Nature of grievance

Under Article 21 analysis, which deals with the most cherished right, that is personal liberty of people, the challenge to the law could be both substantive and procedural, that is to say, it could be contended that (a) Where the impugned law (substantive law) is vague and uncertain, and the people thus would have no notice of the “requirements of law”, and people would therefore be exposed to rigours of the impugned law, and hence the impugned law would have the tendency to frustrate the personal liberty of the people; and the vagueness of the impugned law invariably also brings in the element of whimsical / biased application of law; and (b) the procedure prescribed for the deprivation of personal liberty is, (i) harsh, burdensome and needless, or is (ii) rather irrational, or (iii) unfair, or (iv) there is excessive delegation of powers / there is no legislative guidance for the due exercise of powers, to those who may exercise their such powers, which may result in the deprivation of the personal liberty, resulting in definite unpredictability and resultant bias in the said exercise of powers; and therefore the impugned law, prescribing the procedure to deprive a person of his treasured personal liberty, is excessive, unfair and unreasonable, and the impugned law has the tendency to frustrate the personal liberty of the people cheaply and casually. Writ jurisdiction of High Court may be invoked challenging such law being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India