Article19(Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc) Article21(Protection of life and personal liberty) Article22(Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases)
Ayillyath Kuttiari Gopalan was a communist leader imprisoned in Madras Prison under the Preventive Detention Act in 1950 and questioned his detention on the assertion that his civil liberty was being hindered because he had a right to equality under the law. The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed. It was controversial whether there was a violation of his fundamental rights, namely Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22, according to this brief and the provisions of the PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT of 1950. The Council on behalf of the petitioner argued that the right to move was a fundamental right under Article 19, and therefore the defense attorney must demonstrate that the preventive detention law constitutes an appropriate restriction under the five provisions of Article 19 (2). The judge limited the scope of fundamental rights and read them in isolation from Articles 21 and 22, which contained guidelines for preventive detention. A foreign precedent such as the United Kingdom and the United States was used to limit the scope of Article 21.
The case involved the following issues for determination of the case. The issues were as follows:
The judgement in this case is the most important verdict of the supreme court. The court dealt with all the issues rationally and the judgement are briefed as follow:
Companies act 1956, Central Sales Tax Act 1956, Section 33 of Rajasthan value added tax act 2013.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.