1|Page

HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

DISCIPLINE- JURISPRUDENCE

TOPIC- NATURAL LAW AND THE INDIAN JUDICIARY

SUBMITTED TO-

Dr. SACHIN SHARMA

(ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW)

SUBMITTED BY-

ARSHPREET SINGH SUDAN

B.B.A LL.B (Hons.) 3rd Year

Roll No. 1120212212

2|Page

Table of Contents

S. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. DECLARATION 3

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

3. ABSTRACT 5

4. INRODUCTION 6

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH 8

OBJECTIVES
7. NATURAL LAW 9

8. INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW 10-12

THEORY
9. NATURAL LAW- UPHOLDING THE 13-17
CONSCIENCE OF THE INDIAN COURTS
10. CONCLUSION 18

11. REFERENCES 19
3|Page

DECLARATION

Student Name Arshpreet Singh Sudan

Subject Code LB-602

Course B.B.A LL.B (Hons.)

Enrollment Number 1120212212

Supervisor/Teacher Dr. Sachin Sharma

I submit that the work incorporated within this assignment is the result of my own efforts.
I, in no ways intend, to plagiarise the works of any of the authors I have cited herein.

I HEREBY STATE THAT:

I. I understand the university‟s policy in regard of plagiarism.

II. I have not used work previously produced by another student or any other person to hand in as
my own.

III. I have not allowed and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing
it off as his or her own work
4|Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of any project/assignment is the amalgamation of the collective efforts of not a
few but many involved. Hence, the efforts of every individual directly or indirectly contributing
to the accomplishment of this paper are sincerely appreciated and recognized.

I, Arshpreet Singh Sudan, a student of B.B.A.LLB at the Himachal Pradesh national law
University (Shimla), am eminently thankful to the University for entrusting me and bestowing
upon me this opportunity.

However, I would particularly like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Sachin Sharma, Associate
Professor of Law at the Himachal Pradesh law University for his guidance and support
throughout my assignment on the subject.

I would also like to extend my gratefulness to my peers and friends for their constant support and
reassurance, owing to which the completion of this paper could‟ve been possible.
5|Page

ABSTRACT

The research paper delves into the significant legal case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, a
pivotal moment in Indian legal history during the Emergency period. The case revolved around
the suspension of fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. The majority judgment, led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, held that during
the Emergency, no individual could seek relief through a writ of Habeas Corpus against their
detention. This decision was based on the Presidential Order of 1975 under Article 359,
suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of personal liberty. However, Justice
H.R. Khanna famously dissented, emphasizing the sanctity of life and liberty as inherent rights
that cannot be suspended, even during emergencies. Furthermore, the paper explores the concept
of natural law theory and its influence on the Indian Constitution, particularly through Articles
14, 19, and 21, known as the "golden triangle." These articles guarantee equality before the law,
freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal liberty, reflecting the
principles of natural law. The research also highlights the evolution of legal interpretations,
culminating in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, where the Supreme Court
overruled ADM Jabalpur, affirming the fundamental right to privacy as inherent and essential for
human dignity. This case exemplifies the dynamic interpretation of the Constitution and the
alignment with natural law principles in upholding individual rights and freedoms.
6|Page

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution, while not explicitly mentioning natural law, has been profoundly
influenced by its principles. The Fundamental Rights provisions and the concept of the basic
structure doctrine, as established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,
reflect the underlying natural law philosophy that has shaped the Indian judiciary's approach to
constitutional interpretation.

The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1case serves as a prime example of the judiciary's
commitment to upholding natural rights. In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of
personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that any procedure depriving a person of their
liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, in line with the principles of natural justice. This ruling
underscores the judiciary's willingness to interpret constitutional provisions through the lens of
natural law.

While the Indian judiciary's reliance on natural law has been instrumental in safeguarding
individual rights, it has not been without criticism. The paper acknowledges the concerns raised
about judicial activism and the potential for subjective interpretations of natural law to
undermine the rule of law. It engages with these debates, exploring the complexities and
challenges faced by the judiciary in navigating the delicate balance between natural law and
positive law.

