scholarly journals Reconceptualization of the right to personal liberty and security: an analysis of decision T 719/2003

2014 ◽  
pp. 172-210
Author(s):  
Viridiana Molinares
Keyword(s):  
Personal Liberty ◽  
The Right

Roe v. Wade and the History of Abortion Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Benjamin Linton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that “[the] right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” Nevertheless, the Court held that a “right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” However, “only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ … are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution: Could it include ‘Right to Sanitation’?

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 291-296
Author(s):  
Anil Kumar Mohapatra
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Safe Drinking Water ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Sanitation Facility ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Long before India gained independence, M.K. Gandhi remarked that the availability of Sanitation facility is more important than gaining Independence for an Indian. Of late, it is now increasingly felt and realized in India that facilities like toilet, safe drinking water, accompanied by good hygienic conditions are fundamental necessities of a person. These are prerequisites of social and economic justice and genuine development. The Supreme Court of India in one judgement held that Right to life and personal liberty, should include right to privacy and human dignity etc. Despite that it has been an admitted shame that India still has the largest number of people defecating in open in the world. There are reported incidences of rape and murder of women in many places in India as women rely on open field for attending to the call of nature in morning and evening. The attempts like Community toi-let system, pay-and-use toilet system and schemes like ‘Mo Swabhiman -Mo Paikhana’ have been found to be less effective. In this connection the ‘Clean India Mission’ campaign launched by the Government of India in 2014 has been regarded as a right approach in that direction. Government of the day is actively considering the demand to convert the Right to Sanitation from a developmental right to a fundamental right. It would make the state more accountable and responsible. Against this background, the paper argues that spending huge money on that would yield good dividend in future for the country.

scholarly journals Right to be a Surrogate: Biological, Constitutional and Economic Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90
Author(s):  
Meghna Borah ◽  
Arup Kumar Hazarika ◽  
Unmilan Kalita
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Commercial Surrogacy ◽  
Universal Human Rights ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
Economic Perspectives ◽  
The Right

For the survival of all forms of life, procreation is essential. However, natural procreation is not always scientifically possible. As such, the practice of surrogacy and the use of Assisted Reproductive Techniques have become more widely recognised and accepted in societies all over the world. However, various complex and controversial issues are bounded in such practices. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 introduced by Government of India makes an attempt to eradicate some of those issues associated with surrogacy. Nevertheless, the legislation seems to be in derogation to the Constitution of India and universal human rights. This study is designed to substantiate in detail the right to be a surrogate in light of the constitutional mandate along with an evaluation of the eligibility criteria to be a surrogate and its consequences with regard to the existing legal framework. Besides, the economic perspective of exploitation of surrogates via banning of commercial surrogacy has been briefly discussed. The discussion under this study is expected to put forward an essential perspective to the right to be a surrogate in relation to a woman’s right to life and personal liberty. Further, prohibiting commercial surrogacy may push practicing surrogates towards other economically unrewarding, poorly regulated and potentially hazardous forms of employment or even make them subject to human trafficking. Therefore, recognition of the right to be a surrogate vis-à-vis the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019, would help in avoiding blatant miscarriage of universal justice while upholding the supremacy of the Constitution of India.

Shielding the Confidentiality, Privacy, and Data Security of Bio-Medical Information in India

2019 ◽  
pp. 81-99
Author(s):  
Varinder Singh ◽  
Shikha Dhiman
Keyword(s):  
Data Security ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
The Right

The framers of Indian Constitution were very much cognizant about the significance of human nobility and worthiness and hence they incorporated the “right to life and personal liberty” in the Constitution of India. Right to life is considered as one of the primordial fundamental rights. There is no doubt that Indian Judiciary has lived up to the expectations of the Constitution framers, both in interpreting and implementing Article 21 initially, but there are still a few complications left as to the viability of Article 21 in modern times. Looking at the wider arena of right to life, it can be articulated that broader connotation of “right to life” aims at achieving the norms of “privacy” as well.

Socio-Economic Rights and Their Implementation: The Impact of Domestic and International Instruments

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Erasmus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Basic Quality ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
The Impact

Socio-economic rights are those human rights that aim to secure for all members of a particular society a basic quality of life in terms of food, water, shelter, education, health care and housing. They differ from traditional civil and political rights such as the right to equality, personal liberty, property, free speech and association. These “traditional human rights” are now found in most democratic constitutions and are, as a rule, enshrined in a Bill of Rights; which is that part of the Constitution that is normally enforced through mechanisms such as judicial review. The victims of the violation of such rights have a legal remedy. Individual freedom is a primary value underpinning civil and political rights.

scholarly journals Concept of right to life and its protection under the Constitution of India

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-68
Author(s):  
HARSH PATHAK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
The Right

The constitution and jurist characterized Article 21 as, “the procedural magna carta, protective of life and liberty”. This right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in Indian constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of it. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e). Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. There would have been no fundamental rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

scholarly journals ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT: THE SCA BRINGS CLARITY Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA); [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter du Toit
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Charles V ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Peace Officer ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for a number of different instances where a peace officer may effect an arrest without an arrest warrant. A perusal of the reported case law pertaining to the lawfulness of arrests without warrant reveals that section 40(1)(b) of the Act, in particular, has received much attention from the courts. In terms of this subsection a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an offence referred to in Schedule 1, other than the offence of escaping from lawful custody. It is settled law that any deprivation of freedom is regarded as prima facie unlawful. The arrestor therefore bears the onus of proving that the arrest was justified. The following jurisdictional facts must be present for a peace officer to rely on the defence created by section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act in cases, where it is alleged that the arrest was unlawful: (i) the arrestor must be a peace officer; (ii) the arrestor must entertain a suspicion; (iii) the suspicion must be that the suspect committed an offence in Schedule 1; and (iv) the suspicion must rest on reasonable grounds. For a discussion of the differenttypes of jurisdictional facts provided for in section 40(1) see Watney. In Louw v Minister of Safety and Security Bertelsman J held, with reference to the right to personal liberty, that arresting officers are under a constitutional obligation to consider whether there are no less invasive options to bring the suspect to court than the drastic measure of arrest, thereby effectively requiring a further jurisdictional fact for successful reliance by a peace officer on the provisions of section 40(1). If a reasonable apprehension exists that the suspect will abscond, or fail to appear in court if a warrant is first obtained for his or her arrest, or awritten notice or summons to appear in court is obtained, then the arrest would be constitutionally untenable and unlawful. Bertelsman J relied on academic opinion and an obiter remark made by De Vos J in Ralekwa v Minister of Safety and Security and held that the approach in Tsose v Minister of Justice that there is no rule that requires the milder method of bringing a person to court if it would be as effective as arrest, could no longer be acceptable in a constitutional dispensation. This approach was followed in a number of reported High Court judgments but not approved of in Charles v Minister of Safety and Security. In Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk the Constitutional Court found it not to be in the interests of justice on the facts of the case before it to pronounce on the constitutional tenability of the approach in Tsose, but nevertheless held that the constitutionality of an arrest will be dependent upon its factual circumstances. Watney succinctly discusses some of the abovementioned developments. However, on 19 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto (2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA), also reported in [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)) held that the approach of the different high courts requiring a further jurisdictional fact for the lawfulness of an arrest did nothave proper regard for the principles in terms of which statutes must be interpreted in the light of the Bill of Rights and that they have conflated the issue of jurisdictional facts with the issue of discretion. This lucid judgment brings clarity to the issue of the lawfulness of arrests without warrant. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document