Swami Ramdev vs Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd & Ors on 29 September, 2018
129. As laid down in Vishakhas's case by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as reproduced in Charu Khurana (supra):
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 54 (5.26 seconds)Documents citing
Charu Khurana vs Union Of India &Amp Ors. on 10 November, 2014
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2022
Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192.
Miss. Shanti Kumari vs Employers In Relation To The Management ... on 20 September, 2019
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Charu Khurana Vs. Union of India
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 192 at para 37 & 41 has held thus :
Rajesh S/O. Mohanlal Kothari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 July, 2019
"23. In such a situation, we are inclined to think that the
dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing
Advocate has been seriously jeopardized. Dignity, as has
been held in Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1
SCC 192, is the quintessential quality of a personality, for
it is a highly cherished value. It is also clear that liberty
of the petitioner was curtailed in violation of law. The
freedom of an individual has its sanctity. When the
individual liberty is curtailed in an unlawful manner, the
victim is likely to feel more anguished,agonized, shaken,
perturbed, disillusioned and emotionally torn. It is an
assault on his/her identity. The said identity is sacrosanct
under the Constitution. Therefore, for curtailment of
liberty, requisite norms are to be followed. Fidelity to
statutory safeguards instil faith of the collective in the
system. It does not require wisdom of a seer to visualize
that for some invisible reason, an attempt has been made
to corrode the procedural safeguards which are meant to
sustain the sanguinity of liberty. The investigating
agency, as it seems, has put its sense of accountability to
law on the ventilator. The two ladies have been arrested
without following the procedure and put in the
compartment of a train without being produced before
the local Magistrate from Pune to Bhopal. One need not
be Argus - eyed to perceive the same. Its visibility is as
clear as the cloudless noon day. It would not be
erroneous to say that the enthusiastic investigating
agency had totally forgotten the golden words of
Benjamin Disraeli:
Mahesh Murthy vs Pooja Chauhan & Ors. on 6 July, 2020
―125. The contention of the respondents has been that freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India is supreme and cannot in any manner be qualified by the
contentions raised in civil disputes contending that the right
to freedom of speech and expression be regulated in a manner
that it does not circumscribe or a impinge on another's right to
reputation. The said contention clearly cannot be accepted. This
is so in as much as ruled in Charu Khurana v. Union of India:
Amish Devgan vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2020
In Subramanian
Swamy, this Court referred to Charu Khurana and Others v.
Union of India and Others84 wherein it has been ruled that dignity
is the quintessential quality of personality and a basic constituent
along with honour and reputation of the rights guaranteed and
protected under Article 21. Dignity is a part of the individual rights
that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and
interest of a society. While right to speech and expression is
absolutely sacrosanct in the sense that it is essential for individual
growth and progress of democracy which recognises voice of
dissent, tolerance for discordant notes and acceptance of different
voices, albeit the right to equality under Article 14 and right to
84
(2015) 1 SCC 192
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020 Page 65 of 128
dignity as a part of Article 21 have their own significance. The
aforesaid proposition has been reiterated by Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, J., in India Young Lawyers Association and
Others (Sabarimala Temple, In RE.) v. State of Kerala and
Others,85 which decision refers to the four precepts which emerge
from the Preamble, namely, justice, in its social, economic and
political dimensions; individual liberty in the matter of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and
opportunity amongst all citizens; and sense of fraternity amongst
all citizens that assures the dignity of human life. Individual dignity
can be achieved in a regime which recognises equality with other
citizens regardless of one’s religious beliefs or the group to which
one belongs. Religious beliefs and faiths ensure wider acceptance
of human dignity and liberty, but when conflict arises between the
two, the quest for human dignity, liberty and equality must prevail.
