32 Judicial Expansion of rights

Dr. K Sita Manikyam

AIMS OF THE CHAPTER:

• To be able to understand how judicial activism has grown over time in India.
• To understand the role of judiciary in expanding fundamental rights as provided under Part III of the Constitution.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. IMPACT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
3. JUSTICIABLE RIGHTS
4. NON-JUSTICIABLE RIGHTS
5. JUDICIAL EXPANSION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
6. CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION

In Constitutional democracies, often the legislative process is too slow to keep pace with the new challenges. Hence judicial intervention through due process becomes inevitable and we find that judiciary has played a vital role in all spheres of life. The Court has expanded and humanized the concept of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. This has given birth to the concept of Judicial Activism and the dynamics of the judicial process has brought in significant changes in interpreting the law and the Constitution to meet the rapidly changing societal needs. This lesson focuses on this strategy adopted by the apex court in bringing significant changes and thereby protecting and upholding the most cherished Constitutional preambular values i.e. Life and liberty in the context of advance science and technology and in this global era. We see that the judiciary has now come forward with a fresh look by giving an introduction of its pro- activeness through judicial activism, it has started giving primacy to public interest over private interest by encouraging public interest litigation, it has also expanded the scope of various rights particularly right to life and personal liberty.

2. IMPACT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Judicial activism has greatly contributed to the expansion, protection, and enforcement of Fundamental Rights and further impacted on the justiciability of Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme Court has broadened the Fundamental Rights. It has enlarged the scope of their operation by liberally interpreting Article 12 of the Constitution which defines ‘State’. It has by its judicial activism attached importance to Directive Principles of State Policy and many of been enforced them have. It has liberally interpreted the Fundamental Rights, particularly Right to Life and Personal Liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Fundamental Rights are binding on and enforceable against the State. The ‘State’ has been defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. According to that article ‘State’ includes the following:

• Government and Parliament of India, in other words, the Union Executive and Legislature:
• The Government and Legislature of each of the States, in other words, the State’s Executive and Legislature:
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India:
• All local or other authorities under the control of the Government of India

Earlier the term ‘other authorities’ wag given a restricted meaning by applying the principle of ejusdem generis and it was held that it means authorities of a like nature. Such interpretation includes only those authorities which exercise sovereign functions. 1 But subsequently, this view was overruled by the Supreme Court. It was held that ejusdem generis rule was resorted to in interpreting this expression. In Article 12 the ‘bodies’ specifically named are the government of the Union and the State, the Legislature of the Union and the State and Local Authorities. There is no common genus running through these named bodies nor can these bodies be placed in one single category on any rational basis. In a subsequent case,2 the Supreme Court stated that the expression other authorities’ is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute or on whom powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that statutory authority should be engaged in performing sovereign functions. Since then, there has been a growingly widening of the meaning of ‘other authorities’. Now, several categories of State ‘instrumentalities’ such as Public Corporation, Companies, Societies etc. have come to be included within the ambit of ‘other authorities’.3 The Fundamental Rights are binding on them and they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court.

It would appear that parts III, IV and IV (a) of the Constitution greatly depend upon the judiciary for their analysis and application. The various ‘reasonable restriction classes in Part Ill, Article 21, and the seldom-used Part IV-A have set the judiciary liberal extent for the Judicial Review of theadministrative and legislative action. Indeed, Article 21 has allowed it to act as an analyst in prodding the State to put into practice the directive principles in so far as they honestly bear upon “life and personal liberty.”

3. JUSTICIABLE RIGHTS

Fundamental rights are those rights which are necessary for the well-being of a person. Part III of the Indian Constitution contains the list of Fundamental Rights; that guarantees civil liberties to all the citizens of India to be alive in serenity and synchronization without the fear of being censored by others. The Indian Judiciary has the prudence to penalize those violating these fundamental rights under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. No individual can be deprived of these rights pertaining to fundamental liberty in the form of human freedoms. It is the judiciary that safeguards these constitutional rights of the citizens. In some outstanding cases, i.e. all through emergency the State can inflict limitations on the gratification of these fundamental rights.

