Reflecting on 75 Years of the Constitution of India
75 years since the adoption of the Indian Constitution, it is critical to assess how constitutional values are upheld amidst ethical and moral crises. Core values like personal liberty, human dignity, and justice require introspection against reductionist interpretations.
Constitutional Dissent: A Core Ethic
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case
- The Supreme Court interpreted the Fundamental Rights under Part III of Indian Constitution.
- In this case, it held that the protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action.
- The Supreme Court held that ‘personal liberty’ means only liberty relating to the person or body of the individual.
- Reinstatement of Justice Fazl Ali’s Dissent
- Justice Fazl Ali’s dissent in K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) was reinstated in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017).
- A.K. Gopalan, detained under preventive laws, challenged violations of personal liberty but was denied justice by a majority ruling.
- The 2017 Puttaswamy judgment recognized this dissent as upholding the values of liberty and privacy.
- Importance of Article 21
- Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty and embodies human dignity and individual development as a constitutional promise (Justice R.F. Nariman in Puttaswamy, paragraph 42).
- Role of the Constitution and Preamble
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envisioned a workable, flexible, and strong Constitution.
- The Preamble serves as a guiding light to maintain unity amidst divisive narratives like “tukde tukde” discourses.
Challenges to Personal Liberty in Contemporary India
- Preventive Detention and Anti-Terror Laws
- Rise in arbitrary arrests, denial of fair trials, and prolonged detentions under laws with limited accountability.
- Examples include anti-CAA protesters like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others trapped under anti-terror statutes.
- Criminalization of Dissent
- Courts struggle to strike a balance between upholding constitutional rights and state authority.
- Preventive Detention Act (1950) marked the start of contradictions in constitutional liberty.
- Current anti-terror laws have escalated the suppression of dissenters and marginalized communities.
Judicial Responsibility and Creative Constitutionalism
- Observations by G. Kannabiran highlight the persistence of colonial-era laws, which undermine constitutional liberties.
- Courts must adopt creative constitutionalism (Upendra Baxi) to uphold the right to personal liberty and justice.
- The aim should be to enforce dignity and liberty rather than replicating injustices of the past.
Way Forward: Upholding the Constitutional Spirit
- Interventions by courts are necessary to counter the misuse of preventive laws and arbitrary detention.
- Commitment to the Constitution’s ethical and moral core ensures justice remains the central tenet of governance.
- Acknowledging past judicial errors is essential but must not delay action in upholding liberty and equality today.
This article encapsulates the journey of India’s constitutional ethos over 75 years, urging systemic reflection and decisive reforms to protect the fundamental right to dissent and personal liberty.
