SYED ALI SHAH GEELANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right to personal liberty is core concept of our Constitution. The Framers, alive to the importance of right to personal liberty placed it alongside and on the same pedestal as the right to life. The right to personal liberty in reality, is an integral and inseparable part of right to life, as there would be no meaning to right to life with personal liberty curtailed. The Article 21 of the Constitution of India where-under right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed represents the spirit and essence of all other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In other words freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of trade, freedom of religion., So on and so forth, are only fundamental aspects of the right to life and personal liberty. If for one or the other reason the fundamental rights except right to life and personal liberty would not have been guaranteed still the right to life and personal liberty would have brought within its spread and sweep all such fundamental rights.

(2.) It is to be remembered that right to life and liberty is not conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right has always been there and Article 21 of the Constitution also such other Constitutional and Statutory Provisions are nothing but an endeavour to protect this right. The right in the words of justice Harlan in "Griswold v. Connecticut,381 US 479 1065 is not "a series of isolated points" but a "rational continuum".

(3.) The petitioner is an octogenarian and claims to be fighting, as a political leader, for the rights of the people through peaceful and political methods. The petitioner as stated by the respondents in their reply is an Ex-Legislator of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, has twice successfully contested elections to the State Assembly and also contested election to the Parliament. The petitioner is ailing and has been under medical treatment for last few years. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents off and on without any lawful justification impose restrictions on the movement of the petitioner, place the petitioner under house arrest and restrain his relations, friends and acquaintances from visiting the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner is practically forced to be in solitary confinement in his house, for days together. The petitioner in para 5 and 6 of the petition has given the dates on which the restrictions were imposed on petitioner's movement and the petitioner restrained from receiving visitors. It is averred that during the year 2010 the petitioner was put under house arrest and forced to remain confined in his