ARIJIT PASAYAT, RUMA PAL, DORAISWAMY RAJU, N.S.HEGDE, S.S.M.QUADRI, R.C.LAHOTI, S.P.BHARUCHA
P. Ramachandra Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Judgment
R.C. Lahoti, J. - No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law - declares Article 21 of the Constitution. Life and liberty, the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, app
Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar
Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr.
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.
‘Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
“Common Cause” A Regd. Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors.
“Common Cause” A Regd. Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.