By: Gunjan Basrani
In the Supreme Court of India
| NAME OF THE CASE | L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West |
| CITATION | Writ petition(s) (criminal) no(s). 266/2021 |
| DATE OF THE CASE | 20 July, 2021 |
| APPELLANT | L. Raghumani Singh |
| RESPONDENT | District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur and Ans. |
| BENCH/JUDGES | Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Justice M.R. Shah |
| LEGAL PROVISIONS | The Constitution of India, 1949 (Article 21) The National Security Act, 1980 |
INTRODUCTION
“As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Abraham Lincoln
India as a free and democratic country bestows protection to life and personal liberty to its citizen under Part III of the Constitution of India. It is the fundamental right of every citizen to live freely, fully and contently. Every citizen is entitled to enjoy their life without any unreasonable interference of others especially of government. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”[1] Thus, Article 21 forbids the state to encroach upon the citizen’s right to life and personal liberty.
The terms ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ encompass a wide variety of rights of the people, which are a result of the evolution in the interpretation of Article 21 by the courts over the years.[2] In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.[3], it was held that Article 21 includes freedom from restrictions placed on one’s movement as well as freedom from encroachment of one’s private life. The scope and evolution of Article 21 can be comprehended in the landmark case, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4]. In this case the court widen the scope of the word ‘personal liberty’.
The Supreme Court round the clock emphasis the sovereignty of ‘the right to life and personal liberty’ as demonstrated in the recent case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West. In this case it was held that the internment of the activist Erendro Leichombam under the National Security Act (NSA) is contrary to the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the activist was emancipated on the same grounds.
BACKGROUND
According to the Constitution of India, right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) is considered as the soul of the Constitution which states, “Protection of life and liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[5] Plethora of cases were discussed and decided that up to what extent the right life and personal liberty should be granted, what if somebody misuses the opportunity established under law and and it has always been a question of contention that if the liberty and freeness to live is provided a bit less for citizens then any superior authority can humiliate the individual and which will be a challenging position faced by law framers.
As we can see in the case of The Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India[6] held that right to life embodied in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is not merely a physical right but it also includes within its ambit, the right to live with human dignity. The word Personal liberty just not only saves from arrest, wrong detention or False or Wrongful constraint but it also encompasses the pursuit to live life with excellence of freeness in order to live life with full authority and choice. Right to life was not just confined to any particular segment as unlikely in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[7], the guidelines laid down under this case were for the sexual harassment faced by women at workplace, it was also considered as violation of Article 14,19,21. Following which the Sexual Harassment of woman at Workplace (prevention, prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 was passes.
Every individual whether a person or any prisoner, he/she has its own individual rights to live securely, freely, with safeguards according to the Constitution of India. In case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration[8] the petitioner sentenced to death on charges of murder and robbery was held in a solitary confinement since the date of his conviction by the session court, pending his appeal before the High Court. The petitioner thus filed a writ that, being in prison is a substantive punished which was given in accordance to Indian Penal Code, 1860, though the Courts had authority to impose rules and punishments not the arresting authority. The Court decided in the favour Petitioner and said it is the infringement of Article 21 of an individual, keeping in view that either it is a person or any prisoner, everyone has right to live with dignity and procedural safeguards.
In this very respective case of activist, there was a similar case of Illegal detention of a person namely in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal[9], in this the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Justice regarding the death of prisoners in lock up and no safeguard is provided to the illegal detainees. The police treating them brutally by taking away their right to life. This letter was considered as writ petition and Court threw attention on the matter and annexed that if there is any failure in complying with the procedure established by law then it would not only be subject them to departmental actions but would also amount to contempt of Court.
The case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West has its own reference in regards to many previous cases, several decisions were taken whenever there was any infringement of right occurred and in this, the petitioner was illegally detained for publishing several social media posts.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Erendro Leichombam, a Manipuri activist was apprehended by the police on May 13, 2021 after a complaint was filed against him by Usham Deben Singh, the vice-president of BJP Manipur for censuring the Manipur President belonging to BJP, S. Tikendra Singh shortly after his death. The activist uploaded a Facebook post contending that “the cure for corona is not cow dung and cow urine. The cure is science and common sense. Professor ji RIP.”[10]
On May 17, 2021 he was granted the bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Imphal West. However, the District Magistrate, Imphal West smack the National Security Act (NSA) against Erendro Leichombam taking into consideration the police report.
