Each Day’s Delay Matters In Cases Of Personal Liberty: SC
Detailed Explanation
1. Personal Liberty and Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
This right is fundamental and sacrosanct.
Any deprivation of personal liberty must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary or delayed.
2. Why Delay in Cases of Personal Liberty Matters
Personal liberty is a fragile right; once infringed, it cannot be compensated by money.
Delays in releasing a person who is illegally detained cause irreparable harm, including psychological trauma, stigma, loss of livelihood, and deterioration of health.
The legal system therefore stresses speedy adjudication in cases involving personal liberty.
3. Legal Principle
Courts have repeatedly held that the longer a person is deprived of personal liberty unlawfully, the greater the violation of the Constitution.
Hence, the judiciary adopts a liberal approach in granting bail, anticipatory bail, and quashing of FIRs where liberty is at stake.
Delays in disposing of habeas corpus petitions, bail applications, or release orders can constitute a continuing violation of Article 21.
Important Supreme Court Cases Supporting This Principle
1. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Facts: Kartar Singh challenged his detention.
Holding: The Court emphasized that detention and deprivation of personal liberty must be subject to the strictest scrutiny.
It held that any delay in releasing unlawfully detained persons worsens the violation of fundamental rights.
2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
The Court ruled that prisoners’ rights to life and personal liberty must be respected and any arbitrary detention or delay violates Article 21.
It stated that courts must act quickly to restore liberty if unlawfully curtailed.
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
The Court laid down guidelines to prevent illegal and unnecessary arrests.
It stated that detention itself is a serious interference with personal liberty and the longer the detention without trial, the greater the injustice.
The Court warned authorities against delaying the release of accused who have been granted bail or found entitled to liberty.
4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
The Court formulated safeguards to prevent illegal detention and custodial torture.
It emphasized that every delay in informing relatives or lawyers about detention further endangers liberty and violates rights.
The judgment implicitly recognized that delays compound the violation of personal liberty.
5. Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978)
The Court noted that unnecessary and unreasonable delays in releasing accused persons on bail infringe upon their right to liberty.
It stressed that courts must act promptly.
6. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)
The Court highlighted that a person’s right to personal liberty is paramount and delays in justice amount to denial of justice.
It held that liberty must not be treated as a right to be withheld indefinitely.
Practical Implications
Courts often fast-track cases involving personal liberty, including bail and habeas corpus petitions.
It serves as a check on arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention without trial.
It pressurizes law enforcement agencies to act within the bounds of law and not misuse power.
Judges often remind authorities that each day of unnecessary delay adds to the constitutional violation.
Summary
Personal liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Delays in releasing a person unlawfully deprived of liberty cause serious constitutional violations.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that each day’s delay matters and must be avoided in such cases.
The judiciary adopts a pro-liberty and speedy justice approach to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals.
RELATED Blog
0 comments