Landmark Cases
Landmark Cases
Landmark Cases
1. Bijoe Emmanuel v/s State of Kerala: The Appellants, Bijoe, Binu Mol and
Bindu Emmanuel are faithful of jehovah’s witness. In the school, they
refused to sing National Anthem in the morning assembly as they
honestly believe that their religion does not permit them to join any
rituals except it be in their prayers to God ‘Jehovah’. However they they
always stood up in respectful silence in the school assembly. They got
expelled from school as a result of this act.
The Supreme Court took a liberal approach and observed that not joining
the singing of the National Anthem neither prevents the singing of the
National Anthem nor causes any disturbance to any assembly engagaed
in such singing so as to contribute an offence under section 3 of the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The court concluded that
that it is evident that Jeovah’s Witnesses whenever they are, do hold
religious beliefs that may appear strange or even bizarre to us, but the
sincerity of their belief is beyond question. The Court very greatly
observed that Appellants were not engaged in any alleged religious
ceremonies which may be injurious to the moral tone of the school and
mere refraining from joining the singing do not injure the moral tone.
Therefore, the belief or practice of the Appellants was protected under
Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal: DK Basu was the Executive Chairman
of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organization. He
addressed a letter to the Supreme Court of India drawing the courts
attention to a piece of news published in various newspapers about
deaths in police custody and lockups.
In the letter, it was mentioned that such crimes of custodial violence always
went unpunished despite the efforts made and urged the courts to look into
the matter so that the family members of the victims are given some form of
compensation. He requested that the letter be treated as a Writ Petition within
the “Public Interest Litigation” category.
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa
AIR 1993 SC 1960 and reiterated that prisoners and detainees should not be
deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and only the restriction
permitted by law could be imposed on the enjoyment of their Fundamental
Rights. The apex court further laid down the following guidelines and said that
arrest and detention will be subject to the guidelines. The violation of these
guidelines would attract not only the departmental action but also the
contempt of court proceedings in a High court having the jurisdication over the
matter.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: Prior to this case decision, Article 21
guaranteed the Right to Life and Personel Liberty only against the
arbitrary action of the executive and not the legislature. This case turned
up pages and extended the protection against legislative actions.
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as
per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport
Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner
was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of
the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest. The petitioner
approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and
contending that the State's act of impounding her passport was a direct
assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is
pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney
v. Ramarathnam[2] held that right to travel abroad is well within the
ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act
diluted this particular right was unclear. The authorities, however,
answered that the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest of the
general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art
32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution alleging that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was
ultra vires the constitution.
The court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act,1967 is void because
it violates Article 14 of Indian Constitution because it confers vague and
undefined power to the passport authority. It is violative of Article 14
since it doesn’t provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be
heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to
the word procedure.
The Central Government never did disclose any reasons for impounding
the petitioner's passport rather she was told that the act was done in the
interests of the general public whereas it was found out that her
presence was felt required by the respondents for the proceedings
before a commission of inquiry. The reason was given explicit that it was
not really necessarily done in the public interests and no ordinary person
would understand the reasons for not disclosing this information or the
grounds of her passport confiscation.
The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not
distinctive nor mutually exclusive." Any law depriving a person of his
personal liberty has to stand a test of one or more of the fundamental
rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, ex-
hypothesi must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be
projected in the procedure. The phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure
established by law" instead of due process of law which is said to have
procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality. There is a
clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice
i.e., audi alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair
and unjust even when a statute is silent on it.