Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Reinforcing Article 21 safeguards, the Court held that Look Out Circulars (LOCs) cannot be used as routine debt-recovery tools and restrictions on foreign travel must be justified by a lawful basis and credible material.
The Court emphasised that constitutional guarantees cannot depend upon the nature or gravity of the alleged offence. The Constitution cannot be interpreted in a vacuum or based on “ifs and buts”.
The Court remarked that the daughters, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family.
The Court observed that arrest is not designed to operate as a punitive measure nor as an instrument for demonstrating the authority of the investigating agency.
A 29-year-old woman was allegedly kept from leaving her own home for nearly three months, her phone and laptop taken away, after traveling to Manipur for what she believed were wedding preparations.
The Court held that no violation of bodily autonomy was found where medical care was limited to consented oral treatment despite the patient’s critical health condition marked by dangerously low sugar, sodium and potassium levels.
The Court held that although allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act constitute serious economic offences, arrest cannot be made as a matter of course. Where the investigation is primarily based on documentary evidence already in the custody of the authorities and custodial interrogation is not shown to be indispensable, anticipatory bail deserves to be granted subject to appropriate safeguards.
The Court held that a 21-year-old woman, being an adult, is legally competent to decide her residence, marriage, and education, and directed that she shall not be compelled to return to her parental home or treated as a missing person, as these matters of personal choice are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The orders cannot be passed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law.”
The High Court held that where ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies, the State cannot bypass judicial scrutiny and directly invoke preventive detention merely because the accused has secured bail or because prosecution under ordinary law may involve procedural rigours.
“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is deemed to be “heart and soul” of the Constitution as it empowers any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.”
“Mere fact that the victim was alone, by itself, could not have been a justifiable ground to detain her in a protective home.”
“The right to travel abroad has been considered to be a facet of right to life and personal liberty, and, thus, cannot be subjected to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, even when a person is facing a prosecution.”
“The live and reasonable nexus between the alleged activities and purpose of detention was irretrievably lost by the unexplained delay of nearly over a year.”
“In matters concerning liberty, bail courts must be sensitive and ensure that constitutional ethos is upheld. While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence”.
“With anguish and pain, this Court observes here that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional District & Sessions Judge failed to exercise their discretion in right perspective and in a very casual manner, decided the bail applications, placed before them.”
“When the Parliament enacts more liberal provisions, the benefit thereof should be available to all persons who may be affected, regardless of when their cases originated.”
“In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the power to detain a person without trial, for security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. But where individual liberty comes into conflict with the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interests of the nation.”
“These are the cases where personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should very well be sensitized in these types of issues, especially about the judgments which relate and deal with personal liberty.”
“The minor victim has the right to beget a life and/or create a life, which is a facet of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”