When one brings into mind the relevancy of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, one essentially and by all means, brings into consideration the basic principles pertaining to natural justice which have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution via the support of fundamental rights that have been guaranteed under Article 21 and 14 respectively. Having mentioned the same, post the period of Emergency, this case was considered to be one of the most vital judgements that have so far been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that have held a special role in shedding light on the liberal tendencies that have gone through a major shift towards ensuring the protection of personal liberty. 

Ever since the passing of this landmark judgement, the Apex Court ensured to display tremendous amount of diligence towards the sheer protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. In addition to the same, this pioneering case also held an extravagant role in overturning and overruling the precedent that had been brought about in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.

A FACTUAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE

The petitioner in the mentioned case was a journalist whose passport had been seized under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 wherein the said Act as per the stipulated provision empowers the authorities to seize the passport of the individual, with respect to the sovereignty and the integrity of India. It is however imperative to mention that the reasons pertaining to such an impoundment be communicated with the affected parties, wherein an exception can be made by taking into consideration the interests of the general public. After questioning the reasons relating to the confiscation of her Passport, the Ministry of External Affairs repudiated their intentions to produce any reason, by claiming that the same was being done “in the interests of the general public.” 

In pursuance to the said event, a writ petition under the applicability of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the claims related to the violation and the need for the enforcement of fundamental rights with respect to the arbitrary action of the mentioned authorities was brought into light, by taking into regard the applicability of Articles 14, with further amendments involving the applicability of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), Article 19(1)(a) emphasizing on the right to freedom of speech and expression, and most importantly, Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, that concentrates upon the right to freedom of movement. 

RELEVANT ISSUES OF THE CASE

It would be pertinent to mention the various issues that were contemplated in the present case, which can be elucidated under the following:

• Whether there is any nexus with respect to the rights that have been guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution? 
• Whether there is any scope related to the “procedure established by law?”
• Whether the concept of Fundamental Rights can be regarded as conditional or absolute or whether there is a necessity to determine the same that has been provided to citizens by the Indian Constitution?
• Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 can be witnessed in violation of Fundamental Rights and if it fulfills the same, whether such a legislation can be regarded as a concrete law?
• Whether there has been a contravention of the principles pertaining to natural justice in the Impugned Order of the Regional Passport Officer as per the provision stipulated under the mentioned Act? 
• Whether there has been a protection of the “right to travel abroad” under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? 

A DELIBERATION ON THE CONTENTIONS THAT WERE RAISED IN THIS CASE

CONTENTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER

Several contentions were raised by the Petitioner with regard to the facts and the circumstances of the present case, which can be noted under the following:

• That the Central Government, by all means, acted in sheer violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution wherein the petitioner was deprived of the basic opportunity to be heard. 
• That the aspect pertaining to the “right to travel abroad” can be considered as a derivative of the right known as the right to personal liberty and no citizen, under any means can be deprived of the said right, except according to procedure established by law. On the other hand, while the Passports Act, 1967 has not prescribed a particular method for confiscating or revoking the passport of its rightful holder, such actions by the mentioned authorities are arbitrary and reasonable. 
• It would be imperative to mention that any procedure that has been established by law, must act in compliance with the requisite principles of natural justice. 
• An essential principle pertaining to the principles of natural justice, is ‘’Audi Alteram Partem,’’ wherein every citizen is given the chance to be heard, which was however not granted to the Petitioner. 
• Furthermore, the postulated provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution must be essentially read in synchronization wherein a conglomerated reading of the same will give effect to the spirit of not just the makers of the Indian Constitution, but also the extraordinary legal document, known as the Constitution of India. 
• In furtherance to the same, with respect to the impugned order relating to the impoundment of Passport on the 4th of July, 1977, it was contended that the respondent had not just violated the Petitioner’s right to freedom of movement, but had also encroached on the petitioner’s right(s) to freedom of speech and expression, her right to life and personal liberty alongside the right to travel abroad. 

CONTENTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT

The contentions that were raised by the respondent can be elaborated under the following:

• The respondent after reiterating the principles specified in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, contended that the concept of law with reference to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cannot be comprehended by taking into regard the principles related to natural justice. 
• Furthermore, the Attorney General of India stated that the right to travel abroad, was never in actuality, covered under the Clauses postulated under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, and therefore, Article 19 can be regarded to be independent, thereby proving the reasonable nature of the actions undertaken by the Central Government. 
• In addition to the same, it was further contended by the respondent that the principles related to natural justice are ambiguous and vague. Therefore, the Indian Constitution should avoid reading such ambiguous and vague provisions as a part of the same.
• Having stated the same, it was further contended that the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is in general, very wide that is inclusive of provisions known as Article 14 and 21. However, any particular law can be regarded to be unconstitutional with reference to Article 21, when it is witnessed to directly violate Articles 14 and 19. 
• Their reliance on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution must be noted wherein it was stated that the language containing “procedure established by law” need not pass the constitutional test of reasonability, because of which the same should not be seen in conformity with Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution.
• That the sheer spirit and the mind of the framers must be respected and protected, wherein the Constitutional makers while drafting the Indian Constitution had debated at various lengths on the American pattern relating to the “due process of law” and the British procedure that has been established by law. Therefore, it was stipulated that the conspicuous absence of such a due process of law with respect to the Constitutional provisions is seen to reflect the framers and the mind of the Indian Constitution. 

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This landmark judgement that was delivered on the 25th of January, 1978 changed the landscape of the Indian Constitution, as it not just expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, but also went back to making India a true, welfare state as has been promised as per the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. 

The major views and findings of the Hon’ble Court can be elaborated under the following:

• It was held by the Hon’ble Court that with reference to the phrase that was utilized for the interpretation pertaining to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that is in context to “procedure established by law” in place of “due process of law,” it was held that it is imperative that the procedure be free from any kind of irrationality and arbitrariness. 
• Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court also held that the very scope of personal liberty must not be construed in a strict and narrow sense, wherein the same should be understood in a liberal and broader sense. In totality, Article 21 was given a wider meaning, which was added on by the insistence of the Hon’ble Court towards obligating future courts to expand the mentioned horizons as has been identified under Article 21 to ensure the coverage of all Fundamental Rights instead of construing it in a narrow sense. 
• That being brought under one’s attention, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also overruled the precedent that had been set in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras by emphasizing that there should, by all means be a unique dynamic of the provisions known as Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, wherein it is pertinent that every law passes the test of the mentioned provisions. 
• Furthermore, it was also held that the provision as has been postulated under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 should not be violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution or Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) for that matter and also later went on to clarify that the aforementioned provision had not contradicted Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Given the mentioned provision, provides for an adequate opportunity to be heard, the Hon’ble Court therefore rejected the contentions raised by the Petitioner that the phrase, that is “in the interests of the general public” is not vague. 
• In furtherance to the aforementioned view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court however contended and held that Section 10(3)(c) and 10(5) is essentially an administrative order, and is henceforth open to challenge, with respect to the order being of a nature that is male fide, culminating to the denial of natural justice, and is not just unreasonable but is also ultra vires of the Indian Constitution. 
• The Apex Court, while reiterating the principles that were laid out in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, observed that while taking into regard the ambit of personal liberty, one must also consider the right to travel abroad, which must act in synchronization with the said concept. All in all, under no conditions can an individual be deprived of their rights, except in accordance to a procedure that has been established by law. The confiscation or the revocation of the petitioner’s passport is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, wherein the said grounds being arbitrary and unchallenged, is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• It would be crucial to mention that in context to Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 that is in circumstances where the State finds it imperative to confiscate the passport or do any particular activity that acts against the interests of the integrity or the sovereignty of the nation, its friendly relations with other countries, its security or with regard to the interests of the general public, it is important for the respective authorities to provide or record the adequate reasons in writing, and also furnish a copy of that particular record to the passport holder. 

