Judgments

GRISWOLD VS CONNECTICUT : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Griswold Vs Connecticut (1965) declared  Connecticut Comstock Law unconstitutional which provided for prohibited use of any drug, medicinal article or instrument for purpose of preventing conception.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Griswold was Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Buxton was licensed physician and served as Medical Director for the league at its center at New Heaven. They used to give medical advice to married persons regarding means to prevent conception. They used to prescribe best contraceptive to be used.

Little Comstock Act of Connecticut prohibited use of any drug, medicinal article or instrument for purpose of preventing conception and also made any such practice an offence.

Appellants were found guilty for contravening Comstock Law. They were arrested and fined. Appellants challenged on the ground that Comstock Law was unconstitutional. The matter finally reached to the Supreme Court.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court observed that the Appellants had right to raise constitutional rights of married persons with whom they had professional relationship.

Right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court observed that Right to privacy is derived from several provisions of Bill of Rights including 1st , 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments. Specific guarantees in Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.

The Court observed that the present case concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several constitutional guarantees. It concerns a law which in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture of sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this court, that a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.  Can police be allowed to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?  The very idea is repulsive to notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

Right to privacy in marital relationship is older than Bill of Rights – older than political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is coming together for better or worse, hopefully enduring and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life not causes, a harmony in living not political faiths, a bilateral loyality not commercial or social projects.

That Supreme Court declared the Connecticut law unconstitutional and void.

DISSENTING OPINION

Justice Black and Justice Stewart gave dissenting opinion. They observed that right to privacy has nowhere mentioned in the Constitution as such Court cannot invalidated Connecticut Comstock law.  The Government has a right to invade right to privacy unless it is prohibited by specific provision in the Constitution.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court relied on this case for expanding right to privacy in other cases. The Supreme Court extended principles propounded in this case to unmarried couples in Eisenstadt Vs. Baird.  This case was also relied upon in declaring same sex marriage valid in Obergefell Vs Hodges.

____________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *