Whether Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations is constitutionally valid?
Domiciliary visits impact the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a violation can only be justified if it is backed by law.
The infringement of the right to privacy prevents a person from expressing his or her innermost thoughts and is thus, violative of Article 19(1)(a).
Whether the court had the jurisdiction to consider the grievances of prisoners?
What parts of Articles 14, 19 and 21 are guaranteed to a prisoner?
What judicial remedies can be granted to prevent and punish the breach of the rights prisoners are entitled to?
What amendments and changes were required in the Prison Act of 1984 to avoid a breach of the Fundamental Rights of prisoners.
The Supreme Court referred to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India that grant it the power to intervene and restore the Fundamental Rights of prisoners.
A prisoner still possesses the right to life and liberty and their freedom can only be constrained when there is a clear backing of the law.
Section 56 of the Prison Act is in violation of basic human dignity, thus, it must be trimmed and controlled by the court.
Prisoners must be protected from cruel and unjust punishment, and they must be afforded a minimum standard of living.
Whether the order for eviction was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution?
Whether the actions of the State and Municipal Corporation were violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution?
Whether Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act that detailed the removal of encroachments from pavements was arbitrary and unreasonable?
Article 39(a), a directive principle, states that the State must attempt to secure adequate means of livelihood for all men and women.
The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a means of subsistence and evicting the concerned people from their homes would deprive them of their means of subsistence.
Whether the right to life under Article 21 is limited only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more?
Whether or not a person preventively detained in a prison has any rights which he can enforce in a Court of law?
Article 21- Protection of life and personal liberty
The Supreme Court validate the letter written by the petitioners as a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and therefore expanded the scope of Public Interest Litigation in India.
The Supreme Court directed the union government to identify all the bonded workers and provide them with alternative work; ensure that operators and owners of mines and quarries implement labour laws and give access to sufficient medical attention, security schemes and houses to the workers.
The Supreme Court held that mere technical trivial issues must not be in the way of one’s access to justice in the country.
The Supreme Court held that bonded labor falls in the category of forced labor as per Article 23 of the Constitution and any financial restriction that drives one for such a work is a violation of their fundamental right.
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that right to living life with dignity, right to work in humane environment, right to health are all part of right to life and therefore the situation reported in the present case is a direct violation of all those right.
The Supreme Court held that the state government did not fulfill its responsibility of supervising that labor laws were complied with.
HINSA VIRODHAK SANGH V. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESH JAMAT Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, MANU/SC/1246/2008 ISSUE: Whether a short-term restriction on the production of meat would have the effect of violating the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) for merchants engaged in that business, without such restriction being valid under Article 19(6); andWhether...