Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Judgements highlight the expansive scope of Articles 14 and 21, emphasizing their role in safeguarding equality, fairness, and personal liberty. Courts actively scrutinize administrative, contractual, and tribunal actions to prevent arbitrariness and ensure constitutional rights are protected through judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. The jurisprudence underscores that constitutional remedies are vital tools for enforcing fundamental rights against state actions, including administrative and tribunal decisions.
References:- ["2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 38"]- ["Cpl Ayush Maurya (No 949613-T) vs UOI,CAS,Air Officer Commanding Air Forces Records Office Subrotot Park New Delhi 110010 - Allahabad"]- ["Cpl Ayush Maurya (No 949613-T) vs UOI,CAS,Air Officer Commanding Air Forces Records Office Subrotot Park New Delhi 110010 - Allahabad"]- ["2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1244"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1838"]- ["2021 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2393"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4976"]
Articles 14 and 21 form the bedrock of in India, ensuring and protection of life and personal liberty. But what are the all important judgements related to and 21? These provisions have been expansively interpreted by the , weaving principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness into state actions. This post delves into key judicial pronouncements that highlight their interplay, offering insights for legal enthusiasts, students, and practitioners.
Note: This article provides general information based on landmark cases and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
The golden triangle of underscores , with Courts emphasizing their interdependence. As noted in judicial discourse, is recognised as the third ground on which the legislative Act can be invalidated – treated as a facet of both Articles 14 and 21. 2018 7 Supreme 129
This transformative case expanded beyond mere procedural compliance. The held that the procedure under must be right, just and fair, and not arbitrary or oppressive. It forged a strong link: any arbitrary procedure violates too. The emphasized that the procedure under must be right, just and fair, and not arbitrary or oppressive. This case established a strong link between Articles 14 and 21. 1987 0 Supreme(Kar) 416 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 971
Maneka's passport impoundment without hearing exemplified how liberty deprivation sans fairness offends equality.
Addressing the death penalty, the Court mandated its use only in the , guided by Articles 14 and 21. Reasonableness in sentencing is pivotal: This case highlighted that the death penalty must be applied in the , informed by the principles of Articles 14 and 21. 2009 4 Supreme 235
Prisoners' rights were bolstered here. The Court ruled: any procedure that impairs the constitutional right to personal liberty must provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause, reinforcing the requirement of fairness under and its connection to . 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 971
A nine-judge bench affirmed Articles 14 and 21 as central to . This nine-judge bench decision reiterated that Articles 14 and 21 are central to the chapter on , emphasizing that the right to life encompasses the . 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 668 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1643
Broadening personal liberty, the Court stressed fair procedures aligning with : The interpreted personal liberty under broadly, indicating that its deprivation must adhere to a fair and just procedure. 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 550
Multiple FIRs for the same offense were barred as violating 's fairness, tied to : The court ruled against the registration of a second FIR for the same offence, stating that such actions violate . 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 550
Discriminatory state actions must be non-arbitrary: This case established that discriminatory government actions must be justified by valid principles that are not arbitrary or unreasonable. 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 237
The query on all important judgements related to and 21 often probes their synergy. As queried in one discourse: What is the inter-relation between and ? Does merely require that there must be some semblance of procedure, howsoever arbitrary or fanciful? 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 266 Courts have consistently answered no—procedure must be fair.
In , was struck down: But that decision turned mainly on though is also referred to along with . Not only did the offending provision exclude any scope for application of judicial discretion... 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 16 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1634
Recent applications shine in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar case), upholding Aadhaar under : Any law impacting dignity and liberty under ... must pass the ‘just, fair and reasonable test’ – Notion of . 2018 7 Supreme 129 under reinforces safeguards against surveillance or data breaches.
Other contexts include tribunal jurisdictions: Writ courts cannot hear disputes under Tribunal jurisdiction unless the Act's constitutionality is challenged. Linking to Articles 14/21 for procedural fairness. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5530
In service matters, arbitrary classifications violate both: Retrospective rules discriminating cadres were quashed as violates . 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3649
These judgments mandate that state actions—be it sentencing, detentions, or welfare schemes—pass the fairness test. In Aadhaar validations, Courts balanced privacy () with equality in subsidies (), directing data safeguards. 2018 7 Supreme 129
The 's evolution from formal to substantive interpretations has fortified Articles 14 and 21 against arbitrariness. Judgments like Maneka Gandhi revolutionized liberty, ensuring rule of law precludes arbitrary action. 2018 7 Supreme 129 Key takeaways: Procedures must embody justice; equality permeates liberty protections. Stay informed—these principles evolve, shaping India's constitutional democracy.
