This article is written by Gururaj Mamdy, Student, School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore.  

Introduction

The concept of liberty in itself has raised a serious question, ‘What is the nature and limits of the power which can be genuinely practiced by society over the person?’ A question seldom stated, and hardly ever discussed, in general terms, however, which significantly impacts the pragmatic contentions of the age by its inert closeness, and is likely before long to make itself perceived as the essential inquiry without bounds. It is so distant from being new, that, in a specific sense, it has separated humanity, nearly from the remotest ages, however in the phase of advancement into which the more cultivated segments of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions, and requires an alternate and more crucial treatment. The battle amongst Liberty and Authority is the most obvious component in the bits of history with which we are soonest recognizable, especially in that of Greece, Rome, and England. Be that as it may, in old occasions this challenge was between subjects, or a few classes of subjects, and the administration.

By freedom, was implied assurance against the oppression of the political rulers. The rulers were considered (aside from in a portion of the prevalent legislatures of Greece) as in an essentially opposing position to the general population whom they dominated. They comprised of an overseeing One, or a representing clan or position, who got their power from legacy or success; who, at all occasions, did not hold it at the joy of the administered, and whose matchless quality men did not wander, maybe did not want, to challenge, whatever safety measures may be taken against its abusive exercise. Their capacity was viewed as vital, yet in addition as exceptionally hazardous; as a weapon which they would endeavor to use against their subjects, no not exactly against outside adversaries. To keep the weaker individuals from the network from being gone after by countless vultures, it was needful that there ought to be a creature of prey more grounded than the rest, dispatched to hold them down. In any case, as the lord of the vultures would be no less twisted after going after the rush than any of the minor shrews, it was imperative to be in a ceaseless state of mind of guard against his mouth and hooks.

The aim, along these lines, of patriots, was as far as possible to the power which the ruler ought to be endured to practice over the community; and this confinement was what they implied by freedom. It was endeavored in two different ways. In the first place, by getting an acknowledgment of specific insusceptibilities, called political freedoms or rights, which it was to be viewed as a rupture of obligation in the ruler to encroach, and which, in the event that he infringed, particular obstruction, or general resistance, was held to be reasonable. A second, and by and large a later catalyst, was the foundation of established checks; by which the assent of the network, or of a body or something to that affect expected to speak to its interests, was made an essential condition to a portion of the more vital demonstrations of the representing power. To the first of these methods of confinement, the decision control, in most European nations, was constrained, pretty much, to submit. It was not so with the second; and to achieve this, or when as of now in some degree had, to accomplish it all the more totally, turned out to be wherever the important protest of the admirers of freedom. Thus long as humanity were substance to battle one foe by another, and to be governed by an ace, on state of being ensured pretty much usefully against his oppression, they didn’t convey their desires past this point.

Click here

Paradox of liberty

The study of liberty in itself has provided various perspectives and possibilities of liberty, whether it is a positive obligation or a mandate of the state or a restriction of rights of certain section of the society etc. Thus the concept of liberty in itself is vast and vibrant covering different scopes and aspects. In case of positive obligations, In the polls, citizens care about and fight over public interest. Government plays a coordinating role of cooperative ventures. There are certain situations where public interest is put over a person’s liberty, such as to contribute to common defense or to testify in court or any other work for the betterment of the society. Apart from these responsibilities, there are certain basic duties such as payment of taxes, honoring contracts, giving up land for public projects(eminent domain), obey the laws of the land etc. But the police will punish a driver for running a red light even if he does not cause any harm to others. This paradox was solved as following the government rules both prevent the driver from harming himself and being a threat to the society. Thus in certain situations you have to sacrifice your personal liberty to have a larger public good.

The different concept of liberty, paternalism. Can government impose any rules and regulations on its citizens without keeping in mind an individuals rights and liberties? Should the government be imposing taxes and duties on its citizens blatantly? A persons own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant for interference with his liberty of action. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. Their are exceptions to this understanding Society can legitimately prevent people from entering into contracts to enslave themselves, even though no one but the slave is harmed by slavery. It exemplifies a larger issue in contemporary policy: are there other situations in which people’s freedom to choose a course of action should be denied in order to preserve other choices in the future? Paternalism in itself violates norm of equal voice, keeping in mind the argument of expertise, whether experts should be given the decision making power or the general audience should have the autonomy?