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE MANEKA GANDHI JUDGEMENT: CONCLUDING REMARKS

All in all, it must be acknowledged that few judgements that have been passed in the Indian Legal History, that have had a life-changing effect as the Maneka Gandhi judgement has had so far. Apart from being such a well-written and balanced judgement, it also greatly established the interlinking of Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Indian Constitution, which particularly specified that whilst it is of sole importance to secure the Fundamental Rights of every citizen, it must also be made sure that the procedure is not irrational or arbitrary. 

After the passing of the mentioned judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court restored its position of being looked at as the watchdog of democracy and also showed its intentions of safeguarding the thought processes of the Constitution makers. In fact, what makes this judgement all the more appealing is the aspect provided by a majority of judges wherein it was stipulated that for any legislation or provision to be declared as bonafide, reasonable and just, it is pertinent that the said law or provision be devoid of any kind of arbitrariness. Having mentioned the same, the greatest repercussion of this judgement is that today’s unanswered questions and problems of the Indian Parliament have been solved with lucid attention, in consideration to the interpretation pertaining to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that has been derived in the mentioned case.

The post The Protection Of ‘Personal Liberty’ appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

Democracy is a government formed and sustained by discussion. Public opinion and effective participation in the government are compulsorily needed in the democratic society. Freedom of speech is required to maintain the moral and intellectual value of both individuals and the nation. An individual attains self-fulfillment in knowing the truth by invoking free speech and thought. In Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of speech and expression forms as one of the six freedoms guaranteed. It is considered as the foundation of all democratic organizations.^[1] Opportunity for the free exchange of thoughts with reasonable restrictions is ensured in the constitution. Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights stresses the freedom of speech.^[2]

A person can express his/her opinion freely through word of mouth or in writing in the form of art, literature, visual, or any other mode of communication. Freedom of speech also includes the right to know or acquire information and convey that information to the public at large.^[3] Motion pictures are not expressly mentioned in Article 19 (1) (a) as a part of freedom of speech and expression, but various court decisions have accepted it. Even in the medium of motion pictures, there is a restriction or denial of freedom of speech and expression by way of “censorship”. Films or part of films can be censored on the basis of sex, obscenity, violence and to maintain public order. But public criticism is very helpful in the working of the institutions,^[4] but due to censorship, the thoughts are not freely shared in society. 

Censorship of films

Censorship is derived from the word the Latin word ‘censere’. The power of legislation of censorship is vested under Entry 60 of the Union List of Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution. Subject to Central legislation, the State has also the power to make laws regarding films under Entry 33 of State List. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 is regarded as the prime legislation which regulates the films by ensuring that it satisfies the objectives prescribed by law. This Act also empowers the Government to establish a Central Board of Film Certification. The censor board constitutes of 12 to 25 people. They examine the films and provide sanctions for the films to release for public exhibition. The public exhibition can be restricted or unrestricted and sometimes the board may restrict the film from the exhibition or directs to make changes before the exhibition. Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 provides principles in certifying films and grounds for restriction of films from public exhibitions. Section 5B of the Act aligns with the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

If a party is not satisfied with the order of the Board, then they can appeal to the Central Government. K. A. Abbas v. The Union of India^[5] was one of the first cases filed against the issue of film censorship. In this case, the court held that pre-censorship is constitutionally valid but the board should not impose any unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. The amendment in 1974 transferred the appellate jurisdiction of the Central Government to Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).^[6] This body consists of Chairman and 4 other members. The Cinematograph Act was again amended in 1981.^[7] This amendment vested the revisional powers with the Central Government under Section 6(1) and diminished the powers of FCAT.^[8]

Types of film certifications

1. Universal (U): This certificate is provided for unrestricted public exhibition. There is no limitation based on age groups. 
2. Parental Guidance (UA): This certificate is provided for all age groups. But children below the age of 12 should be accompanied by their parents.
3. Adults only (A): This certificate is restricted only to adults. Persons above the age of 18 years are only allowed to watch the movie. 
4. A special class of Persons (S): The nature and theme of the movie restricts the audience. Only a few special classes of people are allowed to watch the movie.

