Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)Section 5 in The Identification Of Prisoners Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 53A in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kumar Sen vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1975
Justice Krishna Iyer delivered a concurring opinion
agreeing with the aforesaid conclusions but expressing a
thought process which would be of significant relevance to the
issue in hand. The position can be best explained by
extracting the following observations from the opinion
rendered by Justice Krishna Iyer in Sushil Kumar Sen vs.
State of Bihar (supra)
“I concur regretfully with the result reached by
the infallible logic of the law set out by my
learned Brother Mathew, J. The mortality of
justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge’s
conscience and points an angry
interrogation at the law reformer.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018
24. Would a judicial order compelling a person to give
a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy
under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is the next question.
The issue is interesting and debatable but not having been
argued before us it will suffice to note that in view of the
opinion rendered by this Court in Modern Dental College and
Research Centre and others vs.State of Madhya Pradesh
and others11, Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
another12 and the Nine Judge’s Bench of this Court in K.S.
Puttaswamy and another vs. Union of India and others13
the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as
absolute and but must bow down to compelling public
interest. We refrain from any further discussion and consider
it appropriate not to record any further observation on an
issue not specifically raised before us.
11
(2016) 7 SCC 353
12
(1975) 2 SCC 148
13
(2017) 10 SCC 1