Fifty years ago Justice H.R. Khanna in his dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case held that the right to life and personal liberty is an inalienable human right, and is so sacrosanct that it cannot be taken away even when the nation is in a state of emergency except by due process of law.The judgment was widely acclaimed both nationally and internationally, not only for the reason that it declared the right to life and liberty as a basic human right, but also because it was delivered at a time when citizens were gripped by fear of the state, which was virtually breathing down their neck. The dissent cost Justice Khanna the exalted position of Chief Justice of India, but it earned him a place of reverence in the annals of judicial history.Fifty years later we see in Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad high court a reflection of Justice Khanna.Once again, the citizen’s right to life and personal liberty, right to free speech and expression, and right to peaceful protest against the tyranny of the state are under threat. Many a people found on the wrong side of the state are taken into custody on mere posting of a tweet, let alone participating in a peaceful protest, by raising the bugbear of national security and public order.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Ironically, those who are in power today are seen adopting those very tactics of which they or their elders were once a victim.A glaring example of what is happening in the present time is captured in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Sreedharan on September 2. Akriti, a 24-year-old law student, was taken into custody for allegedly participating in the Noida workers’ agitation in support of their demand for a salary hike. Akriti challenged her detention, which came up before a bench headed by Justice Sreedharan.The court quashed the detention order, holding that it was unsupported by any material and without application of mind. It further held that an extraordinary power such as preventive detention results in the deprivation of personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be exercised on surmises, biases, conjectures and mere opinions.Lashing out at the district magistrate who had passed the detention order, the court held that her conduct was worthy of derision. It also expressed concern and apprehension that if such exercise of power is allowed to go unchecked, it would lead to Uttar Pradesh becoming an ‘Orwellian dystopia’. The court also awarded compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Akriti and directed that the same be recovered from the salaries of the district magistrate and other concerned officials.We are passing through turbulent times. Unfortunately the judiciary, more often than not, is seen standing with the state rather than with the citizen in protecting their fundamental right to free speech and expression, and their right to life and personal liberty.If any proof of the same is needed then there cannot, perhaps, be a more glaring example than that of Umar Khalid, who has languished in jail for more than six years now without bail and without trial. The Supreme Court which, years back, laid down that bail is the rule and jail an exception, in Khalid’s case has not only declined bail to him, but also, at one stage, debarred him from applying for bail at least for one year or until the examination of key witnesses.Unfortunately the Supreme Court has also not protected so salutary and constitutional a right as the right to vote. During the West Bengal assembly elections, when it was pointed out to the court that special intensive revision undertaken by the Election Commission would deprive lakhs of citizens from casting their vote, one of the judges on the bench reportedly observed that they could do so next time.As for the bureaucracy and the police, barring some brave exceptions, they do the bidding of their political masters in total disregard to their oath of office, which requires of them to work for the welfare of the citizen and to follow the Constitution and the laws framed thereunder.The police’s excesses seem to have become an order of the day. Recently, two young female journalists of a popular YouTube channel were allegedly detained and beaten in the Saket police station in Delhi, leaving them badly bruised and crying for help.What is further shocking is the reaction of the police officials who, on coming to know that they were Muslims, allegedly turned even more brutal. Yet, no action appears to have been taken against the alleged brutality of the police despite the circulation of videos capturing the journalists’ injuries. This seemingly illegal conduct of the authorities is starkly reminiscent of the sphinx-like silence of the persons in authority over the brutal misuse of pellet guns on the peaceful agitators at Jantar Mantar.Are we turning into a lawless state? Unfortunately even the journalists’ own fraternity did precious little to stand in solidarity with them except for providing lip sympathy.One feels alarmed by the fact that when a student sustained pellet gun injuries at Jantar Mantar, resulting in his losing sight in one eye, the leader of opposition had to sit on a dharna inside a police station to simply get an FIR registered. It is unfortunate that all this happened in the capital of the country and within a radius of a few kilometres not only from the seat of political power but also from the temple of justice.The need of the hour is that the state becomes citizen-friendly, the judiciary more vigilant and proactive, and the citizen more vocal.Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.