RIGHT TO PRIVACY - The Case Study.
The constitution of India lays down all the rights and the duties that are available to the citizens of India.
The constitution of India guarantees its citizens with some certain rights and also makes mandatory for its citizens to fulfill their duties as well.
Right to privacy is one of the right which is available to the citizens of India under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It says that no person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law. 21 is the most important right and has been described as the heart of fundamental rights of the Apex Court.
The basic purpose of this fundamental right is to prevent the infringement of a person’s liberty and deprivation of life except according to the procedure established by the law. This fundamental right only covers the state and not the private individuals and the constitution of India is solely responsible for the actions of the state and should not be held responsible for any individual’s action, though the aggrieved person can knock the doors of the courts to get justice for the infringement of any of his right.
A complaint can be filed against any adult male who has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved party and against whom the aggrieved party has sought any relief under the act. It can also be filed against the family members of the accused along with the accused.
Right to life means the right to live a meaningful, accomplished and dignified life and by no means it’s meaning can be restricted. Personal liberty means freedom from physical restraint. The initial case that was held by the apex court was A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras and during this time the scope of Article 21 was narrow and after this case this fundamental right was started to be seen in a broader term. After taking a glance at other cases, the view to see Article 21 got broader and was subjected as :- Article 21 assures the right to live without exploitation and with dignity, tight to live in a fair abd reasonable conditions and It is mandatory for the State to look after its action and not deprive anybody’s Right to Life and personal liberty by any means. A landmark judgement widened the scope of Article 21 in the case ofUnni krishnan v. state of A.P. Stating that Article 21 also includes the Right to Education as well.
Thus from the above precedent we are able to understand that initially the perspective related to Article 21 was very narrow but gradually it grew and became broad by adding new dimension. It added a limitation to the procedure that if the life of a person or person liberty is hampered then there must be a reasonable and fair procedure and it shouldn’t be whimsical or arbitrary.