The Constitution provides for the enjoyment of 6 Fundamental rights. They are:

• Right to Equality (under Article 14 – Article 18)
• Right to Freedom (under Article 19 – Article 22)
• Right against exploitation (under Article 23 – Article 24)
• Right to Freedom of Religion (under Article 25 – Article 28)
• Cultural and Educational rights (under Article 29 – Article 30)
• Right to Constitutional remedies (Article 32)

4. NON- JUSTICIABLE RIGHTS – JUDICIAL APPROACH

The Part IV of the Constitution i.e., Directive Principles of State Policy, contains many human rights which are intended to ensure socio-economic justice. Though the Directive Principles have been declared to be fundamental in the governance of the country, they were not enforceable by courts. Consequently, in the beginning, they did not receive the importance, they deserved. They were held to be subject to fundamental rights. However, gradually the courts started underlining their importance. It was held that an attempt must be made to harmonize the provisions of the fundamental rights with the directive principles of state policy as far as possible4. They were resorted to in determining the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by law in respect of fundamental rights.5 Constitutional amendments were made to give primacy to some Directive Principles. By Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment, 1971, it was provided that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 shall be deemed to be void that it is violative of the rights contained in Articles 14, 19 and 31. Again by Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment, 1976, Articles 19(f), 39A, 43A and 48A were inserted in the Constitution which are intended to secure to children opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner etc., equal justice and free legal aid, participation of workers in management of industries and protection of improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life respectively.

The Court has also laid growing emphasis on Directive Principles of State Policy. Some of its directives have been conferred the status of fundamental rights, such as ‘equal pay for equal work’6. The Acts intended to secure directive principles particularly those inserted by the Forty-Second Amendment have been held to be valid. They have been held to be an integral part of thedemocratic system and are meant to secure socio-economic justice. The Supreme Court observed

“The Directive Principles of our Constitution are the forerunners of the UN Convention of the Right to Development as an inalienable human right and every person and all people are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political developments in which all human rights, fundamental freedoms would be fully realized. It is the responsibility of the State as well as the individuals, singly and collectively, for the developments taking in to account the need for fuller responsibility for the human rights, fundamental freedoms as well as the duties to the community which alone can ensure free and complete fulfillment of the human being. They promote and protect and appropriate social and economic order in democracy for development. The State should provide facilities and opportunities to ensure development and to eliminate all obstacles to development by appropriate economic and social reforms to eradicate all social injustice. These principles are embedded as integral part of our Constitution in the Directive Principles. Therefore, the Directive Principles now stand elevated to inalienable fundamental human rights. Even they are justiciable by themselves. Social and economic democracy is the foundation for stable political democracy. Therefore, for theestablishment of just social order in which social and economic democracy would be a way of life, inequalities in income should be removed and every endeavoris made to eliminate inequalities in status through the rule of law.”

In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan8, the court observed that it is the obligation of the State to implement them. The court held: “The State i.e., Union of India and the State Governments and the local bodies constitute an integral executive to implement ‘the Directive Principles contained in Part-IV through planned development under the rule of law. The Municipal Corporation, therefore, has Constitutional duty and authority to implement the directives contained in Articles 38, 39 and 46 and all cognate provisions to make the fundamental rights available to all the citizens as meaningful. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Municipal Corporation to enforce the scheme in a planned manner by annual budget to provide theright to theresidence to the poor.”

5. JUDICIAL EXPANSION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

The judicial interpretation with respect to the terms “life”, “personal liberty” and “procedure established by law” changed from case to case and time to time. The scope of the right to personal liberty received two-dimensional judicial approach in the Gopalan case, which is the very first case on personal liberty in the Supreme Court of India immediately after the commencement of the Constitution of India. The majority opinion was that the right to personal liberty was not so wide as to include within it the freedom of movement throughout the territory of India. They were of the view that the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India, referred to in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, was entirely different from the concept of right to personal liberty referred to in Article 21 and should not, therefore, be read as controlled by provisions of Article 21. The majority judges believed if the concept of personal liberty was interpreted to include the freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, then Article 19(1) (d) would become redundant and they kept both the freedoms in separate compartments. It thus appears that the majority gave a very narrow and restricted view of the expression personal liberty. Post-Gopalan case10 the scenario in respect of thescope of Article 21 has been expanded or modified gradually through different decisions of the Apex Court and it was held that interference with the freedom of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in jail would require theauthority of law. Whether the reasonableness of a penal law can be examined with reference to Article 19, was the point in issue after Gopalan’s case in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11 and the Apex Court opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty.