The Central Government may issue directions to the board in issuing the certificates for films.

Reasonable restrictions for social control

An individual can exercise his right to an extent without colliding with the rights of others. Liberty always comes with the aspect of social control. Reasonable limitations are acceptable to maintain social order and public interest. Clause 2 of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution enumerates the grounds on which reasonable restriction can be imposed. The principle of reasonableness calls for the judicial review, which checks upon the constitutionality of the acts of legislative and executive bodies.^[9]

Section 5B (1) is similar to Article 19(2) of the constitution, because both insist on the grounds of reasonable restrictions, like:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the State
• Incitement to an offence
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Decency and morality
• Involves defamation 
• Contempt of court

In a few instances, the FCAT has placed a ban on movies that would provoke communal feeling and the desire for revenge which will lead to obstruction of peace in society.^[10] Many films have been pulled into controversy because they hurt the religious feeling of their community. “PK”, a Hindi movie, is one such movie which hurt the religious sentiments of the people and it led to a huge controversy in the Bollywood. All forms of freedom of speech are subject to censorship. Often the reasonableness of censorship regulations is questioned. But cinema has the potential to influence people and there is a possibility of misuse of this medium of freedom of speech and expression, therefore restrictions like film censorship are justifiable in this society. 

One of recent attack on freedom of speech is the letter issued by Ministry of Defence to the Central Board of Film Certification demanding “No objection certificate” for films and series depicting the military personnel in their uniforms.^[11]The increased number of army themed movies has become a concern for the ministry of defence. Article 33 of the Indian Constitution specifies that the armed forces should be given special treatment for their services. For proper discharge of their duties and to maintain discipline among them in their field of work, a reasonable restriction can imposed on the freedom of speech. 

Judicial intervention in safeguarding freedom of speech and promoting individual liberty.

“Censorship in a free society can be tolerated within the narrowest possible confines and strictly within the limits which are contemplated in a constitutional order.^[12]” 

The Supreme Court and High Court have contributed a lot in safeguarding the rights of the people with reasonable restrictions. Many films, documentaries, and television series have been censored by the judiciary, but in most of the cases, the court has upheld the freedom of speech and expression. In S. Rangrajan v. Jagjivan Ram^[13], the Madras High Court revoked the certificate issued to a Tamil movie. The film was based on the reservation policy and it also mentioned remarks about B.R. Ambedkar and other personalities. The appeal was made to the Supreme Court, and the freedom of speech and expression was upheld. The Supreme Court held that people in a democratic government can be ruled only through open discussion. The prosperity of democracy attains only when the people share their views and it is the duty of the state to protect the fundamental rights of the people. Therefore, the order of the High Court was overruled. 

In “Bandit Queen” case^[14], it was held that the film should be judged based on the entirety and its overall impact, therefore the court upheld the freedom of speech and expression. Authorities cannot pass an order for restriction of the exhibition without watching the movie. The court can quash the impugned order as arbitrary.^[15] An act of abuse of power by the Censor board is a clear violation of freedom of speech and expression.^[16] The protest of Christians against the movie “Da Vinci Code” was very popular in the media. A writ petition was filed by the All India Christians Welfare Association for placing a ban on the movie as it hurts their religious sentiments. The Courts of few states like Kerala^[17] quashed that the ban imposed by the state government as it was irrational and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression even in this case. In one of the cases filed against the channel Doordarshan, the court held that there is no prima facie evidence to prove that the show was against the public interest, therefore the injunction order was struck down and freedom of speech was ensured.^[18]

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution protects both the fundamental rights of the people and the rights of the artist or filmmakers to portray the reality of society. But a conflict arises between these two rights when the portrayal challenges the peace and order of society. In this censored society, freedom of speech and expression is been restricted. Legal restraints on the exhibition of movies should be imposed only if it is not arbitrary. In a democratic society, people have the right to be aware of the changes or developments that take place.^[19] Banning movies is equal to banning of freedom of speech and expression. Motion pictures are an instrument used to freely share their ideas and make people aware. The basic human right should not be restricted in this civilized society. On the other hand, a person should consider the practical realities before exhibiting anything in the public. A strike of balance should be implemented to protect the personal liberty of the filmmakers and social control in society.

