Privacy

Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence

Leave a Comment / General / Sadalaw Publications

Trending Today Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) Destruction in Kancha Gachibowli ‘forest’ area depicts an ‘alarming picture’, says SC NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute Actor Hansika Motwani files a motion in the Bombay High Court to quash a FIR after being booked in a Section 498A case. Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 05 Apr 2025 The Indian Supreme Court radically changed the meaning of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in 1981 when it handed down a landmark decision in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi. This case was more than just a court battle; it also represented a major advancement in Indian human rights law.The case centred on Francis Coralie Mullin‘s situation, who protested the cruel circumstances surrounding her imprisonment. The court’s ruling emphasised that the right to life encompasses more than just the ability to survive physically. It also includes the right to live with dignity.As we examine this case in more detail, we’ll see how this landmark decision changed the legal landscape by guaranteeing that the Indian state‘s obligation to safeguard life includes a duty to provide humane and respectable living conditions. Whether you’re a student, a lawyer, or just someone who cares about human rights, this investigation will give you important context for understanding one of the most important judicial rulings in Indian history. An overview of the 1981 case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi The seminal case of Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) has had a profound effect on India’s fundamental rights landscape. The case explores the fundamental ideas of individual freedom and the defence of rights against the state. Context of the Case In the case of Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the petitioner was a journalist and social worker who was wrongfully detained by the Delhi Police in violation of preventive detention statutes. The petitioner contested this arbitrary detention on the grounds that it violated his or her fundamental rights to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Articles 21 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. Importance of the Situation The Francis Coralie case is significant because it helped define India’s expanded understanding and application of fundamental rights. The ruling stressed that the protection of one’s dignity, privacy and physical integrity are all included in the concept of personal liberty, which goes beyond simple physical freedom.The case made clear how crucial it is to defend human rights values and make sure that government activities are consistent with the guarantees of constitutional protection that each and every person receives. By restating the judiciary‘s position as a protector of fundamental rights and a check on administrative excess, it established a precedent for cases to come. Important Case Details The famous case of Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) had a big influence on how fundamental human rights were interpreted in India. The lawsuit established a precedent for upcoming human rights cases and addressed important legal issues. Let’s examine the salient features of this significant case. Parties involved In this case, Francis Coralie, a social activist and lawyer, filed a petition against the Union Territory of Delhi, asserting a breach of fundamental rights. The Union Territory of Delhi represented the government officials whose acts were being scrutinised. The case highlighted the conflict amongst private liberties and state power, making it a major source of disagreement. Legal Issues Addressed The case focused chiefly on a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides the protection of life as well as private liberty. Francis Coralie stated that the activities of government officials violated individuals’ worth and well-being, underscoring the significance of defending fundamental rights even in the face of state action. This case underscored the importance of the ability to live in dignity as an integral part of the right to life. Judgement and Impact The Supreme Court‘s decision emphasised the importance of Article 21 and broadened its meaning to encompass the right of living with dignity. The decision strengthened the protection of fundamental rights and established a precedent for subsequent situations involving human rights breaches. The influence of this case went transcend Francis Coralie’s individual circumstances, impacting the legal landscape of rights for humans in India.The Francis Coralie case serves as a timely reminder of the critical balance between individual rights and governmental authority, underscoring the fundamental ideals of human dignity and liberty established in the Indian Constitution. Impact on the Indian Legal System The 1981 Supreme Court case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi significantly impacted the Indian legal system, particularly concerning personal liberty and the establishment of precedents for future judicial actions.Indian Kanoon Enhancing the Realm of Personal Liberty In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized the inherent dignity and worth of the individual, broadening the definition of personal liberty beyond mere physical restraint. This interpretation laid a robust foundation for protecting Indian citizens’ fundamental rights against arbitrary state actions, reinforcing the principle that personal liberty is sacred and inviolable.Indian Kanoon Setting Precedents for Future Cases The ruling in the Francis Coralie Mullin case set important precedents that have influenced subsequent legal discourse in India.

Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence Read More »

Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases

Trending Today Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Role of International Law in Shaping Domestic Constitutions Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Cultural Heritage Preservation SPORTA TECHNOILOGIES V. HONG Y1 F35 Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases 30 jan 2025 Introduction An irreplaceable asset in today’s world for a person is their privacy, dignity, respect and safety. The invention of the internet and the existence of social media has certainly connected us all to a global platform where communication and collaboration was effortless, but joining it comes with its own risks, and one such risk is lack of privacy. We humans are generally motivated by knowing what is happening inside and around us; we tend to invest our shares in the lives of others, which has now become easier thanks to various social media. Revenge pornography, or sharing intimate images without consent, is one such risk that has increased over the years, with the aim of threatening, brutally humiliating and using a person’s shame for selfish pleasure. We live in a society where rape, prostitution, human trafficking, public humiliation, acid attacks, honor killings, dowry etc. The bitter truth of society is that even with proper education and knowledge of the circumstances, society raises questions about the victim’s behavior instead of taking a stand against the criminal. Social media is now a target for such malicious people who target innocent people and use their private moments to torture and blackmail them to satisfy their barbarity. Before we read more about revenge porn, let’s first find out what is pornography? Presenting sexual activity to excite one person is called pornography. It can be understood as a clear presentation of sexual activity that focuses only on sexual pleasure and nothing else. Various researchers and theorists argue that pornography represents a patriarchal society that views women as objects that must always be silent and subservient to them. There have been various studies that show that these pornographically provocative videos have deceived viewers and often show excessive violence against a person. Now that we are aware of pornography, let’s look at the topic of revenge porn in a little more detail and what it is all about. Revenge pornography refers to the misuse of a person’s personal information and involves stalking and intimidating behavior. It concerns the dissemination of explicit images and videos of a person’s intimate time online without the person’s consent, with the aim of publicly slandering the person and causing shame and humiliation. Usually, when such crimes are mentioned and carried out, it is assumed that only women go through such a traumatic experience, but this could not be further from the truth. This form of non-contractual pornography involves sharing material online or offline, such as uploading and sharing on the Internet, adult websites, social media, sharing via email, etc. The reason for such an unethical act can be as simple as feeling betrayed, anger, resentment for the actions of people or even just a desire to harm others to satisfy one’s fragile ego. Yet nothing is said or done to justify such immoral actions. People who indulge in such actions for a moment of anger or temper are often shallow and lack empathy for others. The difference between revenge porn and regular porn is the purpose for which the video was made. The parties of the pornographic video are aware of the purpose behind the creation of the video and are aware what the video is created contains and agree to upload the video at their own will; whereas in revenge pornography cases pornographic content is often uploaded as a means of intimidation where offender seeks to ruin the reputation of the victim and in most cases the victim is not aware of this kind betrayal or revenge. Also, the purpose and motto of the uploading such content to the website is different. If the porn content is uploaded to increase the ratings of the porn star, to make a profit and to build a name and gain popularity; the idea behind revenge porn is to hurt the victim and humiliate the victim’s family and cause irreparable damage to the victim’s character. There are also cases where the photos of the victim have been changed into images of porn stars with the help of modern technology, tarnishing their name and character in society, although the victim is not really guilty. Those films or images are taken covertly without the knowledge of the person and are used as a source or source of shame or even in certain cases these videos are used as blackmail material. Porn films are exaggerated videos that are filmed in a similar way to films with regular high definition cameras, with the aim of profiting from these films. They have no reality and are often based on a story that the stars are acting. These are not intimate private moments between people, but the collective work of the entire team that benefits from the distribution of this film. Revenge porn is a crime The intentional distribution of non-contractual porn on the Internet is a type of cyber bullying that occurs when an acquaintance of the victim or a hacker posts a private intimate moment of the victim online as a tactic to punish or humiliate the victim. Cases of revenge porn often make news for celebrities, who often publicly confront such stalkers. Legally, revenge pornography is a form of cyber sexual harassment and in some cases is defined as cyber bullying. Cases of revenge porn are on the rise in our country, and new technological advances are not helping matters. The distribution of such non-consensual content is often considered virtual rape because it offends a person and causes a person’s life value of trauma and confusion. Because revenge pornography is considered a cybercrime, it can be punished with imprisonment and fines. In such scenarios,

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info