INTRODUCTION

Personal liberty gives freedom to an individual to behave according to his desires which is very important to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of the country. The right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is the harsh truth that many journalists, cultural activists and protestors are languishing in prison for exercising their rights secured in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution. Every right must be exercised in accordance with the law and are subject to reasonable restrictions. The Principals related to liberty are inconsistent and are being selectively followed by the Courts, so Justice DY Chandrachud, a judge with a mind of his own explained the concept of personal liberty through his various judgements.

Justice DY Chandrachud in his judgements dwells on the fairness of the investigation and also focuses on the personal liberty of an individual. In his various judgements, he stated that the Court has a Constitutional duty to ensure the investigation is carried out properly so that justice cannot be compromised. The institutional role of the Supreme Court is not to brook technicalities which obstruct the cause of justice. According to him liberty, dignity and autonomy are essential to the pursuit of happiness and to find meaning in human existence. He wants the state to ensure that freedom of speech and expression within the bounds of the law is protected as India is a democratic country and attack on individuality and dissenting opinions is an attack on a democratic society. He always promoted freedom of speech and liberty as according to him, it is essential for overall political, economic, cultural and social growth of the country.

HADIYA MARRIAGE CASE

Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the concept of the right to privacy and personal liberty. He stated that the State must not interfere in the personal matters of an individual as it would affect the constitutional liberty of an individual secured in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. State’s approval for personal decisions regarding the marriage and any other personal decision is not encouraged. Everyone must have the right to take intimate personal decisions. Courts are bound to promote and encourage the pluralism and the diversity of the country’s culture.

US GREEN CARD HOLDER CASE Under Section 437(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has the power to impose conditions for granting bail in order to ensure that such person shall not commit any similar offence for which he is accused. The court can also impose any other condition as per the requirement and to ensure the interest of Justice. Justice DY Chandrachud in this judgement stated that guidelines and the conditions imposed must be in sync with the public interest and the rights of accused must also be protected. If any of the conditions infringes the rights and liberty of the accused then Court shall not impose such conditions.

SECTION 377 of INDIAN PENAL CODE
He along with four other judges decriminalized consensual unnatural sex between consenting adults because he believed that it is against the right to equality and every person must be given the opportunity to make his own decisions independently. According to him, Section 377 imposes deep prejudice in terms of gender stereotypes. He emphasized gender equality and rule of law. He always tried to give individual dignity, the choice and liberty of an individual. He said that the identities of person are shaped by constant interaction with the people in society and it must be shaped by the social milieu.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY
The Supreme Court has affirmed that Art. 21 is the core of the Fundamental Rights. Article 21 has ended up being multi-dimensional. The expansion in the elements of Art.21 has been made conceivable by giving all-encompassing importance to the word ‘life’ and ‘freedom’ in Article 21. The right to privacy is a component of different legitimate customs to control administrative and private activities that compromise the privacy of people. It is an element of human dignity and is an inalienable natural right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. He clarified that Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes the ability of an individual to make his own decisions related to the sanctity of the family, sexual orientation, preservation of personal intimacies etc.

ARNAV GOSWAMI CASE

In this case, Justice DY Chandrachud gave a landmark judgment focusing on freedom of speech. Here Supreme Court expresses concern over the state government who targets individuals on the basis of diverse opinion states that there is a failure on the part of High Courts which could not protect the personal liberty of an individual. He said that it is the duty of constitutional courts to protect the liberty of an individual. State Government cannot treat anyone inhumanly merely because he has a different ideology than that of government. Justice DY Chandrachud focuses on values ascribed to human liberty.

CONCLUSION

According to DY Chandrachud life and liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element. In many of his judgments, he directly or impliedly said that a person’s individuality recognizes the Plurality and diversity of our culture. There were many cases where Justice DY Chandrachud didn’t support liberals. Recently a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud granted interim bail for one month to Sanjay Chandra because both his parents were infected with Covid-19, but when the bench came to know that Sanjay Chandra had not complied with the orders passed by Supreme Court in 2017, and then they didn’t release him from custody. In almost every case, it is observed that DY Chandrachud focused on the Right to life and personal liberty but he is totally against the Contempt of Court. When it comes to the individual’s right to speech and right to live with dignity then he makes sure that justice is served provided that the individual is not at the fault. As he said that any state committed to the rule of law will never curb legitimate and peaceful protests otherwise there will be a great threat to pluralism

You may also like to read: