The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a pivotal judgment, addressing the intricate balance between individual liberties and state-imposed restrictions under the Indian Constitution. This decision, pertaining to the case of Sarabjit Singh Kalsi, an alleged aide of Amritpal Singh, leader of Waris Punjab De, delved into the nuances of Article 22, describing it as a “necessary evil” in the context of preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
Also read- Supreme Court Lifts Stay On WFI Elections, Overrules Punjab And Haryana HC’s Decision (lawchakra.in)
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, presiding over the case, made profound observations regarding the interplay between Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He noted,
“Although there have been several judgments of the Supreme Court highlighting and expanding the amplitude of right to life and liberty to various facets of human life and impressing upon giving strict interpretation to Article 22, however, adumbrated in howsoever exalted language, and decorated with whatever adjectives; the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution cannot surpass the rigour of limitation permitted to the State by Article 22 of the Constitution.”
The case arose from an incident in February, where Kalsi, along with Amritpal Singh and others, allegedly attacked and ransacked the Ajnala police station in Amritsar, causing severe injuries to police personnel. Following this, an FIR was registered under multiple sections of the IPC. Kalsi’s legal representation argued for his right to a speedy trial, which necessitates prompt action in all stages, including investigation. They contended that Kalsi should be arrested in relation to the FIR to expedite the investigation and decision on prosecution.
However, the court emphasized the significance of Article 22, stating,
“Therefore, even if Article 22 of the Constitution is considered to be an evil, it happens to be a necessary evil to ensure that the liberty of every citizen is maintained at an optimal level, by not permitting the liberty of one individual to the absurd heights, which may try to harm the liberty of another citizen; directly or indirectly, by creating adverse situations of public order.”
Also read- Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Media To Verify News On Acharya Dhirendra Shastri (lawchakra.in)
In addressing the petitioner’s request, the court highlighted the constitutional absurdity of directing the police to arrest someone when the state itself does not intend to do so. Justice Sehrawat remarked,
“This would be a constitutional absurdity and a perversion directly impinging upon and destroying the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and which may bring huge adverse consequence for him. Even if a person so desires, he cannot waive off his fundamental rights.”
The court further rejected the contention that Kalsi’s right to a speedy trial and investigation was being infringed, clarifying that these rights are only operational once an investigation against the petitioner begins. It was deemed inappropriate for the court to direct the state to arrest Kalsi in connection with the alleged crime, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
This judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court serves as a crucial commentary on the constitutional safeguards of individual rights in India. It underscores the importance of Article 22 as a tool to balance individual liberties with the state’s duty to maintain public order and national security. The decision reaffirms the principle that while fundamental rights are paramount, they are subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of society.