5.1 Judiciary and Gender Justice

In Vishakha & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors12, Supreme Court said that “gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity, which is a universally recognized basic human right. The common minimum requirement of this right has received global acceptance. In the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all workplaces, the contents of international conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein and for the formulation of guidelines to achieve this purpose…. in the absence of enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more particularly, guidelines and norms are hereby laid down for strict observance at all workplaces or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further emphasized that this would be treated as the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

5.2. Judiciary and prisoners protection

It is beyond doubt that in the recent past the Indian judiciary; particularly the Supreme Court has been very vigilant against encroachments upon the human rights of the prisoners. The courts have recently viewed third-degree methods and custodial deaths in police custody as a serious violation of human rights and constitutional provision of theright to life and liberty. The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have developed human rights jurisprudence for prisoner’s rights by interpreting Art.14, 19, 21, 22, 32, 37 and 39 A of the Constitution.

Reiterating the view taken in Motiram and Ors v. the State of M.P., the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon and ors. v. Home Secretary State of Bihar14, expressed anguish at the travesty of justice because under-trial prisoners spending extended time in custody due to unrealistically excessive conditions of bail imposed by the magistracy or the police and issued requisite corrective guidelines, holding that the procedure established by law for depriving a person of life or personal liberty also should be reasonable, fair and just. Strongly denouncing handcuffing of prisoners as a matter of routine, the Supreme Court said that to manacle a man is more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanize him, and therefore to violate his personhood.

5.3 Judiciary and Right to Education

In Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and others15, the observations of the court are as follows: The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles must be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making “right to education” under Art.41 of the Constitution a reality the fundamental rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of thelarge majority which is illiterate. “Right to life” is the compendious expression for all those rights which the Courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. The Court holds that every citizen has a ‘right to education’ under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognized educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfill its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions whether State owned or State- recognized in recognition of their ‘right to education’ under the Constitution.”

Justice Mathew observed that “the social responsibility of modern welfare State extends to the field of human rights and imposes obligation upon the Government to promote liberty, equality, and dignity”16 The right to education must be given greater importance so as to give everyone the benefit of education and awareness of other rights to which they are entitled. None of the civil, political, economic and social rights can be exercised by individuals unless they have received a certain minimum education.

It is emphasized in Unni Krishnan case that, “In order to treat a right as a fundamental right, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated as one in Part III of the Constitution. The provisions of Part III and IV are supplementary and complementary to each other. Fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in Part IV and must be constructed in the light of the directive principles…That right to education is implicit in the right to life is that the State cannot deprive the citizen of his right to education except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 must be constructed in the light of the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution.”

The declarations of the right to education as a fundamental right have been further confirmed by the eleven-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. the State of Karnataka18. The notion that private unaided Educational Institutions are entitled to earn profits and not to profiteer has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a recent case of Unaided Private Schools of Delhi v. Director of Education19. The Court has allowed the Management to adopt a rational fee structure and it directs the Govt. to frame a scheme relating to the grant of admission and fixing the fee and to check the commercialization of education. The Indian judiciary which has a high reputation in the globe is cause for theright to education as a fundamental right as well as statutory right.

5.4. Judiciary and Right to Die

The question whether the right to die is included in Article 21 of the Constitution came for consideration the first before the Bombay high court in State of Maharastra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal.20 The Bombay high court held that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes a right to die, and consequently, the court struck down Section 309 IPC which provides punishment for anattempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional. The judges felt that the desire to die is not unnatural but merely abnormal and uncommon. They listed several circumstances in which people may wish to end their lives, including disease, thecruel or unbearable condition of life, a sense of shame or disenchantment with life. They held that everyone should have the freedom to dispose of his life as and when he desires. In this case, a Bombay police constable who was mentally deranged was refused permission to setup a shop and earn a living. Out of frustration, he tried to set himself a fire in the corporation’s office room. On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh high court in Jagadeeswar v. the State of AP21 held that the right to die is not a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 and hence Section 309 I.P.C is not unconstitutional.

