At 75, constitutional justice and personal liberty

As India celebrates 75 years of its Constitution, the focus shifts to how the core values, particularly personal liberty and human dignity, have faced challenges in modern India. A recent reinstatement of dissent as a constitutional ethic, through a Supreme Court ruling, highlights the ethical and moral dilemmas surrounding personal liberty today.

Reinstating Dissent in Constitutional Ethics

• Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court reinstated Justice S. Fazl Ali’s dissent in the A.K. Gopalan case (1950), which upheld Gopalan’s right to political dissent, marking a shift in understanding personal liberty in constitutional ethics.
• K. Gopalan's Detention: Gopalan’s preventive detention in 1950, sanctioned by the Supreme Court's majority judgment, was later declared a judicial error, reinforcing personal liberty and questioning previous interpretations of constitutional rights.
• Broader Ethical Framing: The revision of constitutional ethics calls for integrating personal liberty and human dignity into a comprehensive justice framework, moving beyond mechanical readings of law to ensure constitutional values are respected.

Historical Context and Modern Challenges

• Preventive Detention and Political Dissent: Preventive detention laws, which allowed for indefinite custody without trial, have grown in use, particularly under anti-terror laws, echoing the challenges faced by political dissenters today.
• Continuity of Political Persecution: The continued detention of anti-CAA activists, including young dissenters, parallels the experiences of historical figures like A.K. Gopalan, underscoring the need to critically assess constitutional integrity in contemporary India.
• Judicial Inaction on Liberty: Despite the constitutional commitment to personal liberty, the Indian judiciary has faced criticism for its delayed action in upholding the rights of detainees, particularly dissenters under laws like the Preventive Detention Act.

Dissent, Colonial Legacies, and Judicial Responsibility

• Colonial Legal Influence: The Preventive Detention Act of 1950, rooted in colonial law, continues to be used in post-independence India, which raises concerns about the legacy of these laws in modern judicial practices.
• Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: As reflected in the Puttaswamy case, the challenge is to extend the values of dissent, dignity, and liberty enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that the courts evolve with the changing societal and political realities.
• Future of Constitutional Values: The judicial system is urged to protect the ethical spirit of the Constitution and not undermine it through outdated or politically motivated interpretations, as this would defeat the core mission of justice.

Practice Question

Q. Critically analyze the evolution of constitutional interpretation regarding personal liberty and dissent in India, focusing on landmark cases like A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) and Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017). How does the application of preventive detention laws impact constitutional ethics in the context of political dissent?