This Article is written by YERRAM GEETHA & this article discusses the concepts of Jurisdiction of High Courts.

The paper describes Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, often known as the "Golden Triangle." These Articles, which are an essential component of the Constitution, include the people's Fundamental Rights in sections and a structured manner, contingent upon the needs of the people and reasonable limitations placed by the government on those rights. The three Articles are discussed in detail together with pertinent case laws and seminal rulings that helped to form their structure and make them understandable to the general public. In addition, certain fundamental distinctions between the Articles have been examined; despite their apparent subtlety, they differ greatly when examined closely. The Constitution is for the people, and its ideas and purposes cannot be realized without these three articles constantly interacting with one another. To guarantee the correct operation of the Constitution, the Articles mentioned above are especially vital to uphold law and order by recognizing the fundamental rights breaches of the populace.

INTRODUCTION:

Giving individuals their rights and preserving the unstable elements that could cause issues and jeopardize national security are the responsibilities of the government and the judiciary of the nation. The rights described above are referred to as the Fundamental Rights, and the Indian Constitution lists them in three different articles: Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21.

The court ruled that fundamental rights are interdependent and shine with one another rather than separated from one another. It said that procedural legislation has to be appropriate in every situation and satisfy the requirements. According to the Article 21, it offers further protection and has a very broad scope, including the situation highlighted. Since Article 19 is meant to govern Article 21, it is necessary to comply with Article 19's criteria. "There is therefore no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21," the Court noted. "The law must therefore now be settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty, such a law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenges of that Article." Therefore, in addition to passing the test of Article 21 "depriving a person of 'personal liberty,'" a legislation also needs to pass the tests of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution.

The concept was initially noted in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case. It found that the three Articles have a unique relationship and that for a law to be deemed constitutional, it must pass the triple test. The requirements are as follows:

1. it must specify a process;

2. it must pass the test of one or more fundamental rights granted by Article 19 that might apply in a particular circumstance; and

3. it must pass the test of Article 14.

The ruling further stated that the clauses in Articles 14, 19, and 21 should be read consecutively and do not conflict with one another. Although not specifically stated, these clauses by themselves form fundamental ideas of natural justice. The spirit of the constitution will be given effect by a combined reading of the three articles, and constitution-makers should take note that a procedural law must comply with Articles 14 and 19 in order to be recognised as a valid law under Article 21.

PROVISIONS:

ARTICLE 14:Article 14 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth and guarantees everyone the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The article is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution's promise to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly before the law, regardless of background. One of the most significant cases relating to Article 14 is the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) case, when the court underlined the significance of equality before the law. The appellant in this case disputed the validity of a section of the West Bengal Special Courts Act that permitted the establishment of specialized courts to hear particular types of offences.

The applicant argued that the clause violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's argument, ruling that the law must treat everyone equally and that any distinctions imposed by it must be supported by evidence.

ARTICLE 19: The right to freedom of speech and expression is granted to citizens by Article 19 of the Constitution. "Article 19 guarantees basic rights recognized and guaranteed as the natural rights inherent in the status of a citizen of a free country," the Court accurately declared in the State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal case. Since the unrestricted dissemination of ideas is vital to maintaining the collective existence of the population, this freedom must be protected to allow the general public to express their viewpoints without fear of governmental repression. The Constitution's Part III guarantees autonomy, self-governance, and societal tolerance as its cornerstones. Since the government is composed of elected representatives chosen by the people, a democracy is based on the idea that the people are the ones who really control the country. A democracy cannot function in the absence of opposing viewpoints. The idea that every citizen is content with the current government is merely utopian and Panglossian. The term "responsible government" needs more emphasis since, even in cases where there is a shameful flow of ideas, the government nevertheless responds to the wishes of the people. It demonstrates the significance of Article 19, which serves as the cornerstone of individual liberty in India's democracy.

All citizens shall have the right: (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (f) omitted (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

ARTICLE 21:Protection of life and personal liberty: no one may be deprived of their personal freedom unless it is in accordance with the legal processes set forth. Even when there is an election and the public merely has the option to choose the most straightforward candidate to represent them, Article 21 remains relevant.

Nobody has the authority to force someone to vote against their will. albeit voting isn’t a basic right but a ‘statutory right,’ the court, within the judgement of the case People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, differentiates the “right to vote” and consequently the “freedom of voting” because of the species of the liberty of expression under ARTICLE 19 of the Constitution.

