The question asks to identify the statement about 'personal liberty' that is not correct.
Analyzing 'Personal Liberty' Statement Validity
Let's evaluate each statement:
- Statement 1: This statement asserts that the state cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals of personal liberty. This reflects the principle that state actions impacting fundamental rights must have a rational basis, which is a correct understanding of personal liberty protections.
- Statement 2: This statement indicates that any deprivation of personal liberty must follow established legal procedures. This aligns with the core tenet of the rule of law and is a fundamental safeguard for personal liberty.
- Statement 3: This statement correctly identifies the writ of Habeas Corpus as a mechanism to secure personal liberty by challenging unlawful detention.
- Statement 4: This statement claims the majority view in the A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case (1950) established the 'due process of law'. This is incorrect. The majority in the Gopalan case strictly interpreted Article 21 to mean that personal liberty could only be deprived according to 'procedure established by law', explicitly rejecting the applicability of the broader 'due process of law' concept (prevalent in the US) in the Indian context at that time. The interpretation later evolved in subsequent judgments like Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978).
Conclusion on Incorrect Statement
Therefore, the statement that the majority view in A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras invented 'due process of law' is factually inaccurate regarding the specific ruling of that majority decision.
Important Questions from Judiciary-Supreme Court & High Courts
- Under Article 32 in which case ‘Wilful non-compliance' with court order was declared as contempt of the court?
Which one of the following statements is not correct?
(a) The Supreme Court of India is a Court of Record.
(b) High Courts in India are Courts of Record.
(c) Subordinate Courts in India are Courts of Record.
(d) All Courts in India are not Courts of Record.- Which one of the following subjects fall within the jurisdiction of both High Court and Supreme Court
- Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R).
Assertion (A): Public Interest Litigation in India is essential for the rule of law.
Reason (R): Public Interest Litigation provides effective access of Justice to socially and economically weaker sections.
Select the correct answer from the code given below: Consider the following statements :
a) Under Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, a Supreme Court Judge can be impeached.
b) The ground for impeachment of a Judge pertains to 'incapacity and proven misbehavior'.
c) A minimum of 100 MPs are required to initiate the impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha.
d) The President can pardon the Judge.
Which of the following statements are IN CORRECT?
