In a recent case the Hon'ble Supreme Court bench of 3 judges declared as follows:
[full judgment at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176146407/]
"13. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties, we are inclined to hold that the extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of Yumman Somendro being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention.
........................................................
15. As has been observed in various cases of similar nature by this Court, the personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order, warranting the issuance of such an order. An individual incident of an offence under the Indian Penal Code, however heinous, is insufficient to make out a case for issuance of an order of preventive detention. "
Though the above observation is laudable, the Supreme Court has NOT been consistent in many cases on this topic. Especially when it comes to abuse of authority and deprivation of personal liberty in illegal detention, the Supreme Court has on many occasions been very empathetic to the authority than the citizens...
Shouldn't Supreme Court interpret the law as is and not make it very subjective?
The gist of the above judgments is that the state cannot deprive a person's liberty only based on suspicion and likelihood cannot be the reason to detain a person. There must be solid material in front of the authority to detain a person. That is the law but the Supreme Court itself has not set High Standards in many cases that is being used by authorities to continue the abuse of people's iberty in the name of public interest.. Here is one such example:
See the attached judgment or the report of it by a legal reporter at:
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article975096.ece
In the above case the traveler was detained for carrying large but documented & declared cash. The traveler was alleging that he was illegally detained for 15 hours in addition to the seizure of cash being illegal. The authorities had absolutely nothing against the traveler other than pure suspicion. Absolutely nothing.. The authority detained the traveler and seized his white money ONLY because he refused to tell authority as to how he plans to spend his money (which he is not required to as per the Income Tax Act).
But though the Supreme Court bench agreed with the traveler on many charges, it disagreed to penalize the authorities for the illegal detention, stated the following:
"The inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the money was not intended for any illegal
purpose. In such a situation, the rights of the passenger will have to yield to public interest. Any bonafide measures taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of black money, cannot be objected as interference with the personal liberty or freedom of a citizen. ..."
Now the term "bonafide measure" is very subjective and generally is prejudicial against citizens. The income tax and other authorities continue to abuse their authority in the guise of bonafide measures taken based on suspicion and likelihood and not it has become fashionable for the Supreme Court to make such statements upholding the individual liberty as supreme while helping the authorities for decades to abuse the same under its very nose!!!!!
I think Supreme Court does this once in a while ONLY because it is fashionable to do so and they also get good press coverage!!!! Why I am wrong?
