Article 21 Interpretation: Law as Just, Fair, and Reasonable
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The interpretation of the term 'law' within this Article has evolved significantly through landmark Supreme Court judgments.
The Maneka Gandhi Ruling
In the pivotal case of Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of Article 21. The Court held that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must not only be a legally enacted procedure but must also be:
- Just
- Fair
- Reasonable
This landmark judgment established that any law depriving a person of their life or personal liberty must satisfy these substantive standards, moving beyond mere procedural compliance.
Distinction from A.K. Gopalan Case
Prior to the Maneka Gandhi case, the judgment in A.K. Gopalan v/s State of Madras had adopted a narrower interpretation, suggesting that 'law' simply meant the law enacted by the legislature, irrespective of its fairness.
The Maneka Gandhi decision effectively overruled the restrictive interpretation laid down in A.K. Gopalan, introducing the principle that the 'law' must be inherently fair and reasonable in its substance and application, thereby deepening the protection offered by Article 21.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
