Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, forming the cornerstone of human rights in India. It guarantees protection against arbitrary state actions, ensuring that no person is deprived of their life or liberty except through a fair legal process. 

Initially interpreted narrowly, the scope of Article 21 has expanded over time through landmark judicial pronouncements, encompassing a wide array of rights essential for a dignified existence. From the right to privacy and education to environmental and health rights, Article 21 reflects the Constitution’s commitment to safeguarding individual freedoms in a dynamic society.

What is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Part III, grants the fundamental right to life and personal liberty to all individuals. The Article reads:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

This concise statement forms the bedrock of fundamental rights in India. Over the decades, it has undergone transformative interpretations, evolving into a dynamic source of numerous subsidiary rights essential for the dignified existence of individuals.

Article 21 is couched in negative language but confers positive rights. It applies to every “person,” encompassing both citizens and non-citizens. Initially interpreted narrowly, the scope of Article 21 was limited to protection against arbitrary actions by the state. Over time, the judiciary adopted a liberal interpretation, expanding its ambit to include various rights essential for a dignified existence.

Historical Evolution and International Influence of Right to Life

The principle of the right to life and personal liberty predates the Indian Constitution. Globally, similar protections have been articulated in:

• The Magna Carta (1215) in England, which laid the foundation for the rule of law.
• The US Constitution (1791), which introduced the concept of “due process of law.”
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which declared the right to life, liberty, and security of a person as fundamental human rights.

The framers of the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from these global charters, incorporating the essence of these principles into Article 21.

Important Cases in the Evolution of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

The interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has undergone significant transformation through landmark judgements by the Supreme Court of India. These cases have expanded the scope of Article 21, shaping it into a robust protector of various human rights. Here are some pivotal cases that illustrate this evolution:

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): The Initial Narrow Interpretation

Background: A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 without trial. He challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and personal liberty under Article 21.

Judgement: The Supreme Court adopted a literal and narrow interpretation of Article 21. It held that “personal liberty” referred only to freedom from physical restraint and was separate from the rights enumerated under Article 19. The Court asserted that as long as the detention followed the “procedure established by law,” it was constitutional, even if the law was unreasonable.

Significance: This case set a precedent for a restrictive understanding of personal liberty, limiting Article 21’s application.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964): Recognising Privacy under Personal Liberty

Background: Kharak Singh was subjected to constant surveillance by the Uttar Pradesh Police after being suspected of dacoity, despite lack of evidence. Surveillance methods included night visits and monitoring of movements, which he challenged as a violation of his fundamental rights.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that certain police regulations infringed upon Kharak Singh’s personal liberty under Article 21. While the majority did not explicitly recognize a right to privacy, they struck down domiciliary visits as unconstitutional. Justice Subba Rao, in his dissent, explicitly recognised the right to privacy as part of personal liberty.

Significance: The case marked the beginning of an expanded interpretation of personal liberty, hinting at the inclusion of privacy rights under Article 21.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Broadening the Scope of Personal Liberty

Background: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government “in the public interest” without providing specific reasons. She challenged this action, arguing that it violated her rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.

Judgement: The Supreme Court delivered a transformative verdict, stating that the right to personal liberty is of the widest amplitude, covering a variety of rights that contribute to the personal liberty of individuals. The Court emphasised that any procedure depriving a person of this liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” thereby introducing the due process aspect into Indian jurisprudence.

Key Findings:

• Interconnection of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but must be read together, ensuring that laws infringing personal liberty must pass the tests of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness.
• Natural Justice: It was established that principles of natural justice are inherent in Article 21, and any procedure depriving personal liberty must provide an opportunity to be heard.

Significance: This landmark judgement revolutionised the interpretation of Article 21, expanding its scope to include various unarticulated rights essential for a dignified life. It laid the foundation for future judgements that recognised rights such as the right to privacy, legal aid, and a fair trial under Article 21.

Impact on Jurisprudence

These cases collectively transformed Article 21 from a mere procedural guarantee to a substantive right encompassing a wide array of protections:

• From Procedural to Substantive Due Process: The shift from the narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan to the expansive view in Maneka Gandhi introduced substantive due process in India, ensuring that laws affecting life and liberty are fair and just, not merely enacted by the legislature.
• Inclusion of Unenumerated Rights: The judiciary began recognising rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but deemed integral to personal liberty, such as the right to travel abroad, privacy, and dignity.
• Strengthening Judicial Review: The expanded interpretation empowered courts to scrutinise laws and executive actions more robustly, safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary state action.

