TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NO.

Table Of cases 5
False Imprisonment 6-7
Defences to False Imprisonment 7-8
Right to liberty 8-9
Right to Life 9-10
Right to personal liberty 10-11
Article 21 And Emergency 11
Suggestions and Analysis 11-12
Conclusion 12
Bibliography 13

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CASES

A.D.M Jabalpur v. S.Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207.

Ambalam v. Jagarnath, 1959 Madras 89.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 SCR (2) 67.
Bird v. Jones (1845) 7 QB 742.
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, 1996 SCC (1) 490.
Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad, AIR 1998 AP 302.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary of State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
Merring v. Graham White Aviation Co. (1920) 121 LT 44.
Murray v. Minister of Defence, (1988) 2 All ER 521 (HL).
N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 114.
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 456.
Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry, 1910 AC 295.
Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1989 SCR (1) 20.
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 24.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SC 1367.

Page | 2
False Imprisonment

According to Dr. Winfield, ‘False Imprisonment consists in imprisonment of a total

restraint for some period, however, short, upon the liberty of another without
sufficient justification.’

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person against her will by someone
without legal authority or justification.

In fact, any person who intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement without
their consent (and without legal justification) may be liable for false imprisonment,
which is both a crime and a civil wrong.

Essentials elements

In order to fix the liability for false imprisonment the plaintiff has to prove the
following essentials-

 Total restraint.
 Detention must be unlawful.

Total Restraint- False imprisonment requires a total restraint, meaning the claimant
cannot escape in any direction. Therefore, by leaving a safe exit open for the claimant
to leave, the defendant is not liable. In order to constitute false imprisonment
duration of retention is immaterial.1

In Bird v. Jones2, is a good illustration to the point, defendant block the highway for
seeing a boat race, it was held the there was no imprisonment as the plaintiff partially
liberty was restricted not the whole liberty.

In false imprisonment there must be total block or total restrain of the person there is
no other way to move out is necessary to prove the tort against the defendant. If

1
Ambalam v. Jagarnath, 1959 Madras 89.
2
(1845) 7 QB 742.
Page | 3
someone voluntarily agrees to condition to stay then it was not constituted as false
imprisonment3.

Period of Confinement- The tort of false imprisonment arises whatever may be the
period of confinement. But the time period is essence while determining the amount
of compensation to be awarded to the injured party. An otherwise lawful detention
may become unlawful if the detention is increased for an unreasonable period of time.

The Intention Factor- Normally the tort of false imprisonment must be intentional.
A person is not liable for false imprisonment unless his or her act is done for the
purpose of imposing a confinement or with knowledge that such a confinement, to a
substantial certainty will result from it. 4 It is ordinarily for the judge to determine
from the evidence, as a question of fact, the intention of the defendant in a case of
false imprisonment. Even negligent acts can qualify as false imprisonment. For
example, if a person locks someone inside a room without unaware of the fact that
there is someone in the room than he is held liable for false imprisonment.

Knowledge of the Plaintiff- There is no requirement that the plaintiff faces false
imprisonment was aware of the restraint on his freedom at the time of his
confinement, If the person is confined in a room, with one of the entries known to the
plaintiff closed, and the room has more than one entry-exit door, but the plaintiff has
no knowledge about the same, the defendant will still be held liable. Thus, the person
confined does not have to be aware of the confinement or be harmed by it as it is
actionable per se.

Defences to false imprisonment

Defences to false imprisonment usually involve one or more of the elements of proof.

 Consent- The maxim volenti non fit injuria applies to the case of false
imprisonment. The restraint must be involuntary. There is no imprisonment if
the plaintiff agrees of his or free choice, to act in conformity with the request of
the defendant. One who enters the premises of others upon terms which involve
some restrictions on his liberty cannot complain of false imprisonment.

3
Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry, 1910 AC 295.
4
Merring v. Graham White Aviation Co. (1920) 121 LT 44.
Page | 4
  Probable Cause- When the probable cause is established than the action of
false imprisonment and false arrest fails completely. It is said that the test for
probable cause for imprisonment and arrest is an objective one, based not on
the individual’s actual guilt, but upon the information of credible facts or
information that would induce a person of ordinary caution to believe the
accused to be guilty. A defendant who, in a false imprisonment or false arrest
action has established the probable cause for the alleged tort than, has no
additional obligation to prove. Even malicious motives will not support a claim if
probable cause is found to exist.5

 Valid Arrest- A claim of false arrest is completely invalidated if the detainment

was made according to principles of a valid arrest. In some circumstances an
ordinary person can make a citizen’s arrest. If the person who made the arrest
was acting according to instructions from a superior officer, it does not
constitute a defence. However, the superior’s instructions may be used as a
basis for reducing damages awards.

Right to liberty

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
a procedure established by law.”

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme

importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the
procedural magna cart protective of life and liberty.

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and
progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.Article 21
can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the
“State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not
within the preview of Article 21.

“The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter

5
Murray v. Minister of Defence, (1988) 2 All ER 521 (HL).

Page | 5
over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse
forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and
must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the
right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of
human self.”

