Right to Live with Dignity in Landmark Judgment: “Balance Fundamental Rights with Security,” Manipur HC
In a significant and recent ruling , the High Court of Manipur, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, delivered a landmark judgment affirming the right to live with dignity. The judgment emphasizes the delicate balance between fundamental rights and security concerns, calling for a measured approach in upholding citizens’ rights while safeguarding the nation’s stability.
The judgment was rendered in CRIL.PETN. No. 26 of 2022 with MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 27 of 2022, wherein Maisnam Korouhanba Luwang sought the quashing of F.I.R. No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner, a mobile food truck operator, argued that there was no prima facie case against him, and the investigation had stagnated for over a decade.
Justice Sharma, in his ruling, acknowledged the seriousness of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, stating, “Investigations under UA(P) Act cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without delving into the merits of the case.” The court directed the respondents to complete the investigation within six months and submit a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Highlighting the importance of maintaining the balance between citizens’ fundamental rights and the state’s duty to ensure law and order, Justice Sharma stated, “Courts should not restrict police powers, which are essential for maintaining the security of the state, except when protecting the basic rights of citizens.”
The judgment also emphasized the right to privacy and dignity as inherent aspects of personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to previous landmark cases, the court stressed that encroachments on privacy directly impact personal liberty and well-being.
Furthermore, the court issued a direction to the Investigating Agency, stating that if the petitioner’s presence is required, a notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code should be issued. The petitioner’s appearance before the authorities would be necessary, and failure to comply may lead to appropriate action.
(Justice Sharma): “Offences under UA(P) Act are serious and cannot be quashed on technicalities without delving into the merits of the case. We must maintain an intricate balance between the fundamental right to live with dignity of a citizen vis-à-vis the affairs of security of the state.”
Date of Decision: 5th June 2023
Maisnam Korouhanba Luwang, vs State of Manipur