Therefore, a petition was filed by L Raghumani Singh, the father of Erendro to the Supreme Court against the unlawful detention of his son and infringement of his fundamental right as he was detained inappropriately.
ISSUED RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether it was appropriate to detain the activist under the NSA which was a preventive detention act?
- Whether the fundamental right of the activist was being infringed?
CONTENTIONS
Arguments from the Petitioner’s Side:
- The learned counsel from the petitioner side contented that the activist was detained under NSA only because he criticized the BJP leader.
- It was advocated that the preventive detention provisions which were applied to the case were unnecessary as the case did not even require the simple penal provisions.
- The plea from the petitioner side also asserted that the provisions of the preventive detention was misused by the government to bottle up the opinion of the activist who criticized the BJP leader for recommending cow dung and cow urine as a remedy to Covid-19.
- The counsels also argued that mere criticism of the government does not amount to public disorder.
Arguments from the Respondent’s Side:
- The learned counsel from the respondent side argued that the activist, Erendro Leichombam was a habitual offender of the government and the NSA was imposed on him to hamper his further activities.
- It was also argued that the Facebook post was to incite political, social and religious agitation among people.
- The counsels contented that the preventive detention measures were taken to maintain public order.
- It was asserted that the Manipuri Activist was also charged of sedition for commenting against the government on social media.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CASE
- The Constitution of India, 1949
- Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.[11]
- The National Security Act, 1980
The Act provides for preventive detention in certain cases and matters connected therewith. The Act focuses on maintaining law and order in the country and provides for detention of individuals who try to impede the law-and-order situation of a state or country.[12]
JUDGEMENT
The hegemony of Article 21 under which protection of life and liberty is provided is enshrined in the recent case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West. In the aforementioned case the Manipuri Activist Erendro Leichombam censured a BJP Leader by his Facebook post for recommenting cow dung and urine as an antidote to corona virus. He was arrested for the same and the District Magistrate of Imphal West issued the stringent provision of NSA which was a preventive detention law. A petition was filed by the father of the activist stating that the preventive detention measures were unnecessary for such an elementary speech. He also contended that the government was misusing its executive power for taking revenge from the activist as he criticized the BJP government. The Supreme Court directed for the release of Erendo Leichombam as it was against the Fundamental Right of life and liberty.
The court articulated that no one can be detained for such speech. Therefore, the court ordered the Manipur Central Jail to release the activist before 5PM. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wanted the case to be listed the other day, however, the bench sad that it would direct interim relief the same day.
The bench said that “We are of the view that continued detention of the petitioner would be a violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be released forthwith subject to interim directions of this court and subject to further orders and him filing a personal bond of Rs. 1,000.”[13]
CONCLUSION
In the case of L. Raghumani Singh v. District Magistrate, Imphal West, the activist Erendro was apprehending for criticizing the late BJP Leader for advocating cow dung and cow urine as the cure of Covid-19. He was granted bail but the District Magistrate, Imphal West imposed preventive detention measures. The petition was filed by his father as his fundamental right was being violated. The Supreme Court concluded its decision by ordering the release of the Manipuri Activist.
As per my understanding of the case, the judgment of the Supreme Court is felicitous. In a democratic country like India every person has the right to life and personal liberty and they have a right to enjoy it with the minimal interference. The judgement also highlights the same.
[1] Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
[2] https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/ [last visited on February 13, 2022]
[3] Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1964 SCR (1) 332.
[4] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
[5] Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
[6] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
[7] Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
[8] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 SCR (2) 557.
[9] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610)
[10] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/imphal/manipur-activist-booked-under-nsa-freed-on-apex-court-order/ [last visited on February 13, 2022]
[11] Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
[12] The National Security Act, 1980.
[13] https://thewire.in/law/cant-be-kept-in-jail-for-even-a-day-sc-orders-immediate-release-of-manipuri-activist [last visited on February 15, 2022]