Pinnacle court said only law-abiding citizens can claim fundamental rights

25-05-2022

At a time when objectionable social media posts are circulated with impunity by sheltering behind the proper to free speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that the shield of fundamental right is on the market only to those that adhere to law and respect legal processes.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose last week ruled that "any claim towards fundamental rights can not be justifiably made without the person concerned himself adhering to and submitting to the method of law."

Though this ruling came in an exceedingly case where an accused, who had challenged invocation of anti-gangster law MCOCA by Maharashtra government, the final nature of the ruling by the court has far reaching spill over implications on a full gamut of cases.

The accused had challenged invocation of the stringent anti-gangster law against him and had pleaded that it'd have serious impact on his fundamental rights, a full range of which might still be available to an accused facing charges under the Indian legal code.

Writing the judgment, Justice Maheshwari said, "As regards the implication of (MCOCA) proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we've no hesitation in making it clear that someone, who is said as an ‘absconder’ and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no concession or indulgence." 

As an illustration, the bench said a normal accused had the freedom to resort to Section 438 of criminal procedure code to approach any court to hunt anticipatory bail. "But, when an accused is absconding and is said as proclaimed offender, there's no doubt of giving him the advantage of Section 438 CrPC," the bench said.

"What has been observed and said in regard to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The submissions on behalf of the appellant for consideration of his case thanks to application of stringent provisions impinging his fundamental rights doesn't remove the impact of the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. Any claim towards fundamental rights also can't be justifiably made without the person concerned himself adhering to and submitting to the method of law," the bench said.

The accused appellant was challenging an order of Nagpur bench, Bombay HC, upholding the Nagpur City additional director general of police to invoke provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act against him et al. on the bottom that they together are indulging in violence and threatening people either for monetary gain or to determine their supremacy within the world of crime. 

The bench perused the crime chart against the accused, nature of their activities and therefore the persons involved and said it left "nothing to doubt that the involvement of the appellant in such crimes and unlawful activities which are aimed toward gaining pecuniary advantages or of gaining supremacy and thereby, resulting in other unwarranted advantages is clearly made out."