The Supreme Court has
defined procedure as “the manner and form of enforcing the law.’ It simply
means that the state cannot deprive a man of his personal liberty unless it
follows a due procedure to that effect.1
The procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of law conferred by Art. 21
must be just fair and reasonable.2
liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or
public order, the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger
interest of the nation.3
Liberty of each citizen is born of and must be subordinated to the liberty of
the greater number. The essence of civil liberty is to keep
alive the freedom of individual subject to the limitation of social control,
which could be adjusted according to the needs of the dynamic social evolution.
Every individual in the society has been guaranteed the rights under Art. 21.4However,
since the interests of the society as a whole, takes precedence over the
singular interests of one person, any law which prescribes specific limits on
the exercise of the rights enshrined under Art. 21 cannot be said to be violative
of Art. 21.5
It is manifest that the impugnedlaw
was brought into effect to avoid the grave menace of unaccounted money which
had resulted not only in affecting seriously the economy of the country but had
also deprived the State Exchanger of vast amounts of its revenue
1Supra Note 42 (¶ 277).
2 Supra Note 118 (¶221-227); M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra,
(1979) 1 S.C.R. 192(¶10-12); Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1979) 1
S.C.R. 392 (¶4, 27, 30); HussainaraKhatoon (1) v. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, (1979) 3 S.C.R. 532 (¶2, 5); HussainaraKhatoon (2) v. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar, (1979) 3 S.C.R. 169 (¶2, 5); Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi
Administration, (1980) 2 S.C.R. 557 (¶4, 27, 30); Jolly George Verghese v. Bank
of Cochin, (1980) 2 S.C.R. 913 (¶2, 4, 10); Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State
of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 3 S.C.R. 1338 (¶12, 15); Francis Coralie Mullin v.
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 2 S.C.R. 516 (¶4,5,7,8).
3 Sunil Fulchand Shah v.
Union of India, (2000) 1 S.C.R. 945 (¶20, 33(1)).
4 Board of Trustees of the
Port of Bombay v. DilipkumarRaghavendranathNandkarni, (1983) 1 S.C.R. 828
5 Supra Note 60 (¶37, 45, 78, 90, 136).