Libertarian Jurisprudence and Judicial Accountability

Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka retired from the Supreme Court of India on May 23, 2025, after a distinguished tenure marked by judicial courage and constitutional clarity. Known for upholding civil liberties and procedural fairness, he played a pivotal role in reforming bail jurisprudence under laws like UAPA and PMLA. His legacy reflects a deep commitment to defending individual rights against arbitrary state action

Transforming Bail Jurisprudence under Special Statutes

• Presumption of Liberty under UAPA: In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024), Justice Oka reiterated the fundamental doctrine that bail, not jail, is the norm, even under the restrictive provisions of the UAPA. His ruling recalibrated the balance between national security and individual freedom, reaffirming that constitutional safeguards must prevail.
• Critique of Prolonged Detention under PMLA: In a significant 2025 ruling, he pulled up the Enforcement Directorate for the prolonged incarceration of Indian Telecommunication Service officer Arun Kumar Tripathi. Justice Oka observed, “The concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail,” thereby emphasizing the need for proportionate use of penal statutes.
• Safeguarding Ideological Dissent: In Abdul Sathar’s case (May 2025), while granting bail to a Popular Front of India secretary, Justice Oka held that ideological belief alone does not constitute a crime, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and political expression.

Upholding Civil Liberties and Freedom of Expression

• Early Recognition of Privacy as a Right: In Sheikh Zahid Mukhtar’s case (2016), Justice Oka struck down provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, specifically Section 5D, holding it violative of individual privacy—a precedent set even before the Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment (2017) formally declared privacy a fundamental right.
• Validation of Protest Rights: In Sowmya R. Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2020), during the anti-CAA protests, Justice Oka declared the imposition of Section 144 in Bengaluru as unconstitutional, stating that it infringed upon the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b).
• Protection of Critical Dissent: In Javed Ahmad’s case (2024), where a professor was charged under Section 153A for criticising the abrogation of Article 370 via WhatsApp status, the bench led by Justice Oka quashed the charges, warning that criminalising dissent threatens the survival of democracy.

Ensuring State Accountability and Upholding Human Dignity

• Condemnation of Arbitrary Demolitions: In Zulfiquar Haider v. State (April 2025), Justice Oka denounced the illegal demolition of homes in Prayagraj as a blatant violation of the right to shelter. The Court awarded compensation of ?10 lakh to each affected individual and asserted that “due process is not optional but mandatory.”
• State Responsibility in Communal Harm Cases: In a Public Interest Litigation filed by Tushar Gandhi, a bench comprising Justice Oka directed the Uttar Pradesh government to bear the educational expenses of a 7-year-old Muslim boy assaulted in a Muzaffarnagar school. The bench stressed that primary responsibility lies with the State, not charitable institutions, under its welfare obligations.
• Resisting Chilling Effect on Speech: In contrast to the caution advised in Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s case (2025) by another bench, Justice Oka in Abdul Sathar emphasized that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument to chill expression or political ideology, underscoring the democratic ethos of the Constitution.

Practice Question:

Q. "The judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding constitutional liberties by recalibrating the balance between state power and individual rights, especially under stringent laws and during times of political contestation." Discuss with suitable examples.