Right To Dignity Under Article 21 Includes Being Able To Attend Once In A Lifetime Family Rituals Like Son's Wedding: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son's marriage.The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed on behalf of the accused who was in judicial custody for last 6 years on multiple FIRs...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son's marriage.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed on behalf of the accused who was in judicial custody for last 6 years on multiple FIRs with allegations of financial misappropriation and irregularities in relation to a society named Kheteshwar Urban Credit Cooperative Society.
The petition, who was the son of the accused, acting as his guardian ad litem, was seeking interim bail for his father to be able to attend the wedding of the petitioner (accused's son).
The Court observed that Right to life under Article 21 was guaranteed to all irrespective of the individual being an accused or under trial. This right also included the right to dignity of being able to attend once in a lifetime family rituals i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son.
“Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that father of petitioner father is since an accused pending cases.”
The Court opined that the father of the petitioner was indeed required to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son not only to facilitate marriage arrangement but to also bless the newlyweds to upkeep his dignity with his family and society.
Hence, the Court stated that the accused was a person with strong family ties and was not a flight risk. The nature of prosecution evidence against him was mostly all documentary which were seized and there was no likelihood of any kind of tampering with the same.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the accused was granted an interim bail for 15 days.
Title: Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 323