Judiciary not to violate right to life art 21 ofconstitution

Good observation. Equality before law is also very important. If equality before law is subverted under any color or excuse, the result is nothing but tyranny and injustice. All Constitutional guarantees will become meaningles.

 

There are many foundational fundamental human rights, principles or grundnorms under Part III that cannot be touched by the State, including the executive, legislature and judiciary. That is why they have been guaranteed. If they are violated, then the very purpose of the guarantees gets defeated. They have been discussed in some detail in the following thread https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Objections-against-proposed-arms-rules-2015-121734.asp

Thank you, The link u sent is most wonderful, still reading.. Further, i wish to support your legal preposition regarding the issue of fundamental right violation by judiciary, i found a judgment of apex court. This Hon’ble Court in Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010, 2010 (3) SCC 192 Page 211 “40. In this context another aspect is of some relevance and it was pointed out by Justice Hidayatullah, as His Lordship was then, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. - [AIR 1967 SC 1]. In a minority judgment, His Lordship held that the judiciary is a State within the meaning of Art. 12. [See paras 100, 101 at page 28, 29 of the report]. This minority view of His Page 212 Lordship was endorsed by Justice Mathew in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) [at page 1949, para 1717 of the report] and it was held that the State under Article 12 would include the judiciary. This was again reiterated by Justice Mathew in the Constitution bench judgement in the case of State of Kerela and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others [AIR 1976 SC 490] where Justice Mathew's view was the majority view, though given separately. At para 89, page 515 of the report, his Lordship held that under Article 12, `State' would include `Court'. 41. In view of such an authoritative pronouncement the definition of State under Article 12 encompass the judiciary and in Kesavananda (supra) it was held that "judicial process" is also "state action" [Para 1717, pg. 1949]

Thank you,

The link u sent is most wonderful, still reading..

Further, i wish to support your legal preposition regarding the issue of fundamental right violation by judiciary, i found a judgment of apex court.

This Hon’ble Court in Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010,

2010 (3) SCC 192

Page 211

“40. In this context another aspect is of some relevance and it was pointed out by Justice Hidayatullah, as His Lordship was then, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. - [AIR 1967 SC 1]. In a minority judgment, His Lordship held that the judiciary is a State within the meaning of Art. 12. [See paras 100, 101 at page 28, 29 of the report]. This minority view of His

Page 212

 Lordship was endorsed by Justice Mathew in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) [at page 1949, para 1717 of the report] and it was held that the State under Article 12 would include the judiciary. This was again reiterated by Justice Mathew in the Constitution bench judgement in the case of State of Kerela and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others [AIR 1976 SC 490] where Justice Mathew's view was the majority view, though given separately. At para 89, page 515 of the report, his Lordship held that under Article 12, `State' would include `Court'.

41. In view of such an authoritative pronouncement the definition of State under Article 12 encompass the judiciary and in Kesavananda (supra) it was held that "judicial process" is also "state action" [Para 1717, pg. 1949]