Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) The Right to go abroad;

(2) The Right to privacy;

(3) The Right against solitary confinement;

(4) The Right against Bar fetters;

(5) The Right to legal aid;

(6) The Right to speedy trial;

(7) The Right against Handcuffing;

(8) The Right against delayed execution;

(9) The Right against custodial violence;

(10) The Right against public hanging;

(11) Doctor's Assistance; and (12) Shelter.

15. Present controversy between the authorities pertains as to whether proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be said to be as per 'procedure established by law' (Article 21). 'Procedure established by law' would mean law prescribed by Parliament or by a State Legislature. No doubt Parliament or the State Legislature has powers to change the procedure by amending the same. Thus, it is to be seen that procedure prescribed by violates any of the Fundamental Rights declared by the Constitution, it being Articles 14, 19, 21 or 22. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment there is no challenge to the competency of the legislature to enact the impugned provision of Control Order. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the procedure prescribed is neither fair nor just and so infringes the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether procedure prescribed by the Legislature is reasonable, just and fair, of course, depends upon the circumstances of each case. The apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990)1 SCC, while examining the constitutionality of Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 held as under:-