Hellow guys, Welcome to my website, and you are watching Article 21|| Right to Life and Personal Liberty|| With Case Laws in Hindi #archnasukhija #article21. and this vIdeo is uploaded by Archna Sukhija at 2020-07-05T13:16:54-07:00. We are pramote this video only for entertainment and educational perpose only. So, I hop you like our website.
| Name | Article 21|| Right to Life and Personal Liberty|| With Case Laws in Hindi #archnasukhija #article21 |
| Video Uploader | Video From Archna Sukhija |
| Upload Date | This Video Uploaded At 05-07-2020 20:16:54 |
| Video Discription | Right of liberties have been came into picture from Magna Carta in 1215. And Article 21 of Indian Constitution can be understood as: 1. right to life 2. right to personal liberty 3. procedure established by law Procedure established is taken from Article XXI of Japanese constitution while due process of law is taken from USA (fifth amendment). 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950, The Supreme Court took a very literal view and interpreted these words narrowly. Personal Liberty was said to mean only liberty relating to or concerning the person or body of the individual and in this sense it was antithesis and preventive detention. 2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1963, it was held that the expression “life” was not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only but something more than mere animal existence. The Supreme Court held in this case that domiciliary visits of the policemen were an invasion on the petitioner’s personal liberty. 3. Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi 1967, The petitioner challenged the action of the Government of taking his passport as violative of his fundamental rights under article 21. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad was part of a person’s personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21, and therefore, no person could be deprived of his right to travel abroad except according to the procedure established by law. 4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978, The petitioner’s passport was impounded by the Central Government under S. 10 (3) (c) of the Passport Act, 1967. The Supreme Court held that the Government was not justified in withholding the reasons for impounding the passport from the petitioner. The order withholding reasons for impounding the passport was there not only is breach of statutory provisions (Passport Act) but also in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim “audi alteram partem”. 5. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator Union Territory of Delhi 1978, Right to life includes life with dignity and not mere animal existence. 6. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 1982, held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 7. Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986, also known as “payment dwellers case”, it was ruled right to life also includes right to livelihood. 8. State of Maharasthra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal 1987, right to life also includes right to die. 9. Chenna Jagadeswar v. State of A.P. 1988, right to life does not include right to die. 10. P. Rathinam’s V. Union of India 1994, agreed with Sripati case and held , right to life also includes right to die. 11. Gian Kaur v. Sttae of Punjab, 1996, right to life does not include right to die. 12. Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 it was held that public interest litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which included the right to live. 13. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. 1985, the court ordered the closure of certain lime quarries on the ground that there were serious deficiencies regarding safety and hazards in them. 14. Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 The Supreme Court held that the writ was maintainable and directed the Government and authorities concerned to perform their statutory duties under various Acts. 15. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (also known as capitation fees) The right to education is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed by charging higher fees. 16. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) The Supreme Court was asked to examine the correctness of decision taken by the Court in Mohini Jain’s case. The five Judge Bench by 3-2 majority partly agreed with the Mohini Jain’s decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right life under 21 of Constitution as “it directly flows from right to life” 17. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979, The Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21. 18. Paramananda Katara v. Union of India, 1989, The Supreme Court held that it is the professional duty of all doctors, whether working in government or private hospitals to extend medical aid to the injured imeediately to save their life without waiting for legal formalities to be complied with by the police under Cr.P.C. 86th Amendment in 2002 added Article 21 A to Article 21 which ensures Right to Education. By 44th Amendment, article 21 cannot be suspended even in case of emergency except with the judicial review. Doctrine of Estoppel https://youtu.be/Bxgv5HhIAQY Presumptions of Burden of Proof https://youtu.be/IuLpEmep8WM Thank You With Best Wishes! |
| Category | Education |
| Tags | indian polity | indian constitution | article 21 | article 21 indian constitution | fundamental rights in indian constitution | fundamental rights | fundamental rights in hindi | indian polity in hindi | indian polity for | indian polity for upsc | indian polity for ssc cgl | indian polity for upsc in hindi | right to life and | right to life and personal liberty | right to life and personal liberty in indian constitution | right to life and personal liberty article 21 | indian polity lectures |
