Meaning Of Personal Liberty
The right to personal liberty is one of the oldest concepts to be safeguarded by national courts. The English Magna Carta of 1215 stated, "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned... except by the law of the land."
For those who value the ideals of liberty, the smallest Article, consisting of only eighteen words, is the most important. Is there anything more important than liberty? The concept of 'liberty' has been given a much broader interpretation in India. The Indian Supreme Court has rejected the notion that liberty merely refers to freedom from bodily restraint, instead holding that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognised as essential to free men's orderly pursuit of happiness.
The Supreme Court considered the meaning of the term "personal liberty" in the Kharak Singh case, which arose from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the U. P. Police Regulations, which allowed for surveillance through domiciliary visits and secret picketing. Surprisingly, both the majority and minority on the bench relied on an American decision (per Field, J.) in Munn v Illinois, which held that the term "life" meant more than mere animal existence. The prohibition on its deprivation extended to all the limits and faculties through which one could enjoy life.
The mutilation of the body, the amputation of an arm or leg, the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outside world were all prohibited by this provision. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorising domiciliary visits [by police officers at night as a form of surveillance] were unconstitutional because they constituted a deprivation of liberty. The right to personal liberty is defined in the Indian Constitution as an individual's right to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures, according to the Court.
Even lawful imprisonment, according to the Supreme Court, does not imply the loss of all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all of the rights that a free citizen does, with the exception of those that are 'necessarily' lost as a result of imprisonment.
Is Article 21 Suspended During Emergency?
The supreme court held in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, also known as the habeas corpus case, that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty, and that if the right to petition any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by a presidential order under Article 359, the detainee would have no locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the legality of his detention.
Article 359 was given such a broad interpretation that it resulted in the denial of citizens' long-cherished right to personal liberty. The fundamental freedom of the people had lost all meaning during the emergence of 1975, according to experience.
To ensure that this did not happen again, the constitution act of 1978 amended article 359 to ensure that the remedy for enforcing the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential order while the proclamation of emergency was in effect.
Because of the 44th Amendment of 1978, the observations made in the aforementioned judgments are now merely academic in nature.