Right to life and administrative accountability
Right to Life
Right to Life is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It states:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
This right is not just confined to mere existence but has been expanded by the judiciary to include the right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, and right to a clean environment, among others.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life is a sacred and inviolable right.
Administrative Accountability: Detailed Explanation
Administrative accountability refers to the obligation of the government and its officials to explain and justify their actions and decisions to the public and legislature. It ensures that administrative authorities act within the law and uphold fairness, transparency, and justice.
Administrative accountability is crucial in a democracy to avoid abuse of power, corruption, and arbitrariness in public administration.
Case Laws on Right to Life
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without providing a valid reason.
Issue: Whether the procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty should be “just, fair, and reasonable” and not arbitrary.
Holding: The Court broadened the scope of Article 21 by stating that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and not arbitrary. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be curtailed except by due process.
Significance: This landmark case expanded the right to life to include protection from arbitrary state action.
2. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Delhi (1981)
Facts: A prisoner was kept in a jail with inhumane conditions, which affected his right to life.
Issue: Whether the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all other amenities that make life meaningful such as food, shelter, and sanitation.
Significance: This case expanded the qualitative aspect of the right to life.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts: Slum dwellers were evicted from their homes by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Issue: Whether the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Holding: The Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life. Evicting slum dwellers without adequate alternative arrangements would violate their right to life.
Significance: This case linked livelihood and shelter as essential components of the right to life.
4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Facts: Prisoners were subjected to cruel and degrading treatment.
Issue: Does Article 21 protect prisoners from inhumane treatment?
Holding: The Court ruled that prisoners also enjoy the right to life and dignity. Any torture or degrading treatment is unconstitutional.
Significance: Affirmed the protection of human dignity even for prisoners.
5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1962)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the unlawful detention.
Issue: The scope of the right to life and personal liberty.
Holding: The Court held that the right to life and liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Significance: Reinforced the need for due process.
Case Laws on Administrative Accountability
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) - The Judges’ Transfer Case
Facts: The case dealt with transparency and accountability in the transfer of judges.
Issue: Whether the executive should be accountable in the appointment and transfer of judges.
Holding: The Supreme Court stressed the need for accountability and transparency in administrative decisions impacting judiciary.
Significance: Established that administrative actions must be transparent and justified.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: The case involved the appointment of members to a selection committee.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion is absolute.
Holding: The Court ruled that discretion must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily. There should be accountability.
Significance: This case emphasized the need for reasoned decision-making in administration.
3. Manohar Joshi v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1991)
Facts: The petitioner challenged certain arbitrary administrative actions by municipal authorities.
Issue: Whether administrative actions must be accountable to the public.
Holding: The Court held that administrative authorities must be accountable and exercise power within the limits of law.
Significance: Reinforced principles of natural justice and accountability.
4. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013)
Facts: Dealing with the decision-making process of the government concerning Section 377 of IPC.
Issue: Government accountability and reasonableness of decisions.
Holding: The Court noted that government actions must be reasonable and follow principles of fairness.
Significance: Highlighted the judiciary’s role in ensuring administrative accountability.
5. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
Facts: Related to the investigation of corruption cases involving high-level politicians.
Issue: Ensuring the accountability of administrative authorities and independent investigations.
Holding: The Court emphasized strict accountability, transparency, and judicial oversight in administrative investigations.
Significance: Marked a milestone in judicial activism to check administrative corruption.
Summary
Right to Life is a fundamental right under Article 21, expanded to include dignity, livelihood, health, and humane treatment.
Administrative Accountability ensures that government actions are transparent, fair, non-arbitrary, and subject to judicial review.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding these principles by interpreting the Constitution broadly and intervening when violations occur.
RELATED Blog
0 comments