The Delhi High Court has underscored that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of an individual to observe religious duties and personal obligations. This recognition came in a case where Shahid Nasir, an undertrial accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency, sought custody parole to perform the Fathiha ceremony for his deceased mother-in-law.
Nasir was lodged in Tihar Jail and had moved the trial court seeking temporary parole. The trial court had denied his application, reasoning that a significant period had elapsed since the death and that there was no compelling evidence showing that his presence was indispensable for the ceremony. Nasir contended that being prevented from performing the rites violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution. He argued that the ability to perform religious obligations is an integral part of his personal and family life, and any restriction would cause irreparable emotional distress to his family.
The National Investigation Agency opposed the request, highlighting the gravity of the charges against Nasir. He was alleged to be the Treasurer of the Karnataka unit of the banned organization Popular Front of India and was accused of raising funds for unlawful activities. The agency argued that granting parole to an accused involved in serious national security matters could set a precedent and pose risks.
Despite these objections, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, granted a two-day custody parole to Nasir. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right to life encompasses a broader understanding that includes the ability to fulfill one’s religious and personal obligations. It noted that prisoners, including undertrials, retain their constitutional protections unless specifically curtailed by law. Denying Nasir the opportunity to perform the religious ceremony would infringe upon his fundamental rights and hinder his ability to observe his personal and familial duties.
The Court’s order illustrates a careful balancing act between the state’s interest in maintaining law and order, particularly under stringent statutes like the UAPA, and the protection of fundamental human rights. While recognizing the seriousness of the allegations against Nasir, the Court reaffirmed that the deprivation of liberty does not extinguish essential personal freedoms. Granting temporary parole for religious observance reflects the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the dignity of individuals and the broader interpretation of Article 21, which includes spiritual and personal dimensions of life. This judgment reinforces the principle that even under stringent legal provisions, fundamental rights, including the right to perform religious duties, must be respected.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.