Deprivation of liberty must be considered as a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial, but in such cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. In India, the situation is quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution, that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which he has not been convicted, or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty only on the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. The present paper focuses on instances of right to life and personal liberty and occasional interpretation held by the Supreme Court.

Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some processes sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and upholding of the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands: the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime on the one hand; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence, viz., the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.1 More recently, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra,2 the Supreme Court observed that “just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important.” This Court further observed that “personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” The paper focuses on the instances of right to life and personal liberty and occasional interpretation held by the Supreme Court.

Law Review Journal, Protection, Right to Life, Personal Liberty, Judicial Analysis, A Threat to Rule of Law, Bail and Personal Liberty, Due Process of Law.