Right to Life and Personal LibertyI would like to present a brief
statement how the Supreme court has crystallized, case after
case, variousrights while interpreting fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. Speedytrial, right against illegal arrest, right to compensation in case of custodial torture or death, rights of arrestees, right to consult a lawyer, right to free legal aid, right to life and liberty, right to live withhuman dignity, right to fair trial etc., are just a few pointers in that directions, need not multiplyillustration. I have tried to cover all these theories expounded by the Supreme Court in various cases inthe light of Article 21.Article 21 of the Constitution of India forbids deprivation of personal liberty except in accordance withthe procedure established by law. It mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personalliberty except according to procedure established by law. While interpreting article 21 of theConstitution of India, the Supreme Court has granted certain safeguards and rights covered under rightto life and personal liberty. To find out these rights and safeguards and to arranging, analyzing, andproducing them in a systematic manner is the aim of this work .Noteworthy contribution.Article 21 has become the source of many important rights and procedural safeguards to the people.The Supreme Court has adopted new approach and granted various rights. These are right to2fair trial, right to legal aid, right to speedy trial, and declared procedural safeguards as to right againstbar-fetters, right against custodial violence, right against delayed execution, right against handcuffing,right against solitary confinement, etc.Safeguarding against illegal ArrestArrest is permissible under law but a person is said to be deprived of his life or personal liberty if he isarrested or detained not in accordance with the procedure established by law. In Prem Shankar Shuklav. Delhi Admn., AIR 1980 SC 1535, the Supreme Court has laid down that handcuffing of a personwithout adequate reasons in writing has also been found against article 21. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260, the Apex Court laid down certain requirements for effectiveenforcement of the fundamental rights inherent in Articles 21.It was emphasised that a person shouldnot be arrested except for heinous offences and to have some one informed of the arrest and to consultprivately with lawyers is inherent in Article 21
United States v. Angelo Ruggiero, Gene Gotti, John Carneglia, Edward Lino, Mark Reiter, Joseph Lopresti, Anthony Moscatiello, Oscar Ansourian, Anthony Gurino, and Cesar Gurino, 846 F.2d 117, 2d Cir. (1988)