Category: Volume 2 and Issue 5 of 2022

Case Commentary – COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

S.SRINIDHI

Student of  SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW, SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES, CHENNAI.

Best Citation – S.SRINIDHI, Case Commentary – COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, 2 (5) & 16 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

Common Cause, a registered group, filed this petition in an effort to have Article 21 of the Constitution interpreted to include both the right to live and die with dignity. It also requested instructions for the State to create suitable policies that would let people with declining health or terminal illnesses to execute living wills or advance medical directives. The Court determined that the right to a dignified death falls under Article 21 after carefully examining domestic and international precedent, including the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. ((2017) 10 SCC 1). A number of obviously clear effects would surely result from the recognition of human autonomy as a component of Article 21. In the recent case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, the Apex Court upheld the right of citizens to obtain living wills and authorizations from attorneys, which would indicate a person’s decision to stop receiving care if they are terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. This decision is an ode to individual autonomy. This paper is aimed at examining the Supreme Court’s order using Article 21 in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India

Keywords: Euthanasia, Right To Life, Right To Die, Indian Constitution, IPC

Case Commentary – AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

Abhi Tiwari from Barkatullah University & R. Suganya and Sathyabama Institute of science and technology

Best Citation – Abhi Tiwari & R. Suganya, Case Commentary – AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS., 2 (5) & 10 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and others, also known as the Shaheen Bagh case, the Supreme Court observed that the right comes with certain obligations and duties, so as to balance the fundamental rights with that of the public rights. In which the Court directed that the protestors against the Citizenship (Amendment Act), 2019 could not block public ways indefinitely, which prejudices the safety and security of local residents. Since the Constitution itself clarifies that the fundamental rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, security of the State, etc. under Article 19 (2) and (3).

The Shaheen Bagh case shows how the judiciary plays an important role in upholding the rule of law. Since an independent judiciary is the bedrock of democracy, the Supreme Court’s decisions in matters tangled with political elements not only act as binding precedents but also enable people to believe and trust the judiciary to settle their issues wisely, which is a core principle of democracy. Thus, the paper aims to analyze the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police.

Key words:  Citizenship Amendment Act, Shaheen Bagh,  right to protest, Supreme Court,  public order

Case Commentary on Farzana Batool v. Union Of India & Others

Ayushi Mittal & Srijon Banerjee

School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

Best Citation – Ayushi Mittal & Srijon Banerjee, CASE COMMENTARY ON FARZANA BATOOL V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 2 (5) & 6 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

A significant step toward ensuring that social, economic, and political justice has been laid down for every Indian citizen through Fundamental Rights, defined under Articles 12 to 35 and included in Chapter III of the Indian Constitution. It is what Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru referred to as the constitution’s conscience. The Indian Constitution guarantees both the Fundamental Rights, which protect people’s freedom and dignity, and the ‘Directive Principles’ which uphold the social, economic, and political fairness for all community members. Given that “education” has long been viewed as a fundamental ‘human right’, on a worldwide scale, there are no impending restrictions on granting the ‘Right to Professional Education’ or ‘Higher Education’ legal recognition. The notion of education as a basic human right cannot be fully realized if the “Right to Higher Education” is not seen as a fundamental human right.

The case of Farzana Batool v. Union of India and Others is a landmark case laying down the significance of higher professional education and specifying the state’s obligatory duty to provide the resources and services for the same. It also lays down the authority and importance of Writ Petition which comes under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted the fact of higher education not being a fundamental right but prudently laid its importance and the state’s obligatory duty to provide or help to provide the same to the section of society who doesn’t have the resources or is facing some hindrances on the path to a to achieve it, as the same is not guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights.

Keywords: Fundamental rights, court, human right, professional/ higher education, Article 32, state, duty.

Case Commentary – ANURADHA BHASIN VERSES UNION OF INDIA

C.VAISHNAVI SARMA

Student of School of Law, VELTECH UNIVERSITY

Best University – C.VAISHNAVI SARMA, Case Commentary – ANURADHA BHASIN VERSES UNION OF INDIA, 2 (5) & 1 of 2022, IJLR

ABSTRACT

In today’s world, the internet plays a significant role in our daily lives. For many things, such as trade and business, we rely heavily on the internet. The Internet has grown to be so significant that it is now covered in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The main objective of the lawsuit was to determine if the prohibition on using internet facilities was legal, hence this judgment is quite significant. In addition, the Apex Court has established a set of guidelines to prevent the Government from abusing its authority, particularly in such circumstances. The problem arose in 2019 when the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a “Security Advisory” and advised tourists. to return to ensure their safety. In addition, orders were issued to close educational institutions. The judgment covered various essentials pertaining liberty and security of individual.

Keywords: Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Indian constitution, the test of proportionality, Freedom of the Press, Restrictions Under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, and internet shutdown