In view of such an authoritative pronouncement the definition of State under Article 12 encompass the judiciary and in Kesavananda (supra) it was held that "judicial process" is also "state action" [Para 1717, pg. 1949]

Naga Balaji (Law Student.)     22 May 2016

Thank you,

The link u sent is most wonderful, still reading..

Further, i wish to support your legal preposition regarding the issue of fundamental right violation by judiciary, i found a judgment of apex court.

This Hon’ble Court in Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010,

2010 (3) SCC 192

Page 211

“40. In this context another aspect is of some relevance and it was pointed out by Justice Hidayatullah, as His Lordship was then, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. - [AIR 1967 SC 1]. In a minority judgment, His Lordship held that the judiciary is a State within the meaning of Art. 12. [See paras 100, 101 at page 28, 29 of the report]. This minority view of His

Page 212

 Lordship was endorsed by Justice Mathew in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) [at page 1949, para 1717 of the report] and it was held that the State under Article 12 would include the judiciary. This was again reiterated by Justice Mathew in the Constitution bench judgement in the case of State of Kerela and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others [AIR 1976 SC 490] where Justice Mathew's view was the majority view, though given separately. At para 89, page 515 of the report, his Lordship held that under Article 12, `State' would include `Court'.

41. In view of such an authoritative pronouncement the definition of State under Article 12 encompass the judiciary and in Kesavananda (supra) it was held that "judicial process" is also "state action" [Para 1717, pg. 1949]


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register