Abstract

In this globalizing world, international legal norms are increasingly impinging on domestic legal regimes. This globalizing effect is casting its influence over judicial decisions and legislative reforms in India, but also challenging traditional legal principles. As William Gaddis said “Justice? -You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law.” Once, in a while, a classical case comes up that decides important issues concerning various branches of the law. Today, the Supreme Court of India is known as an activist court because of its increasing judicial activism surrounding the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Amongst all the PILs being filed, maximum amount of PILs are filed under Article 21. Therefore, Article 21 is considered to be the primary source of power for the Supreme Court of India. The attitude of Supreme Court while interpretation of this clause has evolved from time to time. After the National Emergency of 1975 and the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the concept of protection of personal liberty has changed completely. Before the Maneka Gandhi case, the case law, which involved Article 21, was not considered sufficient but, after the judgment in the Maneka case, new dimensions emerged regarding scope of Article 21. The interpretation of the term "right to life and personal liberty" in the Maneka Gandhi case expanded the application of Article 21 and, since then, the Supreme Court has shifted the focus and reconsidered its area of application. The reiterated definition now incorporates the right to live with dignity, taking into consideration the views of the accused, society, and the victims. This case is also known as ‘personal liberty case’.

Keywords