By examining the interplay between natural law and the Indian judiciary, this research paper
aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the dynamic and evolving nature of constitutional
jurisprudence in India. It seeks to shed light on the ways in which the judiciary has leveraged
natural law principles to ensure the continued relevance of the Constitution in a rapidly changing
social and political landscape.

1
AIR 1978 SC 597
7|Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The practical "how" of any piece of research is referred to as research technique. It's about how a
researcher plans a study in a methodical way to produce accurate and reliable results that address
the study's goals and objectives.

TYPES:

o The emphasis on words, statistics, or both is what distinguishes qualitative, quantitative,

and mixed methods strategies.
o Although this is an oversimplification, it serves as a good starting point for
understanding. Let's take a closer look at it.
o Quantitative research focuses on obtaining and analysing words(written or spoken) and
textual data, whereas qualitative research focuses on gathering and analysing qualitative
data. Other "softer" data points, such as body language or visual characteristics, could be
analyzed qualitatively. We may say the present assignment is based on qualitative
research.

SOURCES OF RESEARCH

Secondary Primary
Books None
Journals
Research Papers

The research methodology opted for in the given assignment is a DOCTRINAL one.
8|Page

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

o What is natural law and what is the relevance it holds in the indian legal context?
o Wether there exists a dichotomy between natural law and the indian judicial
interpretation of natural law within the legal framework?
o How does the interplay between natural and judicial processes come into existence?
o What is essentially meant by “natural law” and how do we clearly identify it in our
judicial evolution especially through a constiutional lens?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

o To understand what is meant by natural law through exploring the indian judicial scope.
o To establish a comprehensive understanding of the relevance of natural law and its co-
extensive interaction with constitutional law and thereof, coherently understand their
significance in indian judicial pronouncements.
o To understand the role of natural law in the realm of jurisprudence and how deeply it is
embedded in the judicial structure and its evolution thereof.
o To Make an analysis of several case laws concerning the same and conclusively
determining the general judicial outlook in terms of upholding natural law.
9|Page

NATURAL LAW

Natural law theory is a philosophical and ethical framework that asserts there are intrinsic moral
values and standards that should guide human behavior and reasoning. The core idea is that these
moral norms are inherent in human nature and reason, rather than being created by society or
culture. Natural law theorists believe that moral standards are objective and universal, not
relative to individual preferences or cultural norms. The idea of natural law began with ancient
Greeks‟ conception of a universe that is governed by an unchanging, or eternal law. It received
its most important formulation in stoicism that argued that all humans have reason within them
and obey its law. The natural law was given practical application in juristic sense by the Romans
through the division of Roman law into three distinct divisions namely jus civile, jus gentium,
jusnaturale. That there are certain fundamental moral truths that can be discerned through reason
alone, without appeal to divine revelation or positive law. For natural law theorists, the existence
of objective moral standards is essential for grounding human rights, justice, and the rule of
law. They contend that positive laws (laws created by human authorities) derive their authority
from moral considerations and should align with moral principles. Laws that violate fundamental
moral norms are considered unjust and may lack full legal force. However, natural law theory
has been criticized by some for assuming universal moral rules that may not account for cultural
differences in how concepts like fairness and justice are interpreted. There are also debates about
the proper role of moral philosophy in legal reasoning and the limits of judicial power to
invalidate legislation based on abstract constitutional provisions. Despite these criticisms, natural
law theory continues to be an influential framework for linking morality and legality,
emphasizing that law should be grounded in moral principles inherent in human nature.
10 | P a g e

Indian Constitution and Natural Law Theory

The modern trend of guaranteeing fundamental rights to the people may be traced to the U.S.
Constitution drafted in 1787. It is the first constitution in the world which made basic human
right justiciable and enforceable through the instrumentality of court. Bill of Right came to be
incorporated in the U.S. Constitution in 1791 in the form of ten amendments which embody the
Locke‟s ideas of protection of life, liberty and property.2