^[1] Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124.

^[2] The European Convention on Human Rights (1975) 151-157.

^[3] Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1236.

^[4] Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 106.

^[5] K. A. Abbas v. The Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 481.

^[6] The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 1974, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1974.

^[7] The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, No. 49, Acts of Parliament, 1981.

^[8] M.P. JAIN & S.N. JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTARTIVE LAW 428-29.

^[9] Shashi P.Mishra, Fundamental Rights and the Supreme Court: Reasonableness of Restrictions (1984) 43-46.

^[10] Ramesh Pimple v.  Central Board of Film Certification, (2004) 5 B.O.M. C.R. 214.

^[11]Defence Ministry to CBFC: Production houses may be advised to seek NOC on Army theme content, THE TIMES OF INDIA, July 31^st, 2002, available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/defence-ministry-to-cbfc-production-houses-may-be-advised-to-seek-noc-on-army-theme-content/articleshow/77288805.cms.

^[12] F.A. Picture International v. Central Board of Film, A.I.R. 2005 Bom 145.

^[13] S. Rangrajan v. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.

^[14] Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 1.

^[15] Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1995 (2) A.L.D. 81.

^[16] Anand Patwardhan v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2004 (1) M.A.H. L.J. 856.

^[17] Kerala HC declines to ban The Da Vinci Code, THE TIMES OF INDIA, May 25, 2006, available at    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1568062.cms.

^[18] Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1642.

^[19] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 515.

The post Censorship – A Strife between individual liberty and social control appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Covenant’) recognizes the rights against arbitrary arrest and detention. Article 9 of the Covenant states that, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.”^[1] It also recognizes the rights of individuals subjected to such unlawful processes, entitled to take proceedings before a court to be determined without delay^[2] and the right to compensation^[3]. Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human rights also mentions the same as, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”^[4]. 

Herein, it’s pertinent to note that while elaborating on the concept of arbitrary arrests, it’s also imperative to emphasize on ‘liberty’. Liberty in general terms is freedom from unreasonable physical restrictions and coercion whereas Dicey defined it as, “a right, not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercions in any manner that doesn’t admit legal justifications.”^[5]

Legal systems around the world focus massively on the right to liberty; India, guarantees the same. The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right provided by the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’), granted under Article 21. It mandates that, “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”^[6]. Therefore, it’s clear that nobody has the authority to infringe any individual’s right to liberty unless it’s through lawful measures in accordance with the ‘procedures established by law’.

Arbitrary Arrest: Meaning

The word ‘arrest’ implies deprivation of personal liberty under some real or assumed legal authority^[7]. In a particular situation there’s always a necessity for the apparent exercise of power i.e. of taking another person into custody, is done by an appropriate legal authority. Such suitable authority is said to arrest the individual, although it’s not necessary that the arrest might be lawful. Since personal liberty is a basic human right, therefore, it is a mandatory requirement for arrests to be permitted only in cases wherein it’s absolutely necessary and lawful. Therefore, in common parlance the word [arrest] means the “seizure” of a person by a valid authority. However, in the technical field of law it might bring some difficulties and conditions.

However, arbitrary cannot exactly be substituted with ‘illegal’. Arbitrariness of action is not only limited to illegality but it’s also unjust and incompatible with the principles of natural justice and human dignity^[8].  In simple terms an act which violates justice and reasonableness would constitute as arbitrary. The United Nations have defined arbitrary arrest as, “an arrest authorised by law fails adequately to protect human rights because—the means, circumstances or physical force attendant on the arrest exceed the reasonable requirements of affecting arrest”^[9]. This is primarily, the reason why proper balancing of individual liberty and societal safety is extremely important^[10]. 

