I.A. Ansari, J.

1. When pitted against each other, which one is more important-liberty of a person, or the security of the State? Society has struggled to find a uniform answer to this question in all its stages of civilization. There was a time, when the concern of the security of the State made rulers ignore the question of personal liberty of their subjects. As the civilizational standards started rising, participation of the people in the governance of the State started increasing. The experience taught the people that ignoring personal liberty, in all cases and in all circumstances, may prove counter-productive inasmuch as it may turn the ruler-whether an individual or a group of persons-into a despot and dictator. Ignoring personal liberty may even slide the State to the brink of tyranny and, eventually, plunge the State into such a catastrophe as could destroy the State itself.

2. The human civilization, therefore, realized that a balance has to be struck between the two. While the concern of the security of the State, in all conditions and always, may not be allowed to override the concerns of civil liberty, the civil liberty must also be subjected to certain restrictions so that the liberty does not become a licence to do anything, which anyone pleases to do, for, civil liberty, beyond a point, may also prove disastrous for the State inasmuch such licencees would tempt to ignore the law and defeat thereby the very rule of law, which is the cherished goal of civil liberty.

3. Fortunately, in India, her Constitution creates a balance between the two conflicting interests-civil liberty and security of the State. All laws, in India, have to, therefore, withstand the test of this constitutional balance. With the spread of terrorism, human civilization has been put under severe strain inasmuch as terrorism is, now, testing our value system. Do we allow the concerns of civil liberty to be ignored in order to escape the horrors of terrorism? Should we learn to forget the values, which we have attached so far to an individual's human rights, even if he is an offender? No wonder that 'terrorism' has become, in the present day world, the greatest threat to human civilization.

4. The concern for security of the State has, therefore, made the State make more and more stringent laws. Lest the State also does not become as insensitive as a terrorist, all the acts of the State and the laws, made by the State, must be tested and interpreted on the touchstone of human rights. A successful State administers its laws with meaning and effect. A person, accused of an offence, must be brought to book in accordance with law. In order, however, to be brought to book, the accused must be allowed to survive. The security concern of the State cannot, therefore, be limitless and be allowed to put such restrictions on the liberty of the accused as would deny to him his right of not to be deprived of his life except as the law prescribes. Consequently, the law, in such cases, has to be interpreted in a manner, which would make the law just, fair and reasonable. The present appeal throws up one of such questions and we are invited to decide, amongst others, a question as to whether a person can be allowed to go on bail on the ground of his sickness, if he is accused of an offence, which, under a given penal provision, does not entitle him the right to go on bail? If so, whether it would be wise for the Court to ignore all such conditions, which are, otherwise, required to be satisfied before the Court allows an accused person to go on bail? Thus, the Court is required to interpret the restrictive conditions imposed on civil liberty of an accused in a manner, which would advance the legislative intent. While interpreting the law and applying the same to the facts of a given case, the Court may have to exercise its discretion. Should, therefore, the Court's discretion be guided by set principles or be left to the Court to be applied judiciously as