K. Senthil Kumar vs The Superintendent of Police

P. Devadass, J.—Since the petitioner is same and the relief sought for is same in the three criminal original petitions and since the

submissions are also same, same order is passed in these petitions. Senthil Kumar, the petitioner under certain circumstances, seems to have come

under the adverse notice of police. There were registration of certain criminal cases by police as against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is being continuously harassed by the police. He had succeeded in the several cases

filed against him. He is entitled to live peacefully without police harassment.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while refuting the allegations submitted that the respondents will not harass the petitioner.

The post-constitution period witnessed a new era, assuring liberty and personal freedom of the individuals. It is in tune with Article 21,

Constitution of India. In Article 21, two phraseology, namely, ""life"" and ""liberty"" has been consciously employed by the Constitution makers. Law

should not be static. It must be dynamic. From the said two words, in this country, Human Right Jurisprudence developed and is developing.

Article 21 is bedrock of Civil Liberties. It is India''s equivalent of British ""Magna Carta"" and it is India''s equivalent of American ""Bill of Rights"". In

fact, Article 21 is more than that. The ''soul'' of the Indian Constitution rest in Article 21. Right to live so guaranteed does not mean ""animal

existence/living"". It is real, normal living unsullied by police or any authority.

But, the liberty so guaranteed can be taken away only by a procedure established by law. It should not be a mere procedure. The procedure

must be fair, reasonable and just [See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ]. Any exception to Article 21, Constitution

of India have to be strictly interpreted.

This human philosophy and idealism is vibrated in our Republican Constitution.

Merely because persons are accused of having committed certain offences, they are not denuded of their basic right so guaranteed to them. The

law enforcing agency can take action in exercise of their statutory powers. But, that does not mean individual liberty can be crushed, personal

freedom can be trampled under the foot. Everyone, whether he is an accused or ex-accused is entitled to these basic human right. He is entitled not

to be harassed. There shall not be ''legicide''.

Personal freedom of the petitioner cannot be thwarted by police either directly or indirectly. Many commandments have been issued by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court to safeguard individual liberties. [See: D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, and Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and

others, . But, they are obeyed much in breach than in observance.

The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondents will not harass the petitioner is recorded. It is made clear that

there shall not be any harassment either directly or indirectly to the petitioner for his peaceful living and pursuing of any legal activity and profession.

With the above observations, these three criminal original petitions are disposed of.