The concept of human right can be traced to be the natural law philosophers such as Locke and
Rousseau. According to Locke, man is born with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled
enjoyment of all rights and privileges of the law of nature and he has by nature a power to
preserve his property that is his liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men.
The Indian Constitution is heavily influenced by natural law theory, even though it does not
explicitly mention it. The development of the natural law and the concept of natural rights have
led to the framing of the Indian Constitution. This is the main reason which helped the founders
of the constitution of India to ensure that certain aspects of the Natural law are inserted as a
feature in the Indian Constitution. Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, known as the
"golden triangle", have drawn inspiration from natural law theory. These articles guarantee
equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal
liberty. The Fundamental Rights mirror the natural law principle in totality. Natural law endows
humans with certain inalienable and universal rights based on their character. The Fundamental
Rights of our constitution form an integral part of the rights endowed to its citizens. A few of the
fundamental Rights are inalienable and everlasting even in case an emergency is declared. In
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., it was held that there are
certain principles within the framework of Indian Constitution which are inviolable and hence
cannot be amended by the Parliament. These principles were commonly termed as Basic
Structure which reflect natural law.3

2
M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 875 (LexisNexis, Haryana, 8th edn., 2018)
3
AIR 1973 SC 1461
11 | P a g e

o Article 14:

Article 14 of the Indian constitution read as follows:

“The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of law
or the equal protection of law within the territory of the state”.

Article 14, without any doubt, serves as a tool to ensure the natural right of equality and justice.
Impliedly, which was again been reiterated and decide by the courts of law that Article 14 has
been serving as a tool to ensure the fairness and the just procedures in the decision making
process which is to mean that there is a recognized principle that sets the stage for all other laws.
This is to mean that ensuring the fairness and the just procedures equals in ensuring the
principles in the Indian Constitution, thereby giving enough importance to this higher law. This
article requires the parliament or the legislative body to frame the law in a manner which does
not impugns the doctrine of reasonability and fairness and mostly, equality. thus, article 14, acts
as a safety valve for every Indian citizen. To be more specific, article 14 is applicable to all
individuals irrespective whether the person is a citizen or not. The universality principle
embodied in the theory of natural law is fulfilled by this particular aspect, where the right to
equality shall be universal and this is the reason why the same has also been included as part of
Universal Declaration of Human rights.

o Article 19-

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental freedoms of speech and
expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession, is heavily influenced by
natural law theory. The concept of freedom of speech and expression is considered a natural right
under natural law theory. By recognizing it as a fundamental freedom in Article 19, the
Constitution ensures that this natural right is protected and upheld. Article 19 allows citizens to
exercise their natural rights, such as the freedom to assemble peacefully, form associations, and
practice any profession. These freedoms are derived from the principles of natural law, which
emphasize the inherent rights of individuals. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is a clear
12 | P a g e

manifestation of natural law theory, as it guarantees fundamental freedoms that are considered
natural rights under natural law philosophy. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in
interpreting Article 19 in light of natural law principles, ensuring that these rights are protected
and upheld in accordance with the Constitution.

o Article 21-

“No person or an individual shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a clear manifestation of natural law theory, as it

guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which is considered a natural right
under natural law philosophy. Article 21 is considered the most comprehensive article of the
Indian Constitution and is based on the premises of natural justice. The concept of natural
justice, emphasizing fairness and equity in legal proceedings, is closely related to natural law
principles. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the judges mandated that any law which
deprives a person of his personal liberty should stand the test of Article 21, 14 as well as 19 of
the constitution. The principles of natural justice are sheltered under article 21 and therefore, no
person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court.
13 | P a g e

NATURAL LAW- UPHOLDING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE INDIAN

COURTS

o ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

“When histories of nations are written and critiqued, there are judicial decisions at the forefront
of liberty. Yet others have to be consigned to the archives, reflective of what was, but should
never have been.”

– Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while overruling ADM Jabalpur

Emergency led to wide-scale abuse of human rights. In the name of „state of exception‟, the
normal functioning of the Constitution was abrogated. Politicians, activists, dissenters all across
the board were detained. In ADM Jabalpur too, detenues were detained under Maintenance of
Internal Security Act, 1971. They challenged their detention before various High Courts through
writs of Habeas Corpus. The majority of High Courts held the writ of habeas corpus as
maintainable. The matter reached to 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The
prime question before the court was whether the order issued by the President under Article
359(1) of the Constitution suspends the right of every person to move any Court for the
enforcement of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, upon being detained under a law
providing for preventive detention? Meaning thereby can a writ of habeas corpus by a detainee
under MISA before a High be denied on the basis of the Presidential Orders dated 27 June, 1975,
under Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution?