References:- 1987 0 Supreme(Kar) 416 1997 0 Supreme(SC) 971 2009 4 Supreme 235 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 668 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1643 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 550 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 237 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 16 2018 7 Supreme 129 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 266 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1634 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5530 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3649
#Article14 #Article21 #SupremeCourtIndia
Construction of the project was started on 21.04.2014. ... Hence, keeping in view the earlier judgements of this Commission, we are of the view that amount forfeited Rs.49,47,754.93/- by OPs vide letter dated 13.06.2019 is not justified. ... (d) In support of their contentions, OP relied upon the following judgements: (i) Rajnish Bhasin Vs. ... Annexure-A Details of the Unit and other #....
14. ... Further, what is most important to note is that the Bombay High Court has invoked the provisions under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India for violation committed by the “police authority” of Karnataka within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. ... The civil Court had jurisdiction to decide whether the suit was barred by Section 14 of the said Act or on principles of res judica....
However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. ... As the petitioner herein has not followed the adjudicatory mechanism laid down in the aforesaid judgements, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to invoke the remedies available to him in law. ... Sachin Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the right sought to be vindicated by the petitioner is a constitutional right guar....
Before I proceed to discuss the said judgements, it would be important to bear in mind the following facts. i. Mr. Goel joined DIAL's services as Senior Assistant - Airside Monitoring Inspector on 19.07.2007. ... Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. ... The enquiry officer, it appears, adjourned the proceedings to 21.10.2009. Mr. ... It is, thus, important to briefly ad....
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." ... While the nature of the power exercised by the High Court is delineated in Clause (1) of Article 226, the jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of such power, is spelt out in both Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226. 14. ... Artic....
basic requirements of Article 14. ... Therefore, total exclusion of Article 14 - non-arbitrariness which is basic to rule of law - from State actions in contractual field is not justified. ... The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid judgements is as follows: (i) If a contract is violated, ordinarily, the remedy is not a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ....
article 50 1A(k) imposing a duty on a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child or ward between the ages of 6 to 14 years. ... Referring to the various judgements relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant, the Counsel then stated that, the challenge to AFO 33/2017 needs to be examined on three important issues. ... . 14. ... The first issue related to the “....
article 50 1A(k) imposing a duty on a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child or ward between the ages of 6 to 14 years. ... Referring to the various judgements relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant, the Counsel then stated that, the challenge to AFO 33/2017 needs to be examined on three important issues. ... . 14. ... The first issue related to the “....
matter and all related judgements and latest citations also as of today.Hence, the issue of debarring of the OA is held in the negative against the respondents. ... Further that the benefits ofChandigarh CAT Bench dated 05/03/1999 in OA 1321/CH/97 and 21/08/2002 in another OA as well as the J&K High Court dated 13/08/2012 cannot be given as the said judgements are in personamand not in rem. ... We also have on recor....
Scope and Extent of interference 21.Coming now to the question as to what would be the scope of interference under Article 226/227 against orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals, though a number of judgements have been cited ... Submissions 14. Mr. Shekhar Dasi, ld. ... By the said agreement the Petitioner handed over the interiors and other related works for his hotel to the Respondent No. 2. 6. ... ....
Reference was then made by Shri G. Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 405 wherein Section 303 of the Penal Code, 1860 was struck down. But that decision turned mainly on Article 21though Article 14 is also referred to along with Article 21. Not only did the offending provision exclude any scope for application of judicial discretion, it also deprived the accused of the procedural safeguards contained in Sections 235(2) and....
But that decision turned mainly on Article 21 though Article 14 is also referred to along with Article 21. Reference was then made by Shri G. Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 405] wherein Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down. Not only did the offending provision exclude any scope for application of judicial discretion, it also deprived the accused of the procedural safeguards con....
In such cases, he/she could still face adverse consequences such as custodial abuse, surveillance, undue harassment and social stigma among others. In order to address such circumstances, it is important to examine some other dimensions of Article 21. ”
What is the inter-relation between Article 14 and Article 21? Does Article 21 merely require that there must be some semblance of procedure, howsoever arbitrary or fanciful, prescribed by law before a person can be deprived of his personal liberty or that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense that it must be fair and reasonable? What is the meaning of 'personal liberty' : does it include the right to go abroad so that this right cannot be abridged or take....
Reference was then made by Shri G. Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 277: 1983 SCC (Cri) 405 ] wherein Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down. Not only did the offending provision exclude any scope for application of judicial discretion, it also deprived the accused of the procedural safeguards contained in sections 235(2) and 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. But that decision turned mainly on Article 21 though Article 14 i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