In P.Rathinam v. Union of India a division bench of the Supreme court comprising Mr. Justice M. Sahai and Mr. Justice Hansaria agreeing with view of the Bombay High Court in Maruti Sripati Dubal23 case held a person has a ‘right to die’ and declared unconstitutional, section 309 of the Indian penal code which makes attempt to commit suicide a penal offence. The “right to live” in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the “right not to live”, i.e., right to die or to terminate one’s life. Later in Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, a five judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has now overruled the P. Rathinam’s case and rightly, held that “right to life” under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include “right to die” or “right to be killed”. “The right to die”, is inherently inconsistent with the “right to life” as is “death with life”.The court rejected the plea that “euthanasia” (mercy killing) should be permitted by law. The judges said that they would not decide this point as firstly it is beyond the scope of the present petition and secondly also because in euthanasia a third person is either actively or passively involved with whom it may be said that he aids or abets the killing of another person. There is a distinction between an attempt of a person to take his life and action of some others to bring to an end the life of a third person such a distinction can be made on principle and is conceptually permissible.

A petition for euthanasia was first filed for Ms. Shanbaug by Pinky Virani, a journalist who has written a book on the woman who she says is being forced to live her life stripped of basic dignity. The Supreme Court praised Ms. Virani’s concern but ruled that her relationship with the patient does not give her right to petition on Ms. Shanbaug’s behalf for a mercy killing. The only party that can appeal for euthanasia for Ms Shanbaug was the staff of KEM Hospital which had nursed her since she was discovered in the basement with an iron chain around her neck. She had been sodomized by a ward boy who she had scolded for stealing food that was meant for stray animals adopted by the hospital. The chain used to strangle her had cut off the supply of oxygen to her brain. The damage was irreversible. The verdict in Ms. Shanbaug has, however, changed forever India’s approach to the contentious issue of euthanasia. The verdict on her case today allows passive euthanasia contingent upon circumstances. So other Indians can now argue in court for the right to withhold medical treatment – take a patient off a ventilator, for example, in the case of an irreversible coma. The judgment makes it clear that passive euthanasia will “only be allowed in cases where the person is in persistent vegetative state or terminally ill.”

5.5. Worker’s Rights to have protection

In Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India & Ors.,25 the Supreme Court held: “that in the event of noncompliance, the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, should be declared as unconstitutional, cannot be granted, since the same is in aid and not in derogation of the provisions of Articles 21, 39(e), 47 and 48A of the Constitution”. In fact, as mentioned hereinabove, even at the interim stage, directions were given for compliance with the said rules, particularly in the matter of thedestruction of the waste oil contained in 170 containers by incineration at the cost of the importer. The writ petition was entertained and had been treated by all concerned, not as any kind of adversarial litigation, but litigation to protect the environment from contamination. The Central Government was also directed to ban import of all hazardous/toxic wastes which had been identified and declared to be so under the BASEL Convention and its different protocols. The Central Government was directed to bring the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, in line with the BASEL

Convention and Articles 21r 47 and 48A of the Constitution. The further declaration made it clear that without adequate protection to the workers and public, the aforesaid rules are violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

5.6. Narco analysis – Judicial perspective

In Ramchandra Ram Reddy v. The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court, In SmtSelvi v. Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court,and in Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Kerala High Court held that narco analysis test does not amount to deprivation of personal liberty or intrusion into privacy”. The Indian Supreme Court addressed the issue in the Smt. Selvi v.State of Karnataka that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy. It held that forcible interference with a person’s mental processes is not provided for under any statute. While the scheme of criminal procedure as well as evidence law mandates interference with physical privacy through statutory provisions that enable arrest, detention, search and seizure among others, the same cannot be the basis for compelling a person `to impart personal knowledge about a relevant fact’. The theory of interrelationship of rights mandates that the right against self-incrimination should also be read as a component of `personal liberty’ under Article 21.