The majority of 4 judges (Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, Justice P.N.
Bhagwati and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud) held that with the proclamation of emergency, and the
subsequent suspension of enforcement of Art. 21, no writ lies in court against detention of a
person. 4The majority held that no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under
Article 226 before a High Court for Habeas Corpus, or any other writ or order or direction, to

4
1976 AIR 1207
14 | P a g e

challenge the legality of an order of detention in view of Presidential Order dated 27th June
1975.

Ray C.J. held that fundamental rights including the right to personal liberty are conferred by the
Constitution. Any pre constitution rights, which are now included in Article 21, do not remain in
existence and cannot be enforced if Article 21 is suspended. The court further held that Article
21 is the sole repository of rights to life and personal liberty against the State. Any claim to a
writ of Habeas Corpus for enforcement of Article 21 becomes barred by the Presidential Order
under Art. 359. He further observed that where any right which existed before the
commencement of the Constitution has been incorporated in Part III, the common law right
would not exist under the Constitution.

The Dissent for Natural Law-

Justice H.R. Khanna famously dissented from the majority, a dissent that costed him the position
of Chief Justice of India. He disagreed with the position of the majority that Art. 21 can be
suspended by the declaration of Emergency.

He held that if the right to enforce Art. 21 is suspended then there would be no remedy against
deprivation of a person‟s life or liberty by the State even though such deprivation might be
without the authority of law or even in flagrant violation of the provisions of law. Observing that
such a position would be against rule of law, J. Khanna noted that, “without such sanctity of life
and liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to
have any meaning.”5

Further, he also held that the right to not be deprived of one’s life or liberty, without the
authority of law, was not the creation of the Constitution. Such rights existed before the
Constitution came into force. And even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the State
has got no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law. Art. 21 is
not the sole repository of the right to personal liberty. Such a right not only follows from
common law, but it also flows from statutory laws like the penal law in force in India.

5
1976 AIR 1207
15 | P a g e

o Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India

In 2017, the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (AIR 2017 SC 4161) overruled the
decision of ADM Jabalpur. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (writing with 3 other judges- Justice J.S.
Khehar, Justice R.K. Agarwal, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer) held that the ADM Jabalpur case
was flawed.
Justice Nariman and Justice Kaul also categorically overruled the decision in ADM Jabalpur.
The majority, in almost echoing J. Khanna, they observed:

“No civilized state can contemplate an encroachment upon life and personal liberty without the
authority of law. Neither life nor liberty are bounties conferred by the state nor does the
Constitution create these rights. The right to life has existed even before the advent of the
Constitution. In recognising the right, the Constitution does not become the sole repository of the
right.”6

The case was filed by 91 yr old retired HC judge KS Puttaswamy against the government‟s
Aadhaar scheme (a form of uniform biometrics-based identity card) which the government
proposed making mandatory fr access to government services and benefits. In this case Supreme
Court took dynamic interpretation of the constitution and gave historical verdict on privacy.the
nine judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy not only emanates from the
guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the constitution, but also intrinsically
enshrined under various facets of freedom and dignity recognised by the fundamental rights
contained in Part III of the Indian constitution.

The judgment recognized the fundamental right to privacy as a natural right inherent in every
individual. This aligns with the concept of natural law, which posits that certain moral principles
are inherent in human nature and can be discovered through reason. Socrates, for instance,
believed that individuals have an innate moral insight that enables them to discern between right
and wrong. Similarly, Aristotle divided human life into two aspects: creation by God and the
quality of reason, which enables individuals to uncover the principles of natural justice. The

6
AIR 2015 SC 2367
16 | P a g e

court's emphasis on the importance of privacy as a fundamental right reflects the natural law
principle that certain rights are inherent and universal, transcending human conventions and
customs. The judgment emphasized the need to protect human dignity, which is a core principle
of natural law. The court recognized that privacy is essential for maintaining human dignity and
that the state has a duty to protect it. This aligns with the natural law principle that human dignity
is a fundamental aspect of human nature and that the state has a responsibility to uphold
it. Aristotle, for instance, believed that human beings are rational creatures capable of living in
harmony with reason, which is essential for their dignity.