What is the extent to which the government can control a person’s liberty, his rights and his behavior in the society? There are various instances where the government in present day situation has in the name of larger public good curtails a persons rights. There are various provisions in the Indian Constitution that in a way try to impose restrictions and curtail a individuals liberty. The Freedom of Religion: Certain beliefs and practices which are religious in nature are sometimes curtailed by the Apex Court by stating the reason of public policy. The case of Acharya Jagadeshwaranad Aradhuka v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta; [AIR 1984 SC 51], Anand Margi’s cult which belongs to saiviti order used to practice ‘tandav dance’, he wanted to perform tandav on the streets of Calcutta with skulls, snakes etc. The HC denied the plea, hence the petitioner pleaded that Art.25 Right to Freedom of Religion is violated and they should be allowed to do the act. Whether the act of commissioner of police to prevent these people from performing the act was right? Whether the liberty of these individuals was curtailed and was it their liberty to perform such act? The HC gave the answer that the act was not a religious denomination and it was not a essential practice and hence their act is not justified. Also the practice of fasting to death in Jainism was challenged by the state, stating it is suicide and it cannot be allowed, there was a case filed in the High Court, Nikhil Soni v Union Of India; discussing the importance of the practice under Jainism and whether the practice is violative of public policy? The judgment on the matter is yet to be out…

Conclusion

To decide the time when shades of malice, so imposing to human flexibility and headway start, or rather at which they start to prevail over the advantages going to the aggregate utilization of the power of society, under its perceived boss, for the expulsion of the hindrances which hinder its prosperity, to anchor as a significant part of the benefits of brought together power and insight, as can be had without transforming into administrative channels excessively extraordinary an extent of the general movement, is a standout amongst the most troublesome and confounded inquiries in the craft of government. It is, in an awesome measure, an issue of detail, in which numerous and different contemplations must be kept in see, and no supreme lead can be set down. In any case,the viable rule in which security dwells, the perfect to be kept in see, the standard by which to test all courses of action planned for conquering the trouble, might be passed on in these words: the best scattering of intensity steady with productivity; however the best conceivable centralization of data, and dispersion of it from the inside. Along these lines, in city organization, there would be, as in the New England States, an exact moment division among discrete officers, picked by the regions, of all business which isn’t better left to the people straightforwardly intrigued; yet adjacent to this, there would be, in every bureau of neighborhood issues, a focal superintendence, shaping a branch of the general government. The organ of this superintendence would think, as in a center, the assortment of data and experience got from the lead of that branch of open business in every one of the areas, from everything practically equivalent to which is done in remote nations, and from the general standards of political science. This focal organ ought to have a privilege to know all that is done, and its unique obligation ought to be that of making the information procured in one place accessible for others. Liberated from the trivial partialities and thin perspectives of a territory by its raised position and far reaching circle of perception, its recommendation would normally convey much specialist; however its genuine power, as a perpetual foundation, should, I consider, be constrained to convincing the neighborhood officers to comply with the laws set down for their direction. In all things not accommodated by general principles, those officers ought to be left to their own particular judgment, under obligation to their constituents.

For the infringement of guidelines, they ought to be dependable to law, and the principles themselves ought to be set around the governing body; the focal authoritative specialist just viewing over their execution, and on the off chance that they were not legitimately conveyed into impact, engaging, as indicated by the idea of the case, to the court to authorize the law, or to the bodies electorate to reject the functionaries who had not executed it as indicated by its soul. Such, in its general origination, is the focal superintendence which the Poor Law Board is planned to practice over the managers of the Poor Rate all through the nation. Whatever powers the Board practices past this point of confinement, were correct and fundamental in that particular case, for the fix of established propensities for mal-organization in issues profoundly influencing not the territories just, but rather the entire network; since no region has an ethical ideal to make itself by bungle a home of pauperism, essentially flooding into different regions, and disabling the good and physical state of the entire working network. The forces of regulatory compulsion and subordinate enactment controlled by the Poor Law Board (yet which, inferable from the condition of conclusion regarding the matter, are sparsely practiced by them), however flawlessly legitimate for a situation of a top notch national intrigue, would be completely strange in the superintendence of interests absolutely nearby. Be that as it may, a focal organ of data and guideline for every one of the territories, would be similarly important in all branches of organization. An administration can’t have excessively of the sort of movement which does not hinder, but rather helps and empowers, singular effort and improvement.

The fiendishness starts when, rather than considering forward the movement and forces of people and bodies, it substitutes its own particular action for theirs; when, rather than educating, exhorting, and upon event reproving, it influences them to work in shackles or offers them stand aside and does their work rather than them. The value of a State, over the long haul, is the value of the people creating it; and a State which delays the interests of their psychological extension and height, to somewhat more of authoritative aptitude or that similarity of it which hone gives, in the points of interest of business; a State, which predominates its men, all together that they might be more mild instruments in its grasp notwithstanding for advantageous purposes, will find that with little men no awesome thing can truly be expert; and that the flawlessness of hardware to which it has yielded everything, will at last benefit it nothing, for need of the indispensable power which, all together that the machine may work all the more easily, it has wanted to expel.