The Indian Legal System

Personal Liberty under Article 21

The Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India^[11], held that, “the sweep of article 21 is much wider than was supposed to be earlier” which lead to the Apex Court further observing the significance of article 21 and making the abridgement of personal liberty a matter of grave concern^[12].  It is necessary that the “procedure established by law” in the cases of arbitrary arrest specifically, be just and lawful; there should be a complete absence of arbitrariness and oppressive mala fide actions. Hence, it has now become absolutely imperative to examine and test the constitutional ambit and validity of laws relating to arrest in India.

Provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code

The general law of arrest and detention under the Indian Law is laid down the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). According to this Code, an arrest can be made only in respect of the commission of an offence and in pursuance to a warrant of arrest issued by a court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code. These warrants are issued in a certain procedure—as specified in the Code^[13], and there’s a requirement to be charged with an offence, with a reason and a clear accusation as well. Furthermore, Section 151 of the Code circumscribes the legal authority of arrest which can be exercised only in cognizable cases^[14]. As far as the police officers and limitation are concerned, under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, the duties of the police officers are prescribed providing the police officers to, “obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued”.Herein the Code does allow arrests without a warrant under certain specified circumstances,^[15] however, it is a necessity that the officer doing the same complies with the provisions of article 22 of the constitution, as well as with those of Code.

Article 22

The constitutional rights in context of criminal jurisprudence are contained in article 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Article 20 prohibits ex post facto operation of criminal law and provides immunity against double jeopardy and protection against self-incrimination while article 21 as mentioned above protects the life and liberty of individuals.

Article primarily focuses on providing protection against arrest and detention to people. The said article thus, provides certain safeguards and guarantees to a person arrested or detained, 

The right to be informed, ‘as soon as may be’ of the grounds of the arrest or detention; right to consult a legal practitioner; and the right to be defended by a legal practitioner^[16].

Right to be produced before the nearest magistrate, within a period of twenty-four hours; and the right to be released if he is not produced within the nearest magistrate within the said period of 24 hours^[17].

Additionally, Clauses (4) to (7) provide safeguards against preventive detentions under article 22. It is noteworthy that the object of the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is to enable the person to make an application to the appropriate court for bail^[18]. Furthermore, it has been held in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State^[19], that “merely informing the person that an arrest has been made without giving any particulars of the alleged act for which the action has been taken against him, isn’t sufficient compliance with article 22(1)”. The phrase, ‘as soon as may be’ has been held to mean as early as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, although it has been said that no definite period of time can be laid down as reasonable in all the cases^[20]. Additionally in the proceedings for the writ of habeas corpus if the court finds that a reasonable amount of time has passed without the arrested person being informed the grounds of his arrest, the court may order an immediate release. Despite all the provisions mentioned in clause (1) of the article, a few might be misinterpreted as unmitigated. For instance in the case of Janardan v. State of Hyderabad^[21], the Court held that, this article doesn’t guarantee an absolute right to be supplied of a lawyer by the state. This right is only to have the ‘opportunity’ to engage a competent legal practitioner of one’s choice. Further, this right isn’t only limited to persons arrested as such but also individuals who are in danger of abridgement of their personal liberties.    

Under Clause (2) of the article there’s also the necessity to comply with the 24 hours provision which arises as soon as a person is arrested, and a compliance with the clause at anytime afterwards doesn’t satisfy the constitutional requirements^[22]. In the case of Harharanand v. Jailor^[23], the court agreed with the right to release provided under the article and observed that the arrested person is entitled to be released immediately. It has further been held by the Court that “nearest magistrate refers to a magistrate acting in a judicial capacity, as under S. 167 of the Code”^[24].

