Perfect Liberty.
Perfect Liberty.
1 The Preamble of the Constitution indicates that the Indian people are the primary
source of authority for the Indian Constitution, and no other authority and external
power have control over it.
2 The preamble has formally decided to turn our country into a SOVEREIGNTY
SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and independent authority and to
guarantee the following rights to all of its citizens:
3 JUSTICE, social justice (society without discrimination), economic status or economic
justice, and political justice.
4 LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith, happy life, and worship.
5 EQUALITY of status and opportunity; (no special privileges) and to promote among
them all
6 FRATERNITY (feeling of brotherhood) assuring the dignity of the individual and
the unity and integrity of the Nation.
7 The preamble mentions the date when it was adopted, which is November 26, 1949.
In political theory, liberty is defined as the condition of being free from restrictive controls
placed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior in society, or political beliefs within society.
According to the Preamble, all Indian citizens are guaranteed freedom of thought, expression,
belief, faith, and worship through their fundamental rights, which are upheld in court in the case
of a violation. Equality without Liberty would kill individual perception. Without equality and
liberty life remains like an animal existence.
The Preamble’s statement of liberty is vitally important for the successful operation of the Indian
democratic system. However, liberty must be enjoyed within the restrictions outlined in the
Constitution itself and does not mean “permission” to do as one entertains. In essence, the
personal liberty promised in the Preamble, or the fundamental rights are not absolute but are
qualified.
Scope
The scope of personal liberty is quite broad and cannot be contained within the parameters
outlined in Article 21[3]. Personal liberty refers to the liberties and dignity that should be
extended to all nationals for them to live peacefully and free from government meddling in their
personal affairs. The article is then said to apply to both citizens and non-citizens.
Here, the following subheadings can be used to explore certain concepts that can be generally
addressed under Article 21:
Right to livelihood
According to Mohini Jain Vs the State of Karnataka, a person has the legal right to support
himself without interference from the government or any other person, unless their work is
illegal or otherwise forbidden by the law.
Right to privacy
It is also a person’s right to keep their personal information private and secure. The Supreme
Court viewed the right in 2020 as being fundamental.
Right to shelter
This right refers to the ability of a person unless banned by law, to have a comfortable location.
In Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP, the court recently submitted it.
Right to health
One’s basic right is to take care of oneself medically and to receive the appropriate care, as only
healthy people are capable of advancing the country. The Supreme Court determined this in
Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India.
Right to free legal aid
Every person in the nation has a right to be aware of the law and to receive free legal aid and
counsel if one of their legal rights is violated.
Euthanasia
The words “euthanasia” and “Thanatos,” which both imply “death” in Greek, are combined to
form the word. In essence, it denotes a “happy death.” It is the practice of taking the life of
someone who is still breathing but has an incurable illness, causing them immense misery and
agony. Doing or not doing something to his or her body, instead aids in a peaceful and painless
death. Thus, it is often referred to as “assisted suicide” or “mercy killing.”
Active Euthanasia When a patient agrees, active euthanasia includes doing something to them
to end their life such as giving them an injection that can serve the purpose, among others.
Exempting medical care to end the patient’s life is known as passive euthanasia. In other terms,
it refers to withholding treatment from a patient that, if administered, might have saved that
patient’s life. Stop feeding the patient, for instance.
Right to information
Every person has the legal right to information. The Right to Information Act of 2005 was
created to educate the public about public agencies and government programs in particular.
Within the purview of Article 21 and personal liberty, several other rights may be included. The
right to life and personal liberty is the only real criteria that have been established to limit the
applicability of this article.
Because of the famous case of the journalist who was imprisoned based on aiding in suicide,
and because Justice Chandrachud of the Supreme Court used the authority under Article 226 for
a writ of habeas corpus, liberty has become a fiercely disputed issue.
Nobody is dissatisfied that the Supreme Court decided to use its authority to protect someone’s
liberty. But in such a case, the Supreme Court would violate Article 15 of the Indian Constitution
if it made discrimination between Persons A and B.
One aspect of liberty is the right to privacy. The human right is nothing more than a person’s
right to exist in dignity, hence the human right also includes the right to fundamental liberties. A
person’s right to liberty includes the ability to keep their dignity.
Kasab, a terrorist, was granted the right to a trial under Indian law and that fact was captured on
camera. Despite the obvious picture, we observed a fully free, and fair trial, and after it, a
conviction was delivered, proving that liberty exists for both the general public and the
constitutional body.
Real-Life Examples
A.K. Gopalan was held in custody under the Preventive Detention Act (1950)[11] in the case of
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)[11]. A.K. Gopalan then challenged the action because it
violated his right to personal liberty.
According to the Supreme Court, personal liberties can only be violated under two
circumstances:
If either of the above-specified elements is not present in such a scenario personal liberty is not
affected and will remain non-violated.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the government detained Maneka
Gandhi’s passport without providing any explanation for doing so.
Maneka Gandhi complained to the Supreme Court about the government’s action, claiming it
violated her right to personal liberty. In its opinion on personal liberty, the Supreme Court
stated that it is a broad term. Physical restriction and coercion alone cannot violate one’s right
to personal liberty.
This case overturned the A.K. Gopalan case’s limited interpretation of personal liberty. In this
specific case, the notion of personal liberty was expanded. According to the Supreme Court, any
statute or practice that restricts a person’s freedom must reasonably pass the Test of
Reasonability.
Criminal Liberty
The ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to:
1 Reassuring innocent people that the legal system will not be abused.
2 Delivering the message to society that if the law is disregarded and crimes are
committed, they will undoubtedly face punishment.
Every Indian citizen has a constitutional right to a speedy trial and reasonably priced justice.
Conclusion
The concept of “liberty” refers to the absence of rules dictating how people should behave but
still allowing for the development of their distinctive personalities. Being free from limiting
restrictions imposed by authorities on one’s way of life, social behavior, or political ideas within
society is the condition of having liberty.
Related Posts