There are many additional significant rulings in instances on the implementation of fundamental rights. Triangulum is golden because it is essential to the defence of freedoms and the avoidance of state arbitrary and capriciousness. It is a triangle because it must be read in tandem with other texts.

LANDMARK JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS:

A.K. GOPALAN vs STATE OF MADRAS, AIR 1950 SC 27
The concept of "personal liberty" was under scrutiny for the first time in this particular instance. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the petition in this case contested the Preventive Detention Act of 1950's constitutionality. In this case, the petitioner contended that the question of whether a law's validity should be determined by its procedural nature or by its alignment with the natural justice principles should also be considered. The fundamental issue of contention was whether or not a "procedure established by law" might be arbitrary or unreasonable, or if it must always be just, reasonable, and equitable. The majority bench, however, rejected the petitioner's whole part of the argument and concluded that the word law under Article 21 is not always consistent with the natural justice doctrines.

Guidelines stated and adhered in Gopalan's case:
The expressive procedure created by Indian legislation is distinct from procedural due process in the United States. The term "law" only refers to legislation that has been passed by parliament or state-made law. According to the Supreme Court of India, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is not breached by the Preventive Detention Act of 1950.Article 19, which protects citizens' rights to freedom, does not apply to citizens whose freedom is restricted by law, and it is not relevant to debate whether or not Article 19(1) should be implemented.

MANEKA GANDHI vs UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 597
This case broadened the application of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It has been established how Articles 14, 19, and 21 relate to one another. For legislation to be legal, it must also comply with the provisions of Article 14 and specify the steps that must be taken to deny someone their right to personal liberty. Articles 14 and 19 require that the legal process be just, fair, and reasonable; nevertheless, for Article 21 to make sense, the law itself must also be reasonable. The idea of the "golden triangle" emerged, according to which any one of the three articles, Articles 14, 19, and 21, violates any one of them. They are connected rather than exclusive of one another. The juridical significance of the expression’s "life" and "personal liberty" grew following the Maneka Gandhi case.

CHIRANJIT LAL CHOWDURI vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, 1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869
"There can be no doubt that Article 14 provides one of the most valuable and important guarantees in the Constitution, which should not be whittled down, and, while accepting Professor Willis' statement as a correct exposition of the principles underlying this guarantee, one wishes to lay special emphasis on the principle enunciated by him that any classification which is arbitrary and made without any basis is no classification," the court said. The following principles were established by the case:
The presumption is always in favor of an enactment's constitutionality because it must be assumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates its own people's needs, that its laws are directed to problems revealed by experience, and that its discriminations are justified.

CONCLUSION:

Although the judiciary's role in defending people's rights is commendable, dominance is emerging as a result of the court's increased participation in this regard. India is a nation that adheres to the theory of separation of powers, which divides authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. One of the functions of the executive is to implement laws that have been passed by the legislative. Ultimately, it is the judiciary's responsibility to uphold the law and issue just verdicts. There must be coordination amongst the three organizations. In the event that this fails, anarchy and the contemporary domination of one organization ensue.

REFERENCES:

1. Archisman Chakraborty, ‘The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution’, (Jus Corpus, 22 Aug, 2022), link

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Case Analysis (Interconnection between Articles 14, 19, and 21) - Law Circa

3. Varsha, ‘Golden Triangle of The Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19, And 21’, (B&B ASSOCIATES LLP, 20 Oct, 2022), link

4. Priyanka, ‘The Golden Triangle Of Indian Constitution’, (Legal Service India), link

5. Sahajveer Baweja, ‘THE CONSTITUTIONAL DICHOTOMY OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION’, (Nickeled & Dimed, 31 Oct, 2020), link

6. Varsha, ‘Golden Triangle of The Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19, And 21’, (B&B ASSOCIATES LLP, 20 Oct, 2022), link

7. Kanchan, ‘The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution’, (Indian Law Portal, 1 Aug, 2020), link

8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Case Analysis (Interconnection between Articles 14, 19 and 21) - Law Circa

9. Syed Sulthana, ‘EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21 BY THE JUDICIARY’, (The Amicus Qriae), link

10. Kanchan, ‘The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution’, (Indian Law Portal, 1 Aug, 2020), link

11. Varsha, ‘Golden Triangle of The Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19, And 21’, (B&B ASSOCIATES LLP, 20 Oct, 2022), link