The Bombay High Court upheld the right to sleep as a fundamental right in a ruling directed at the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Mumbai: On Monday (April 15): The Bombay High Court emphasized the “right to sleep as a basic human necessity that should not be violated.”. The court rejected a petition from a 64-year-old businessman alleging an unlawful arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and criticized the process where he was kept waiting in the ED office and his statement was recorded overnight, thus infringing upon his “right to sleep” as per Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity.
READ ALSO: Article 370: Article 35A Took Away Fundamental Rights
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Manjusha A. Deshpande delivered a judgment on a plea by Ram Kotumal Issrani, who sought to annul the orders of a special court that remanded him into custody over an alleged bank fraud.
The bench rejected the petition as it lacked merit and found no legal flaws in the petitioner’s arrest. However, the judges commented on the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s overnight detention for statement recording, irrespective of whether it was done willingly or not.
While the court dismissed Issrani’s plea, it expressed disapproval regarding the prolonged questioning endured throughout the night. The High Court emphasized the detrimental impact of sleep deprivation on a person’s health, including impaired mental faculties and cognitive skills. Consequently, the court directed the ED to issue a circular outlining appropriate timing for conducting interrogations when summonses are issued.
The court emphasized
The right to sleep and blink are fundamental human needs. Depriving someone of these rights, especially at night, can violate their human rights, impacting their health and cognitive abilities. Statements should be recorded during reasonable hours to ensure individuals’ cognitive skills are not impaired.
Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to sleep is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. It ensures that citizens can enjoy a peaceful environment, including the right to rest at night and have leisure time without disturbance. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions, similar to other rights under Article 19, such as freedom of speech. These restrictions include considerations like where, when, and how one sleeps, prohibiting unreasonable behaviors like daytime sleeping, public nudity, or sleeping in inappropriate places.
In Landmark Case Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident, Dt. vs. Home Secretary And Ors. (2012)
Justice Chauhan’s ruling emphasized the violation of fundamental rights, specifically Article 19(a) on freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(b) on peaceful assembly. He stressed that “sleep is a basic necessity, not a luxury,” and its disruption can lead to significant health issues like energy imbalances and cardiovascular problems.
This ruling aligns with global practices of night curfews and flight restrictions to protect citizens’ right to quality sleep, recognized as integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Chauhan emphasized that privacy and sleep are fundamental rights akin to breathing or eating, deserving legal protection.
Background:
Ram Issrani, who was flown from Delhi to Mumbai on August 7, 2023, claimed that he was arrested the following day after being questioned until past 3 am. His lawyer, Vijay Aggarwal, argued that Issrani was not presented before the court within the legally mandated 24-hour period. However, the High Court dismissed this contention, asserting that the arrest could not be deemed “illegal” considering the time required for travel.
The intention behind this directive is to prevent the deprivation of sleep, which is regarded as a basic human right. The court disapproved of the practice of recording statements during unearthly hours, emphasizing that consent provided by the individual is immaterial in this context.
However, special public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), countered that the petitioner did not object to his statement being recorded after midnight, and thus it was conducted accordingly.
“Regardless of whether it was voluntary or not, we condemn the manner in which the petitioner’s statement was recorded so late at night, extending beyond midnight until 3:30 am. It is worth noting, as argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, that when summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the individual is not considered an accused but could be a witness or someone associated with knowledge of the investigated offense,” the bench observed.
READ ALSO: Karnataka High Court: Job Termination Violates Fundamental Rights by Denying Livelihood
The matter is scheduled for September 9, when the Enforcement Directorate is expected to adhere to the High Court’s directives regarding conducting interrogations during reasonable hours.