Right to Life-

Article 21 not only covers the right to life of a person but also cover right to life with
human dignity6 and human dignity includes protection of the health and strength of
workers7, men and women8, and of the right age of children against abuse, facilities
for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity,
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.9

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan 10 , the Supreme Court has declared sexual

harassment of a working woman at her work as amounting to violation of rights of
gender equality and rights to life and liberty which is clear violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution. In the landmark judgment, Supreme Court in the absence of enacted
law to provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights of gender equality and
guarantee against sexual harassment.

Rape has been held to a violation of a person’s fundamental life guaranteed under
Art. 21. Right to life right to live with human dignity. Right to life, would, therefore,
include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and
worth living.11

Reputation is an important part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human
civilization that makes life worth living.12

In U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited13, the right to
shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to

6
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621
7
Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad, AIR 1998 AP 302
8
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 456
9
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 SCR (2) 67
10
(1997) 6 SCC 241
11
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, 1996 SCC (1) 490
12
Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1989 SCR (1) 20
13
AIR 1996 SC 114
Page | 6
residence secured in article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed by article 21. To
make the right meaningful to the poor, the state has to provide facilities and
opportunities to build houses. In N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh14, (Chakmas
Case), the supreme court said that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty
of every human-being, be a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or
group of persons to threaten other person or group of persons. It was held that right
to economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed dalits was a
fundamental right to make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.15

Right to personal liberty-

‘No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned… but… by the law of the land.’

This is not specifically referenced in the Constitution; the right to privacy is

considered a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right that has been
declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty.
Right to privacy has been culled by Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other
provisions of the constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Although no single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy; various
statutes contain provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserve this right.16

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 17 , the petitioner was detained by the
police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period
of five days. Taking the serous note of the police high headedness and illegal
detention of a free citizen, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing
arrest of a person during investigation. An arrested person being held in custody is
entitled, if he so requests to have a friend, relative or other person told as far as is
practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

Right to speedy trial-In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary of State of

Bihar18, it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that an alarming number of
men, women and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of

14
(1996) SCC (1) 742
15
(1995) Supp 2 SCC 549
16
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295
17
AIR 1994 SC 1349
18
AIR 1979 SC 1360
Page | 7
law. The Court took a serious note of the situation and observed that it was carrying a
shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such
long periods of time without trials.

Free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme
Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat19 said that right to free and fair
trial not only to the accused but also to the victims, their family members and
relatives, and society at large.

ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY

In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla 20 , Popularly known as habeas corpus case, the

supreme court held that article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and
personal liberty and therefore, if the right to move any court for the enforcement of
that right was suspended by the presidential order under article 359, the detune
would have no locus standi to a writ petition for challenging the legality of his
detention. Such a wider connotation given to article 359, resulted in the denial of the
cherished right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established
that during emergence of 1975, the fundamental freedom of the people had lost all
meanings.

SUGGESTIONS AND ANALYSIS

Article 21 provides right to life as well as right to liberty to the people. But sometimes
some persons misuse the Fundamental right against the state or the society. This not
only protects the freedom rights of one but also protects against the unlawful arrest,
detention etc. of the individual. Article 21 also includes right to life with dignity
covering aspects of respectful life. It also covers the protection of rights of children
and women and labourers. Court also provide relief if Article 21 is violated, no one
have right to arrest the right of life then person can directly move to high court as
well as supreme court in Article 226 and Article 32 of constitution respectively. The
courts can issue writ of habeas corpus to protect the right and interest of individual.

19
AIR 2006 SC 1367
20
AIR 1976 SC 1207
Page | 8
In the false imprisonment the court give various guidelines in various cases and clears
the dimension of false imprisonment and also clears the situation in which false
imprisonment is defined and all the defences are clearly mentioned. False
imprisonment can come in many forms, including any threat or use of authority that
confines you against your will. While physical force is often used, it is not required.
Moreover, the restraint of a person may be imposed by physical barriers (such as
being locked in a car) or by unreasonable duress (such as holding someone "within
the bounds of a fixed area" over a long period of time).

If someone is false imprisoned then court can issue guide lines as per the Article 21 to
protect the basic and fundamental right of individual. This clear how false
imprisonment is directly influenced by Article 21. Court can issue writ to protect the
article 21 of the individual.

CONCLUSION

The view that this article read as a whole is concerned with the fullest development of
an individual and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Every procedure must
seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just.’ The right to life and personal liberty has been
interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment
and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity. The test of procedural
fairness has been deemed to be one that is commensurate to protecting such rights.

Any person who intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement without their
consent (and without legal justification) may be liable for false imprisonment, which is
both a crime and a civil wrong. It can occur in a room, on the streets, or even in a
moving vehicle—just as long as the subject is unable to move freely, against his or
her will.

Page | 9
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Singh, Avtar. 2013 ‘Introduction to the Law of Torts and Consumer

Protection’, Nagpur: Lexis Nexis.
 Singh, S. P. 2010‘ Law of Tort’, New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.
 Iyer, Ramaswamy S. 2010 ‘Law of Torts’, New Delhi: LexisNexis.
 Gandhi, B. M. 2014, ‘Law of Torts’, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
 Pandey, J N. & Vijay Kumar 2009, ‘Law of torts with Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988’, Allahabad: Central Law
Publications.
 Pillai, P S & Singh, Avtar 2011, ‘Law of Tort’, Lucknow: Eastern Book
Company.

Page | 10