The protection of Article 22 has been extended to arrests made under the orders of a speaker of a legislative assembly for committing the contempt of the house^[25]. And certain rights under the article were extended also to persons who were in danger of losing their personal liberty^[26]. Furthermore, a break was made from the traditional meaning of the word arrested when the court refused to distinguish between the different types of arrests and held that, “arrest is arrest whatever the reason”.^[27]

Conclusion

The extent to which human rights are respected and protected within the context of its criminal proceedings is an important measure of society’s civilisation^[28]. Arbitrary arrests are still a massive problem not only in India, but all over the world. Needless to say, authorities sometimes exceed their powers and restrictions neglecting the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution i.e. right to personal liberty as well rights against unfair arrest and detention which is granted to every individual in this country. The Supreme Court of India strives to uphold the principles defined by International Conventions and the UDHR precisely regarding these particular rights and although there’s still scope for more improvement, certain demarcations and clarities need to be incorporated in the Statutes. A new innovation has been introduced to improve the present position by making certain offences cognizable but without allowing the police the power to arrest without warrant in the recent amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 by inserting  a provision of “offences cognizable for certain purposes^[29]”. Since the present basis of classification isn’t very suitable and might not be supportive to just and fair arrests, this amendment is a change in the right direction against arbitrary arrests and detentions^[30]. 

If there is a failure to comply with the legal standards set for the arrest in the various statutes and legislations, the arrest would constitute as illegal from the very beginning. In the immediate circumstances the rule comes as a protection to the person who has been a victim of illegal enforcement of legal processes; since an illegal arrest by a police officer is an unwarranted attack on the liberty of a person which derives its basis and existence from the legal and constitutional sources^[31].

The courts have invariably taken a stricter view of arbitrary arrest and have interpreted the provisions of the law in such a way as to restrict the powers as far as possible, and its because of the constant vigilance of the judiciary that the possibilities of arbitrary arrest have been minimized under the Indian Law. 

^[1] Article 9 (1), ICCPR.

^[2] Article 9 (4), ICCPR.

^[3] Article 9 (5), ICCPR.

^[4] Article 9, UDHR.

^[5] Dicey, Constitutional Law 207 – 208 (9^th ed.).

^[6] INDIA CONST., art. 21. 

^[7] R.V. Kelkar, Law of Arrest: Some Problems and Incongruities, 22 JILI 314, 314 (1980).

^[8] Report of the Third Committee, 9^th December, 1958 (A/4045); at 43 – 49.  

^[9] B.P. Srivastava, Right against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Under Article 9 of the Covenant as recognized and protected Under the Indian Law, 11 JILI 29, 32 – 33 (1969).

^[10] Supra, note 7.

^[11] AIR 1978 SC 597.

^[12] G. Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, A.P., AIR 1978 SC 429. 

^[13] The Criminal Procedure Code, No. 2 of 1974, § 75, 77, 81 and 86.

^[14] Ibid, § 2, cl. (c).

^[15] Ibid, § 41, cl. 1; and § 55, cl. 1.

^[16] INDIA CONST. art. 22(1).

^[17] INDIA CONST. art. 22(2).

^[18] Vimal Kishore v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 All. 59.

^[19] AIR 1959 Punj. 506.

^[20] Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1951 SC 174. 

^[21] 1951 SCR 344.

^[22] State of U.P. v. Abdul Samad, AIR 1962 SC 1506.

^[23] AIR 1954 All 601.

^[24] Supra, note 20.

^[25] Gunupati v. Nafisul, AIR 1954 SC 636.

^[26] Slate of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobha Ram, AIR 1966 SC 1910.

^[27] Id.

^[28] P.N. Bhagwati, Human Rights in the Criminal Justice System, 27 JILI 1, 1 (1985).

^[29] Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 § 7. 

^[30] Supra, note 7, at 321. 

^[31] D.C. Pandey, Search for and Action against Illegal Arrest, 22 JILI 328, 328 – 329 (1980).

The post Provisions against Arbitrary Arrests in India appeared first on LexForti .