Courts must not factor in an accused's personal lifestyle or dietary habits as grounds for denying bail, as such considerations violate Article 21 rights to personal liberty and privacy.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'Bail Must Not Be Denied on Grounds of Lifestyle or Personal Dietary Choices' — yeh ek atyant mahatvapurna civil liberties ka sawaal hai, jo seedha har nagarik ki personal azaadi aur dignity se juda hua hai. Dono paksh is motion par apne tark rakhenge, aur main chahti hoon ki yeh charcha kanoon ke dayare mein, samaan adar ke saath ho. Counsel Aarav, please aap apna paksh rakhen.
My Lord, bail ek fundamental protection hai — yeh ensure karta hai ki koi bhi accused apni trial ke dauran unnecessary liberty se vanchit na rahe. Agar hum bail deny karne ka aadhar kisi vyakti ki diet ya lifestyle bana dein, to hum ek aisi dangerous precedent sthapit kar rahe hain jahan court ka kaam justice nahi, balki personal morality ka faisla karna ho jaata hai. Maanta hoon ki yeh seedha attack hai us principle par jo kehta hai ki har accused innocent hai jab tak guilt prove na ho — aur is motion ka poora paksh main lene ke liye taiyaar hoon.
My Lord, paksh ki yeh baat ki bail deny karna lifestyle ke basis par galat hai — yeh sunne mein toh bahut liberal lagti hai, lekin seedhi baat yeh hai ki lifestyle aur dietary choices kabhi akele grounds nahi hote; woh ek broader risk assessment ka hissa hote hain jisme court flight risk, tampering, aur community safety dekhta hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki personal choices ko isolate karke bail deny karna galat hoga, lekin motion jo keh raha hai — ki in factors ko kabhi bhi consider hi nahi kiya jaaye — yeh judicial discretion ko bandish mein daalna hai, jo khud nyay ka virodh karta hai.
My Lord, vipaksh ne jo argument diya — ki dietary ya lifestyle choices ko bail ke consideration mein lana chahiye — woh seedha Article 21 ki rooh ke khilaf hai, jo Maneka Gandhi ke baad ek fair aur just procedure ki guarantee deta hai; bail deny karna sirf legal grounds par hona chahiye, na ki judge karna ki accused kya khata hai ya kaise jeeta hai. Vipaksh BNSS Section 437 ka reference deta hai — lekin My Lord, us provision mein bhi bail refusal ke grounds hain: flight risk, tampering, gravity of offence — lifestyle ya diet ka ek bhi zikr nahi. Agar hum aaj yeh allow kar lein ki ek judge ki personal moral ya cultural preference bail ka aadhar bane, toh Article 39A ka equal justice ka promise — jo State ko ensure karna hai — bilkul khaali ho jaata hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 · Section 437-2; Constitution of India · Article 39A
My lord, paksh ne Article 21 ki baat ki — lekin woh yeh bhool gayi hain ki personal liberty bhi ek absolute right nahi hai, aur jab koi accused Schedule I species ke shikaar ka habitual offender hai, tab WLPA Section 51A ek legislative check laata hai jo judiciary ki discretion ko consciously limit karta hai — yeh law ka design hai, not a bias against lifestyle. Dietary choice aur documented wildlife offence ke beech ka farq maintain karna zaroori hai — bail deny karna personal choice par nahi, balki repeat offence ki statutory probability par hota hai. Isliye motion ki sweeping proposition — ki 'lifestyle aur dietary choice kabhi bail deny ka ground nahi ban sakta' — legally untenable hai, kyunki statute khud ek qualified exception create karta hai jo courts ke liye binding hai.
Ref: THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 · Section 51A; Constitution of India · Article 21
Ek taraf ka kehna hai ki bail deny karna sirf lifestyle ya dietary choices ke aadhar par Article 21 ke tahat guaranteed personal liberty aur dignity ka seedha ullanghna hai — procedure fair, just aur reasonable hona chahiye, jaise Maneka Gandhi mein establish hua. Doosri taraf ka kehna hai ki kuch specific statutory frameworks, jaise Wildlife Protection Act ki Section 51A, bail ke liye genuine substantive conditions impose karti hain jo lifestyle-linked arrests mein relevant ho sakti hain. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki courts ko bail decisions mein sirf legally recognised grounds — flight risk, evidence tampering, repeat offence likelihood — ko consider karna chahiye, na ki kisi vyakti ki personal lifestyle ya dietary preferences ko, kyunki aise subjective aadhar fair procedure ke constitutional taqaze ko poora nahi karte. Citizens se gujarish hai ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor share karein!
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 21; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 · Section 10-3