5.7. Judiciary and Right to Health

In Paramananda Katara v. The Union of India 28 , it has been held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors, whether government or private, to extend medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without waiting for legal formalities to be completed by the police under Cr.P.C. Article 21 of the Constitution casts anobligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those who in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence which amounts legal punishment. In Paschim bang Khet Mazdoor Samithi v. the State of W.B. following Peramanand Katara ruling the Supreme Court held that denial of medical aid by governments hospitals to an injured person on the ground of non-availability of beds amounted to aviolation of theright to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 21 imposes an obligation on the state to provide medical assistance to every injured person. Preservation of human life is of paramount importance. Failure on the part of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in aviolation of his right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. The court also directed that the state should pay Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners as compensation.

Playing anactive role in the matters involving the environment, the judiciary in India has read the right to life enshrined in Article 21 as inclusive of the right to clean environment. The Court has, time and again, expressed concern about the impact of pollution on our ecology in present and in the times to come and the obligation of the State to anticipate and prevent the causes of environmental degradation and to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment. The aforesaid cases are only a few examples from numerous judgments concerning human rights. It has mandated to protect and improve the environment as found in a series of legislative enactments and held it to be a State duty to ensure sustainable development, where, common natural resources were properties held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public as also for the future generation.

5.8 Right to Free Legal Aid and Right of a Council

The Supreme Court held that it is relevant to notice that the appellant had pleaded, both before the Trial Court and the High Court,that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and he was denied the right to a counsel. The Court held that when material witnesses were examined he was unrepresented and the trial court did not bother to provide him legal aid at State expense, and by not doing that the Trial Court, in fact, failed to discharge its pious duty of ensuring that the accused was defended properly and effectively at all stages of the trial either by his private counselor in the absence of private counsel by an experienced and responsible amicus curiae. There can be no dispute about the legal proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is the duty of the Court to see and ensure that an accused in a criminal trial is represented with diligence by a defense counsel, and in case an accused during the trial remains unrepresented because of poverty, etc., it becomes the duty of the Court to provide him legal aid at State expense.31In Hussainara Khatoori (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Court referring to Article 39-A, then newly added to the Constitution, said that the article emphasized that free legal aid was an inalienable element of a ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure, for without it a person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived of securing justice. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Court observed and directed as under:

The right to free legal services is, therefore, clearly an essential ingredient of ‘reasonable, fair and just’, theprocedure for a person accused of an offense and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. This is a Constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided, of course, the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.

In Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab Alias Abu Mujahid v. the State of Maharashtra;33the Supreme Court held that no hesitation in holding that the right to access to legal aid, to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner, arises when a person arrested for a cognizable offense is first produced before a magistrate. The Supreme Court, accordingly, held that it is the duty and obligation of the magistrate before whom a person accused of committing a cognizable offense is first produced, to make him fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, and in case he has no means to engage a lawyer of his choice, that one would be provided to him from legal aid at the expense of the State. The right flows from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and needs to be strictly enforced. The Supreme Court directed all the magistrates in the country to faithfully discharge the aforesaid duty and obligation and further make it clear that any failure to fully discharge the duty would amount to dereliction in duty and would make the concerned magistrate liable to departmental proceedings.

6. CONCLUSION

It is observed that judiciary has played a proactive role in all spheres, be it environment, police system, thestatus of women, etc. leading towards their amelioration and ensuring that justice is delivered in its entirety. Looking at the way the issues of diverse nature, have been addressed by the judiciary, one can easily conclude that Judiciary despite its lacunae is the only potent weapon through which the grievances of the society can be redressed and justice can be ensured. it is emphasized that the Indian Judiciary has played a vital role in bringing human rights approach to right to life and personal liberty and it is the fervent hope of the nation that the Indian judicial response to contemporary challenges in protecting life and personal liberty of individuals like protecting human rights of netizens in cyber space, would be more awesome and more justice – sensitive.

Reference

• Basu D, Commentary on The Constitution of India (Sarkar 1968)
• Soli J. Sorabjee & Arvind P. Datar, Nani Palkhivala- The Courtroom Genius (2012)
• Soli J. Sorabjee, Expansion and Protection of Fundamental Rights by Judicial Interpretation and Intervention, 7 NUJS L. Rev. 1 (2014)
• T.S.N. Sastry, India and Human Rights: Reflections 42 (2005)
• Pylee M.V., An Introduction to Constitution of India (Vikas Publishing 2003)
• Sen D, A Comparative Study of The Indian Constitution (Longmans 1967)