Constitutional interpretation must bring a sense of equilibrium- a
balance, so that read individually and together, the provisions of
the Constitution exist in a contemporaneous accord. Thus, effort
should be made to have synchrony between different parts of the
Constitution and different rights should be interpreted together so
that they exist in harmony. Freedoms elaborated in Part III are
85
(2019) 11 SCC 1
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020 Page 66 of 128
exercised within the society which are networked. Freedoms,
therefore, have linkages which cannot be ignored. In
Subramanian Swamy, this Court had referred to a compendium
of judgments dwelling on balancing of fundamental rights when the
right of a citizen comes in conflict with a different fundamental right
also granted by the Constitution as each citizen is entitled to enjoy
each and every one of the freedoms together and the Constitution
does not prefer one freedom to another.
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager ... vs S.C.R Caterers,Dry Fruits,F.J.S.W ... on 29 January, 2016
17. The learned senior counsel further places reliance
on a recent decision of this Court in Charu
21
Khurana v. Union of India6, wherein the above
stated principle enunciated in Olga Tellis (supra)
has been reiterated.
Dr. Rini Johar vs State Of M.P.&Ors. on 3 June, 2016
23. In such a situation, we are inclined to think that the dignity of
the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing Advocate has been seriously
jeopardized. Dignity, as has been held in Charu Khurana v. Union
of India7, is the quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a
highly cherished value. It is also clear that liberty of the petitioner
was curtailed in violation of law. The freedom of an individual has its
sanctity. When the individual liberty is curtailed in an unlawful
manner, the victim is likely to feel more anguished, agonized, shaken,
perturbed, disillusioned and emotionally torn. It is an assault on
his/her identity. The said identity is sacrosanct under the
Constitution. Therefore, for curtailment of liberty, requisite norms are
to be followed. Fidelity to statutory safeguards instil faith of the
collective in the system. It does not require wisdom of a seer to
7 (2015) 1 SCC 192
18
visualize that for some invisible reason, an attempt has been made to
corrode the procedural safeguards which are meant to sustain the
sanguinity of liberty. The investigating agency, as it seems, has put
its sense of accountability to law on the ventilator. The two ladies
have been arrested without following the procedure and put in the
compartment of a train without being produced before the local
Magistrate from Pune to Bhopal. One need not be Argus – eyed to
perceive the same. Its visibility is as clear as the cloudless noon day.
It would not be erroneous to say that the enthusiastic investigating
agency had totally forgotten the golden words of Benjamin Disraeli:
Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016
In Charu Khurana and others v. Union of India and
others124, it has been ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of
a personality, for it is a highly cherished value. Thus perceived, right
to honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents of right
under Article 21. Submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that reputation as an aspect of Article 21 is always
available against the highhanded action of the State. To state that
such right can be impinged and remains unprotected inter se private
disputes pertaining to reputation would not be correct. Neither this
right be overridden and blotched notwithstanding malice, vile and
venal attack to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another by
stating that curbs and puts unreasonable restriction on the freedom of
speech and expression. There is no gainsaying that individual rights
form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a
society. There can be no denial of the fact that the right to freedom of
speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct. Simultaneously, right
to life as is understood in the expansive horizon of Article 21 has its
124
(2015) 1 SCC 192
139
own significance. We cannot forget the rhetoric utterance of Patrick
Henry:-
Sukhsagar Pandey And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And And Another on 15 November, 2019
19. All these provisions have been added in order to give a kick to the co-operative movement in the country and to ensure that citizens of India are able to form societies with the comman object to promote welfare of the people at large. The Apex Court in the case of Charu Khurana Vs. Union of India4, has observed that the Directive principles have been regarded as 'Soul of the Constitution of India' and the principles of policy laid down therein are to be understood in the back drop that India is a Welfare State. It is, therefore, the duty of the State to promote justice, to provide equal opportunities to all citizens and to see that they are not deprived of by reasons of economic disparity. It is also the duty of the State to frame policies so that its citizen have the right to adequate means of livelihood. Article 38 in Part-IV of the Constitution under the Directive principles of State policies places a constitutional obligation upon the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. The State has to make an endeavour and strive, in particular, to minimize the inequalities in income and to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Article 37 makes the Directive principle of State policy fundamental in the governance of the country and provides that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.