The judgment imposed significant limitations on the state's power to intrude into an individual's
privacy. This reflects the natural law principle that the state's power is derived from the people
and that it must be exercised in a manner that respects the inherent rights and dignity of
individuals. The Stoics, for example, believed that the world operates on reason and that
individuals should live in harmony with reason to live naturally. This principle was applied in
Roman courts, where natural law principles were occasionally applied, especially in cases
involving foreign individuals, contributing to the evolution of Roman law. The judgment
recognized the right to life and liberty as fundamental rights that are protected by the
Constitution. This aligns with the natural law principle that the right to life and liberty are
inherent and universal rights that are essential for human dignity and well-being. Aristotle, for
instance, believed that human beings have a natural inclination towards self-preservation and that
the right to life is a fundamental aspect of human nature. The judgment emphasized the
importance of reason and morality in guiding state actions. The court's emphasis on the need for
proportionality and necessity in state actions reflects the natural law principle that state actions
must be guided by reason and morality.

Justice Nariman observed that “we do not find any conflict between the right to life and the right
to personal liberty. Both rights are natural and inalienable rights of every human being and are
required in order to develop his/her personality to the fullest.” 7

Justice Sapre held that “in my considered opinion, “right to privacy of any individual” is
essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with

7
Para 45, ,Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
17 | P a g e

the human being till he/she breathes last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human
being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguish with human being.”8

Justice Kaul noted that “primal natural right which is only being recognized as a fundamental
right falling in part III of the Constitution of India.” 9

8
Para 25, ,Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
9
Para 7,Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
18 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the concept of natural law has played a significant role in shaping the Indian
Constitution and its interpretation by the judiciary. The Constitution's emphasis on fundamental
rights, such as the right to life and personal liberty, equality before the law, and freedom of
speech and expression, reflects the influence of natural law theory. The Supreme Court's
decisions, including the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, have consistently
recognized the importance of natural law principles in upholding the rule of law and protecting
individual rights. The ADM Jabalpur case, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in
K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, highlighted the tension between the state's power to suspend
fundamental rights during emergencies and the inherent rights of individuals. The majority
opinion in ADM Jabalpur held that the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended
during emergencies, while Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent emphasized the importance of these
rights as inherent and universal. The K.S. Puttaswamy case, on the other hand, recognized the
right to privacy as a fundamental right derived from natural law principles. The judgment
emphasized the importance of protecting human dignity and the need for proportionality and
necessity in state actions. The Indian Constitution's incorporation of natural law principles has
ensured that certain fundamental rights are protected even during emergencies. The "golden
triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21, which guarantee equality, freedom of speech and expression,
and the right to life and personal liberty, reflects the influence of natural law theory.In
conclusion, the Indian Constitution's reliance on natural law principles has been instrumental in
shaping the country's legal framework and protecting individual rights. The judiciary's consistent
recognition of these principles has ensured that the rule of law is upheld and that the rights of
citizens are protected, even in times of crisis.
19 | P a g e

REFERENCES

A. BOOKS-
1. M.P.JAIN, 8 INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 875 (lexis nexis haryana, 8th ed.
2018)

B. ACTS-
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

C. PORTALS-
1. SCC
2. MANUPATRA
3. JSTOR
4. LEXIS NEXIS
5. EBC
D. WEBSITES/JOURNALS
1. Znhammad Zaidi and Shuaeb Nigar, Role of Natural Law Philosophy in Shaping Modern
2. Judicial Approach, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION, 2020
3. Krtika. Natural Law: Relevance in the Modern Legal System. SOCIAL RESEARCH
FOUNDATION, 25/10/2022, https://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/new/publish-
journal.php?editID=4331WRITE
4. Aashi Jain, NATURAL LAW PHILOSOPHY AND THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
BRILLOPEDIA, Jul 2, 2022, https://www.brillopedia.net/post/natural-law-philosophy-
and-the-supreme-court-of-india
20 | P a g e