1980 (2) TMI 263 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of deprivation of personal liberty for non-payment of a decree debt.
2. Compatibility of s. 51 and O. 21, r. 37, CPC with Art. 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. Compliance with s. 51 CPC in the context of fair procedure under Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of Deprivation of Personal Liberty for Non-Payment of a Decree Debt
The appellants, judgment-debtors, faced arrest and detention in civil prison for non-payment of a decree debt owed to the respondent bank. The Supreme Court examined whether such deprivation of liberty is illegal, considering the constitutional protection of life and liberty under Art. 21 and the procedural fairness required by law.

Issue 2: Compatibility with Art. 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Art. 11 of the Covenant states, "No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation." The Court noted that while India is a signatory to the Covenant, international law must be transformed into municipal law to be enforceable. The Court emphasized that s. 51 CPC does not violate Art. 11 as it allows imprisonment only when the debtor has the means to pay but refuses or neglects to do so, or acts in bad faith.

Issue 3: Compliance with s. 51 CPC and Fair Procedure under Art. 21
The Court scrutinized whether s. 51 CPC had been complied with in its "enlightened signification." The Court highlighted that imprisonment for non-payment of debt is permissible only if the debtor has the means to pay and refuses or neglects to do so, or if there is evidence of bad faith. The Court stressed that mere inability to pay without dishonest intent does not justify imprisonment, aligning with the spirit of Art. 11 of the Covenant and Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the judgment under appeal and directed the executing court to re-adjudicate the means of the judgment-debtors to discharge the decree, considering their current financial situation and any honest and urgent pressures on their assets. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and just procedure in line with constitutional and international human rights standards. The appeal was allowed.