Rekha Vs State Of TN, on 5 April, 2011 SC

extract of judgment -
Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is : Was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation ? If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal....

Articles 22(3)(b) is only an exception to Article 21 and it is not itself a fundamental right. It is Article 21 which is central to the whole chapter on fundamental rights in our Constitution. The right to liberty means that before sending a person to prison a trial must ordinarily be held giving him opportunity of placing his defence through his lawyer. It follows that if a person is liable to be tried, or is actually being tried, for a criminal offence, but the ordinary criminal law (Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes) will not be able to deal with the situation, then, and only then, can the preventive detention law be taken recourse to....

Preventive detention is often described as a :

'jurisdiction of suspicion', (Vide State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande ). The detaining authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Since clause (3) of Article 22 specifically excludes the applicability of clauses (1) and (2), the detenu is not entitled to a lawyer or the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is, in our opinion, mandatory and vital.

It has been held that the history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. (See : Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs Union of India and others (1995) 4 SCC 51, vide para 49). These procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the court and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu....

Budhadev Karmaskar Vs State of West Bengal Supreme Court of India 14.02.11

The appellant Budhadev kicked her with fists and legs, and she fell down on the floor. The appellant then caught her by her hair and banged her head against the floor and the wall several times which left the victim bleeding from her ear, nose and head. The incident was witnessed by four persons, Pw2-Abida, PW4- Maya, PW7-Asha and PW8-Parvati.
PW2-Abida has deposed that she saw the appellant- accused catching the victim by her hair and banging her head against the wall. The victim was profusely bleeding through her nose and mouth. On seeing this, Abida started shouting and then the accused pushed her and went down and fled away....
Murder 302...

"we strongly feel that the Central and the State Governments through Social Welfare Boards should prepare schemes for rehabilitation all over the country for physically and sexually abused women commonly known as prostitutes as we are of the view that the prostitutes also have a right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India since they are also human beings and their problems also need to be addressed. As already observed by us, a woman is compelled to indulge in prostitution not for pleasure but because of abject poverty.." Hon'ble Justice M Katju

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 286

Apex Court observed
"There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment.
 Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. The provision as explained by this Court in scores of decisions has emphasised and reiterated with gradually increasing emphasis that position. A doctor at the Government hospital positioned to meet this State obligation is, therefore, duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way."

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (1996) 2 SCC 336

Apex Court has observed
"It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self- preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this great land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to Verses 17, 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine:
Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam
rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet

Without the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit.

Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya
bhaajanam Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje
vanbhaadraani pashyati

One should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life.

Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi
kushthaadiroginah

The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body.

Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo
hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati

If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself."

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

“Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.

K Anbazhagan Vs Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under
“Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner."

Yogita vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 31 January, 2011

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court
observed that the Court was required to order compensatory relief " not by way of damages as in the civil action but by way of compensation in the public law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience." It was held that the award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution "is a remedy available in the public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure citizens that they live in a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of W.P. (C) No.21139 of 2005 Page 7 of 17 compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen."
State is liable to compensate the Petitioner and her two minor children for the death of her husband in the bomb blast that took place at the Liberty Cinema Hall.
full judgment

Shyama Devi Vs NCT of Delhi

"In such like cases the Courts expect strict and high standard of care from them. When there is a failure to perform duty which results in physical injury, deprivation of life or loss of property, Article 21 of the Constitution is attracted and the aggrieved party is entitled to invoke Article 226 to claim monetary or pecuniary compensation as such a remedy is available in pubic law based on strict liability for breach of fundamental right."

Prem Shankar Shukla Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “Handcuffing of accused should not be made in case of non-approval of same by Judicial Officer….
a telegram from one Shukla, prisoner lodged in the Tihar Jail, has prompted the present 'habeas' proceedings…. The petitioner claims that he is a 'better class' prisoner, a fact which is admitted, although one fails to understand how there can be a quasi-caste system among prisoners in the egalitarian context of Article 14. It is a sour fact of life that discriminatory treatment based upon wealth and circumstances dies hard under the Indian Sun. We hope the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Prison Administration will take due note of the survival after legal death of this invidious distinction and put all prisoners on the same footing unless there is a rational classification based upon health, age, academic or occupational needs or like legitimate ground and not irrelevant factors like wealth, political importance, social status and other criteria which are a hang-over of the hierarchical social structure hostile to the constitutional ethos….
In Sunil Butra's case (supra) it has been laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court that imprisonment does not, ipso facto mean that fundamental rights desert the detainee….
Handcuffs should not be used in routine. They are to be used only where the person is desperate, rowdy or is involved in non-bailable offence. There should ordinarily be no occasion to handcuff persons occupying a good social position in public life, or professionals like jurists, advocates doctors, writers, educationists’ and well known journalists. This is at best an illustrative list; obviously it cannot be exhaustive. It is the spirit behind these instructions that should be understood. It shall be the duty of supervisory officers at various levels, the SHO primarily, to see that these instructions are strictly complied with. In case of non-observance of these instructions severe action should be taken against the defaulter….
The duty officers of the police station must also ensure that an accused when brought at the police station or dispatched, the facts where he was handcuffed or otherwise should be clearly mentioned along with the reasons for handcuffing in the relevant daily diary report. The SHO of the police station and ACP of the Sub-Division will occasionally check up the relevant daily diary to see that these instructions are being complied’ with by the police station staff….
Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict 'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21….
Once we make it a constitutional mandate that no prisoner shall be handcuffed or fettered routinely or merely for the convenience of the custodian or escort--and we declare that to be the law--the distinction between classes of prisoners becomes constitutionally obsolete. Apart from the fact that economic and social importance cannot be the basis for classifying prisoners for purposes of handcuffs or otherwise, how can we assume that a rich criminal or under-trial is any different from a poor or pariah convict or under-trial in the matter of security risk ? An affluent in custody may be as dangerous or desperate as an indigent, if not more…..

