IASNOVA
True liberty only comes as a result of established law, and the only established law that exists is the law established by the one and only Law-giver. But, it is the law that guarantees freedom and liberty to individuals.
The Indian Constitution provides to its citizen Liberty through Article 21, and a varied types of freedoms including speech and expression, movement, assembly, profession etc. via Article 19. The constitution of the United States of America in a series of Amendments provided to its citizens freedom of press, speech, association, assemble etc.
Thus in most constitutional democracies and monarchies, freedoms and liberties are guaranteed in the constitution. The judiciary is the watchdog of these constitutions and applies the law to protect and liberty of the people. This liberty is a combination of positive and negative liberty; it not only lets the individual develop and fulfil their potential but also protects them from the interference of external agents.
The relationship between them can be studied in the context of a particular form of government. If in a dictatorial form of government law is the command of the dictator and does not reflect the public opinion, in a democratic system it is an essential condition for the full enjoyment of individual liberty.
Where there are no laws to protect or provide freedom and liberty, violations of the same take place. Where the law and law makers do not support liberty then its existence gets endangered. Take the example of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 in China, on June 4th, a non-violent peaceful popular student led the demonstration in Tiananmen Square regarding the corrupt government, poor economic conditions and freedom of the press.This protest was brutally crushed by the political leaders with the help of their army.
On the other hand, In the Ramlila Maidan Incident in India, the Supreme Court of India, held the authorities liable for assaulting a sleeping crowd of protestors, who along with Baba Ramdev, a yoga guru had assembled at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi for a yoga camp and protest the increasing corruption in governance. Thus it is true that law supports liberty, and does not necessarily harm it.
Some philosophers like John Locke opine that law creates a condition, a congenial atmosphere for the enjoyment of liberty.
Sometimes the laws are the upholder of individual liberty as the enactment of labour laws provides adequate wages to the workers, fixing a working hour, guarantee pensionary benefits and compensation in the event of an accident to the workers. Thus, such type of laws safeguards the workers interests against the evil designs of the selfish employer. But all laws are not the conditions for liberty.
A law made by a dictator in complete disregard of the public opinion is only contradictory to liberty. Therefore, in certain political systems law and liberty are contradictory and antithetical. It can be concluded that absolute freedom is no freedom as it is a licence. Liberty is only a restricted freedom and this restriction is a reasonable restriction imposed by law alone.
The restrictions on Liberty and freedoms are given all through the Indian Constitution, the freedoms in Article 19 have restrictions albeit reasonable upended to them. It is time and again reiterated by courts that freedoms and liberty cannot be unrestricted, just as an uncontrolled horse will cause damage to things in its path, in the same way, unrestricted rights will be more harmful than helpful.
This is the rationale, the principle of balancing that is behind laws restricting liberty. Thus laws against defamation that restrict the freedom of speech and expression are to protect other’s right to reputation, restrictions against assembly in areas where curfew is imposed is to maintain security and order, restriction on movement into certain areas in the North-eastern states of India are to protect the interests of the tribal communities. Laski pointed out, “to permit such compulsion is to invade liberty but it is not to destroy the end that liberty seeks to serve. Liberty is not an end but a means to make a creative social life possible in which every citizen can find full and free expression of his or her creative impulses and develop, thereby, his or her best self.”
Thus liberty cannot be termed to be antithetical to the law as more often than not it is the law that provides liberty and any restrictions imposed on it are to protect the greater public and state. Thus a state where there is no law to control or provide liberty will become akin to Hobbes state of nature where life is brutish, people violently competing for rights and resources and no security.
Thus, the real relationship between law and liberty lies in the reconciliation of the two opposite views. Liberty without law will degenerate into a licence and law without liberty is oppressive in nature and protects only the interests of the law-giver. Law creates a helpful condition, a congenial atmosphere where an individual gets the opportunity for better development of his inner potentiality. Where law ends, tyranny begins and without a disciplined life, liberty has no meaning. Finally in the words of Thomas Jefferson-
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
