Unjust deprivation of personal liberty violates Article 21: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, November 11

In a significant judgment on the inviolability of fundamental rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasised that any deprivation of personal liberty under a procedure deemed unreasonable, unfair, or unjust is a direct infringement on the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty.

The judgment came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed a regular bail plea in a drugs case solely on the ground of long custody undergone by an accused without commenting on the merits of the case “lest it may prejudice the outcome of the case pending before the trial court”.

Ensure speedy trial

• The HC observed that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years and his further incarceration without the conclusion of trial in near future might not be justified
• Also, the trial had not even reached the halfway mark. The court ruled that the foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence was to ensure speedy trial

The ruling is significant as Justice Brar made it clear that the procedure prescribed must not only be lawful, but also adhere to the standards of reasonableness, fairness, and justice.

The court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years and his further incarceration without the conclusion of trial in near future might not be justified.

Besides, only seven of the 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution had been examined and the trial had not even reached the halfway mark. Justice Brar ruled that the foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence was to ensure speedy trial. The Supreme Court had repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial was enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and would cover investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last court.

“If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person,” Justice Brar observed.

In his detailed order, Justice Brar also emphasised that some limitations on personal liberty might be inevitable. But an excessively prolonged period of deprivation pending trial would trigger the constitutional safeguards outlined in Article 21.

“Some amount of denial of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution would come into play and it would prevail over the embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” Justice Brar declared, underscoring the delicate balance between justice and individual rights.

Section 37 makes it clear that the severity or strictness in granting bail was applicable to offences involving commercial quantity.