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621

The ambit of personal liberty protected by Article 21 is wide and comprehensive. It embraces both substantive rights to personal liberty and the procedure provided for their deprivation.

M C Mehta Vs UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, " applications for compensation are for enforcement of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and while dealing with such applications we cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach which would defeat the ends of justice….
If this Court is prepared to accept a letter complaining of violation of the fundamental right of an individual or a class of individuals who cannot approach the Court for justice, there is no reason why these applications for compensation which have been made for enforcement of the fundamental right of the persons affected by the oleum gas leak under Art. 21 should not be entertained….
It may now be taken as well settled that Art. 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this Court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights….
If the Court were powerless to issue any direction, order or writ in cases where a fundamental right has already been violated, Art. 32 would be robbed of all its efficacy, because then the situation would be that if a fundamental right is threatened to be violated, the Court can injunct such violation but if the violator is quick enough to take action infringing the fundamental right, he would escape from the net of Art. 32….
The power of the Court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases….
Whether Article 21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in an industry vital to public interest….
Once an authority is deemed to be ‘other authority’ within the meaning of Article 12, it is State for the purpose of all its activities and functions and the American functional dichotomy by which some functions of an authority….
it is immaterial for the purpose of determining whether a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State or not whether it is created by a Statute or under a statute, “the inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence….
It is true that Control is not exercised by the Government in relation to the internal management policies of the Company. However, the control is exercised on all such activities of Shriram which can jeopardize public interest….
we find that Shriram also receives sizeable assistance in the shape of loans and overdrafts running into several crores of rupees from the Government….
Why should a private corporation under the functional control of the State engaged in an activity which is hazardous to the health and safety of the community and is imbued with public interest and which the State ultimately proposes to exclusively run under its industrial policy, not be subject to the same limitations….
rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person’s wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence….
rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority….
We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society…. Law cannot afford to remain static….
We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country….
We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build up our own jurisprudence…
where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity…. such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher.

Miss Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 1858

The Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (the Act)…. Under the notification the candidates admitted against "Government seats" are to pay Rs. 2,000/- per year as tuition fee. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against "Government seats") are to be charged tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The third category is of "Indian students from outside Karnataka", from whom tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 60,000/- per annum is permitted to be charged….
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making "right to education" under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality the fundamental rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate….
The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens….”

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 CriLJ 306

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self.”

M. Vijaya vs Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 AP 502

Hon’ble Court observed, “There is an apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person suspected of HIV not to submit himself forcibly for medical examination and the power and duty of the State to identify HIV-infected persons for the purpose of stopping further transmission of the virus. In the interests of the general public, it is necessary for the State to identify HIV-positive cases and any action taken in that regard cannot be termed as unconstitutional”

X vs Hospital Z, (1998) 8 SCC 296

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed, “When a patient was found to be HIV (+), its disclosure by the Doctor could not be violative of either the rule of confidentiality or the patient's right of privacy as the lady with whom the patient was likely to be married was saved in time by such disclosure, or else, she too would have been infected with a dreadful disease if marriage had taken place and been consummated."

