Presentation on Fundamental Rights Members: Asif Iqbal Khan Mahmud Kaisar Md. Shahan Al Islam Md. Abir Minhaj Hedayetul Anam Hadee

Content Article-31 (Right to protection of law)  Introduction  Sweep of Article-31  American ‘due process’  Life, liberty, body, reputation and property  Deprivation of life and personal liberty Article-43  Protection of home and correspondent

Article-31

Introduction

Sweep of Article-31 Article 31 talks about “Right to protection of law” It has two Parts Inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law. No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body and reputation.

Article 31 prohibits Parliament from passing arbitrary and unreasonable law. Substantive point of view Procedural point of view It contains the element, due process which requires a law reasonable.

Article 31 and 32 also couched that fundamental right to life, liberty and property and the state cannot by unreasonable or arbitrary action deny the right Governmental action must be based on law By passing law in the parliament.

American ‘due process’ To understand the actual content of art.31 it will be helpful to know the content of the due process. The concept has two aspects procedural and substantive. Procedural due process is the American counter part of the English principles of natural justice with the difference that while the principles of natural justice can be excluded by a statute, the due process requirement cannot be so excluded. Substantive due process guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property for arbitrary reasons, such deprivation constitutionally supportable only if the conduct from which the deprivation flows is proscribed by a reasonable legislation reasonably applied.

Lochner VS New York It is manifest to us that the limitation of the hours of labor as provided for in this section of the statue.. has no such direct relation to, and no such substantial effect upon, the health of the employee, as to justify us in regarding the section as really a health law. It seems to us that the real object and purpose were simply to regulate the hours of labor between the master and his employees, in private business, not dangerous in any degree to morals, or in any real and substantial degree to the health of he employees. Under such circumstances the freedom of master and he employees. Under such circumstance the freedom of master and employee to contract with each other in relation to their employment, and in defining the same, cannot be prohibited or interfered with, without violating the Federal Constitution.

Life, liberty, body, reputation and property Life: Live consistently with human dignity and decency The right to livelihood The right to security Does not include right to die Judgment: ‘Washington vs Glucksberg’

Liberty: Right to be free in the enjoyment of all facilities. Include right to release a person who is wrongfully detained Have reasonable opportunity before court  Liaquat Hossian vs Pakistan 1999 PLD Includes woman rights which ensures to work with dignity  Vishaka vs Rajastan 1999 AIR

Reputation A great possession and asset of an individual Entitled to have privacy Entitled to the due process of protection Frame guidelines in respect of publishing news  Aminul Haq vs Banglasdesh

Property: Includes all valuable interests which a man owns legally Relates everything that have an exchangeable value Rights taken independently are capable of being acquire, held or disposed  Chiranjit Lal vs. India AIR 1951

Deprivation of life and personal liberty Article 32 – Ensures reasonableness of law regarding deprivation of life or liberty Article 33- Protection against unreasonable arrest and detention Article 35 – Ensures fair trial in criminal prosecutions

Death sentence:- Taking life can be allowed only for sake of state security Compelling state necessity for perform death sentence

Bail:- In US bail is the absolute right Discretionary power of court to grant bail

Article-43

Protection of home and correspondent Most ancient concept of personal liberty In English jurisdiction a man’s home is his own castle ; cases: Entick vs Carrington: No man can enter in my house without my permission Robson vs Hallett: A police officer was asked to leave premises, having been granted an implied license to enter to make enquiries before being given a chance to leave, a relative of the occupier applied force to the officer.  Court held that was an assault on police officer, although a bare license may be revoked at any time, an occupier must give that licensee reasonable time to leave

Bangladesh Constitution guarantees the privacy of home and correspondent. It is not absolute right Article 43. Every citizen shall have the right, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, public order, public morality or public health –  to be secured in his home against entry, search and seizure; and  to the privacy of his correspondence and other means of communication.  Case: Amanullah vs Bangladesh

Thank You