Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

observed as follows:

"4.*****These rival arguments raised a question of great constitutional importance as to what relief can a court give for violation of the constitutional right guaranteed in Article 21. The court can certainly injunct the State from depriving a person of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law, but if life or personal liberty is violated otherwise than in accordance with such procedure, is the court helpless to grant relief to the person who has suffered such deprivation? Why should the court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty.*****"

Article 21 consists of only 18 words. If one counts the number of words employed in expressing the various fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, it is possibly the shortest of all the rights, yet, its significance in life is all pervasive providing protection to all human beings including foreigners. A man is assured of certain freedoms right from the day he is born, - freedom of life and liberty. Article 21 recognises such freedom. No law is required to be enacted to protect or guarantee the right to life or of liberty. That is why a man is said to be born free and has the right to stay free all along his life unless, of course, he indulges in unlawful activities which, if proved, may result in penal consequences depriving him of such right. But so long he does not, it is the duty of the State to preserve his freedom, implied by the negative expression in Article

As noticed above, right to life has been interpreted to mean something more than survival or animal existence; it would include the right to live with human dignity and that can be achieved if Article 21 is construed in a manner to embrace private individuals also who may violate the fundamental right of others guaranteed by Article 21 and get away without being penalized if he has the blessings of the police.

In the event it is brought to the notice of a police officer that life of an individual is under threat at the instance of another or that personal liberty of one is likely to be invaded by the other and the police officer despite being under an obligation to prevent the likely commission of any cognizable offence remains inactive, a writ petition, alleging failure of the police officer to perform his statutory duty, may lie and such writ petition does not deserve to be dismissed in limine on the ground that the conflict of interest arises out of a pure and simple private family dispute or that alternative remedy under the ordinary laws are available. If an elderly person does not survive after being threatened by his son either due to shock or the threat is translated into action, the remedies available in law would be meaningless for the deceased.

None has appeared for the private respondents despite dispatch of copy of writ petition to them by Regd. Post on 7.5.2010. The hearing of this petition was concluded on 16.6.2010 and hence it is presumed that they have been duly served.
Having regard to the contents of the police version, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to relief on this petition. The police do not appear to have taken any positive action until 5.5.2010. It is only after a day of presentation of this petition that it submitted prosecution. The duty the police owe to the petitioners was not duly discharged. Accordingly, it is directed that so long the petitioners are alive, the police shall ensure that the private respondents do not indulge in overt acts and cause disturbance in the petitioners' day to day life. Every possible step shall be taken to protect the petitioners' right to life. Any future complaint lodged by them against the private respondents shall be given due consideration and dealt with in accordance with law. However, any dispute relating to property shall not form the subject matter of probe by the police and the parties must agitate such issue before the civil court.