Smt. Selvi & Ors. vs State of Karnataka Decided by Supreme Court on 05.05.2010

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed, “In an academic commentary, Leonard Levy (1969) had pointed out that the doctrinal origins of the right against self- incrimination could be traced back to the Latin maxim `Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere' (i.e. no one is bound to accuse himself) and the evolution of the concept of `due process of law' enumerated in the Magna Carta…..
`The right against self-incrimination' is now viewed as an essential safeguard in criminal procedure. Its underlying rationale broadly corresponds with two objectives firstly, that of ensuring reliability of the statements made by an accused, and secondly, ensuring that such statements are made voluntarily….
Even though Section 161(2) of the CrPC casts a wide protective net to protect the formally accused persons as well as suspects and witnesses during the investigative stage, Section 132 of the Evidence Act limits the applicability of this protection to witnesses during the trial stage….
The language of Section 161, CrPC which protects the accused as well as suspects and witnesses who are examined during the course of investigation in a criminal case….
Section 27 of the Evidence Act incorporates the `theory of confirmation by subsequent facts'….
If we were to permit the admission of involuntary statement on the ground that at the time of asking a question it is not known whether the answer will be inculpatory or exculpatory, the `right against self-incrimination' will be rendered meaningless. The law confers on `any person' who is examined during an investigation, an effective choice between speaking and remaining silent. This implies that it is for the person being examined to decide whether the answer to a particular question will eventually prove to be inculpatory or exculpatory….
Since the majority decision in Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra.) is the controlling precedent, it will be useful to re- state the two main premises for understanding the scope of `testimonial compulsion'. The first is that ordinarily it is the oral or written statements which convey the personal knowledge of a person in respect of relevant facts that amount to `personal testimony' thereby coming within the prohibition contemplated by Article 20(3). In most cases, such `personal testimony' can be readily distinguished from material evidence such as bodily substances and other physical objects. The second premise is that in some cases, oral or written statements can be relied upon but only for the purpose of identification or comparison with facts and materials that are already in the possession of the investigators. The bar of Article 20(3) can be invoked when the statements are likely to lead to incrimination by themselves or `furnish a link in the chain of evidence' needed to do so….
In Sharda v. Dharampal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 case, the contention related to the validity of a civil court's direction for conducting a medical examination to ascertain the mental state of a party in a divorce proceeding. Needless to say, the mental state of a party was a relevant issue before the trial court, since insanity is a statutory ground for obtaining divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955….
We are inclined towards the view that the results of the impugned tests should be treated as testimonial acts for the purpose of invoking the right against self-incrimination. Therefore, it would be prudent to state that the phrase `and such other tests' [which appears in the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the CrPC] should be read so as to confine its meaning to include only those tests which involve the examination of physical evidence. In pursuance of this line of reasoning, we agree with the appellant's contention about the applicability of the rule of `ejusdem generis'….
However, it must be borne in mind that even though the impugned techniques have not been expressly enumerated in the CrPC, there is no statutory prohibition against them either. It is a clear case of silence in the law….
In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568, it was held that the unauthorised tapping of telephones by police personnel violated the `right to privacy' as contemplated under Article 21. However, it was not stated that telephone-tapping by the police was absolutely prohibited….
The respondents' position is that the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques should be permitted at least for investigative purposes, and if the test results lead to the discovery of fresh evidence, then these fruits should be admissible. We have already explained in light of the conjunctive reading of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that if the fact of compulsion is proved, the test results will not be admissible as evidence….
We hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872….
The National Human Rights Commission had published `Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the `Narcoanalysis technique' and the `Brain Electrical Activation Profile' test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below:
(i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.
(ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.
(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.
(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a `confessional' statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.
(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
(vii) The actual recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer. (viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.”

State of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 18.01.2010 observed, “The public interest litigation is the product of realization of the constitutional obligation of the court….Public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the down-trodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements….We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases.
Phase-I: It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this court or the High Courts.
Phase-II: It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc.
Phase-III: It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.
...In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others AIR 1978 SC 1675, the Court departed from the traditional rule of standing by authorizing community litigation…
…In Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa & Others AIR 1993 SC 1960, this Court gave directions that for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the State and its agencies, a claim for monetary compensation in petition under Article 32 of 226…
....Prajwala v. Union of India & Others (2009) 4 SCC 798, a petition was filed in this Court in which it was realized that despite commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, disabled people are not given preferential treatment
……In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India & Others (2009) 6 SCC 398, a public interest litigation was filed, when children were burnt alive in a fire at a private school in Tamil Nadu. This happened because the school did not have the minimum safety standard measures. The court, in order to protect future tragedies in all such schools, gave directions that it is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety, hence the Government should implement National Building Code and comply with the said orders in constructions of schools for children…
……M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (2007) 12 SCALE 91, in another public interest litigation, a question whether the Apex Court should consider the correctness of the order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister and Environment Minister after they were found responsible in ‘Taj Heritage Corridor Project”. It was held that the judiciary can step in where it finds the actions on the part of the legislature or the executive to be illegal or unconstitutional…
…In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others AIR 2002 SC 350, this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals “acting bonafide.” Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of “exemplary costs”…
……. directions: (1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.
3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.
4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

P.N. Bhagwati, J. (as his Lordship then was) held that the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and give additional protection under Article 19. Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a triple test: (i) it must prescribe a procedure; (ii) the procedure must withstand a test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; and (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. As the test propounded by Article 14 pervades Article 21 as well, the law and procedure authorising interference with the personal liberty must also be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. If the procedure prescribed does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14, it would be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21. The Court thus expanded the scope and ambit of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 and sowed the seed for future development of the law.

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others (1981) 1 SCC 608

Justice P.N. Bhagwati “... We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. ......... Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights.”

R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632

The right to privacy to be implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of India by Article 21. “It is the right to be left alone”.