Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta delivered a thought-provoking talk on the "Development of Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence in the Last 10 Years." He discussed various landmark judgments that have significantly shaped the landscape of fundamental rights in India. However, he also expressed concerns over certain judgments that he believes infringe upon individual liberty and freedom.

During his lecture, Justice Gupta emphasized the importance of the right to live with liberty, quoting the revered Justice V R Krishna Iyer by stating, "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." He underscored the significance of personal liberty, a cherished right granted to citizens.

Justice Gupta highlighted a specific case, NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), which involved a contentious interpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). While Justice S. Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court had read down certain provisions of the UAPA to grant bail, the Supreme Court, in an appeal authored by Justice AM Khanwilkar, reversed this decision, asserting that prosecution materials cannot be dissected at the bail stage. Justice Gupta criticized this judgment, referring to it as a "death knell to personal liberty." He argued that such a ruling impedes citizens' constitutional right to liberty and restricts bail.

Justice Gupta also drew attention to another case, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India (2022), authored by the same Justice Khanwilkar. This case upheld the validity of provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), including considering statements given to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers as admissible evidence. Justice Gupta expressed concern that this judgment had a more profound impact, as it "turns the criminal law on its head." He questioned the rationale behind giving ED officials substantial powers while not classifying them as police officers, leading to a paradoxical situation.

Justice Gupta raised pertinent questions about the burden of proof in such cases, stating that if the State's claims are accepted as the truth, trials should conclude swiftly. He criticized the prolonged investigations lasting for years and advocated for a balance between strict laws and the need for convictions, rather than mere incarcerations.

Concluding his lecture, Justice Gupta asserted that these judgments offend the principles of a civilized society and expressed hope that they would be reconsidered and set aside. His critique underlines the delicate balance between preserving individual liberties and upholding the rule of law within the Indian legal framework.