Interrelation Between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution

The interplay between Articles 14, 19, and 21 has been pivotal in the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. These Articles collectively form the foundation of personal liberty and human rights in India and are often referred to as the “Golden Triangle” of the Indian Constitution.

Understanding the Individual Articles

• Article 14: Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws within Indian territory. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, thus providing a fundamental guarantee of fairness and justice.
• Article 19: Article 19(1) grants specific freedoms to citizens, such as the right to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, association, free movement, residence, and the practice of any trade or profession. However, the State can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order, and morality.
• Article 21: Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to a procedure established by law.

The Evolution of Interrelation

Initially, Articles 19 and 21 were viewed as independent provisions. This narrow interpretation, notably in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), held that personal liberty under Article 21 did not encompass the rights under Article 19, treating them as mutually exclusive.

However, this perspective underwent a transformation in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and must be read together. The Court emphasised that:

1. Procedural Safeguards: Any law or procedure infringing on personal liberty under Article 21 must also adhere to the principles of fairness and reasonableness enshrined in Article 14.
2. Complementary Freedoms: The freedoms under Article 19 are inherent in the broader ambit of personal liberty under Article 21. For example, the right to travel abroad, part of personal liberty, also relates to the freedom of movement under Article 19.
3. Arbitrariness Test: Any restriction on these rights must not only conform to the procedural safeguards of Article 21 but also pass the tests of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 19.

The “Golden Triangle”

The interplay of these Articles ensures that personal liberty, equality, and fundamental freedoms are safeguarded against arbitrary State actions. Together, they form a robust framework protecting individuals from excesses of executive power and ensuring justice, fairness, and equality in governance. This interconnected reading has elevated the status of these rights, making them indispensable for upholding the dignity and autonomy of individuals in a democratic society.

Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process of Law

The concepts of Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law form the cornerstone of judicial interpretations of fundamental rights and the limits of state authority. These principles, though distinct in origin and scope, serve as mechanisms to balance the power of the state with the rights of individuals.

Procedure Established by Law

The doctrine of “Procedure Established by Law” originates from the Japanese Constitution and was incorporated into the Indian Constitution under Article 21, which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

Key Features of Procedure Established by Law

• Literal Interpretation: The state can deprive a person of life or liberty if it follows the procedure prescribed by the legislature. Courts primarily examine whether the law in question has been followed, irrespective of whether the law itself is just or reasonable.
• Judicial Scope: The judiciary does not assess the fairness or reasonableness of the law under this doctrine. Its role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance.
• Criticism: This doctrine can lead to violations of fundamental rights if the law itself is unjust. The infamous A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case upheld the validity of a preventive detention law under this doctrine, emphasising strict adherence to legislative procedure without questioning its fairness.

Due Process of Law

The concept of “Due Process of Law” has its origins in the American Constitution. It is more expansive and ensures that not only the procedure but also the law itself is just, fair, and reasonable.

Key Features of Due Process of Law

• Substantive Review: Under this doctrine, courts assess whether the law that restricts life or liberty is just, fair, and reasonable. Both the substance of the law and the procedure prescribed by it are subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Greater Protection: The doctrine provides broader protection to individual rights by ensuring that the law respects the principles of justice and equity. It prevents arbitrary or oppressive laws from being enforced.
• Landmark Cases: The adoption of the “due process” approach in Indian jurisprudence began with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court held that any law or procedure under Article 21 must be “right, just, and fair,” bringing the concept of substantive due process into Indian law.

Evolution of Due Process of Law in Indian Jurisprudence

Initially, Indian courts adhered strictly to the “Procedure Established by Law” doctrine, as demonstrated in the A.K. Gopalan case. However, this interpretation changed dramatically with the Maneka Gandhi judgement, which marked a shift toward incorporating elements of “Due Process of Law.”

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

• The Supreme Court held that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must pass the tests of fairness, justice, and reasonableness.
• The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, linking it with Articles 14 and 19, thereby ensuring that laws are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Impact of the Shift

• The Indian judiciary now ensures that laws adhere to principles of equity, natural justice, and reasonableness.
• This shift empowers the courts to strike down not only procedurally flawed laws but also those that are substantively unjust.

Difference Between Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law

The doctrines of “Procedure Established by Law” and “Due Process of Law” represent two approaches to protecting individual rights. While the former emphasises adherence to legislative processes, the latter goes further to ensure that laws are fair and equitable. 

Scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Over the years, the judiciary has expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include numerous subsidiary rights, including but not limited to:

Right To Live with Human Dignity

The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has evolved significantly, encompassing not just physical survival but the right to live with human dignity. This expansive interpretation, pioneered by landmark judgements, has transformed the understanding of fundamental rights in India.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

In this seminal of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court revolutionised the interpretation of Article 21, holding that the right to life transcends mere physical existence. It includes the right to live with dignity, ensuring a life enriched with basic human needs and autonomy. This judgement established the foundation for broadening Article 21’s scope, linking it intricately with Articles 14 and 19 to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and justice in governance.

Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981)

Furthering the principles in Maneka Gandhi, the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi articulated that the right to life includes access to basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and opportunities for self-expression. Justice Bhagwati emphasised that a dignified life involves freedom to interact with society and the capacity to express oneself fully. This case reinforced that human dignity is not a privilege but a right intrinsic to life itself.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

Justice Bhagwati characterised Article 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India underscored that a dignified life must include protection of workers from exploitation, health safeguards, educational opportunities, humane work conditions, and maternity relief. It further established that deprivation of these essentials by the State or private entities is unconstitutional.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the non-payment of minimum wages to workers on Asiad projects in Delhi was deemed a violation of Article 21. Justice Bhagwati held that labor laws intended to protect basic human dignity were part of the right to life. The Court declared that negligence by contractors and state authorities in enforcing these laws infringed on workers’ fundamental rights.

Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad (1998)

The Court in Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad  ruled that any activity grossly indecent, obscene, or intended for exploitation is repugnant to human dignity and violates Article 21. While beauty contests are not inherently unconstitutional, those offending dignity and decency can be prohibited under relevant laws.

State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan (1983)

The Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan struck down a provision allowing a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1 per month to suspended government servants as unconstitutional. It held that such an allowance deprived individuals of the means to live with dignity, violating Article 21.

Right over One’s Intimate Relations

In the landmark case Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court underscored the essence of dignity as a fundamental component of the right to life under Article 21. It defined dignity as encompassing “full personhood” and the meaningful expression of the human self, emphasising control over one’s intimate relations.

The petition challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised consensual sexual acts between LGBTQ+ adults. The Court held that this section violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 by infringing on the rights to equality, non-discrimination, personal liberty, and privacy. Consequently, consensual same-sex acts in private were decriminalised.

This case reaffirmed that human dignity is not limited to physical existence but extends to self-respect, freedom, and personal safety, recognising intimate relationships as integral to an individual’s identity and life.

Right To Livelihood

The right to livelihood, as an intrinsic aspect of the right to life under Article 21, has undergone a remarkable evolution in Indian jurisprudence. Initially excluded from the ambit of Article 21, subsequent judicial interpretations have expanded its scope, recognising the essential connection between life and the means to sustain it.

Early Judicial Stance: Exclusion of Right to Livelihood

In Re Sant Ram, a pre-Maneka Gandhi decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood did not fall within the scope of Article 21. The Court argued that livelihood was more appropriately addressed under Articles 19 and 16, within specific limitations. This narrow interpretation denied any substantial protection for livelihood under Article 21.

Evolving Jurisprudence: Broadening the Definition of Life

The turning point came in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Nandkarni, where the Court acknowledged that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. This shift laid the groundwork for subsequent rulings that established livelihood as a fundamental element of life.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

In the landmark Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, also known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case,” a five-judge bench held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. The Court observed:

“No person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.”

The judgement emphasised that depriving someone of their livelihood without a fair and just procedure is tantamount to taking away their life. However, the Court also clarified that while the State is not obligated to provide livelihood, it cannot deprive an individual of their means of livelihood arbitrarily or unjustly.

Significant Case Laws on Right to Livelihood

DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress

In DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, the arbitrary dismissal of an employee by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) without providing any justification was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that such termination was violative of Article 21, which encompasses the right to livelihood. The Court emphasised that employment could not be arbitrarily terminated without following a fair and reasonable procedure. This judgement reinforced that procedural fairness is indispensable when depriving a person of their livelihood.

M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd.

M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd. case addressed the plight of government employees suspended during disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that employees under suspension must be paid subsistence allowances to ensure their basic sustenance during the inquiry period. The judgement underscored that the right to livelihood persists even in situations of suspension and must be protected to uphold an individual’s dignity and survival. The Court’s ruling highlighted the obligation of employers to provide fair treatment during such periods.

Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case involved the acquisition of land by the government for public purposes, adversely affecting the livelihood of the landowner. The Court ruled that such acquisition did not violate the right to livelihood under Article 21, provided it adhered to the procedure established by law, including fair compensation to the landowner. The judgement reiterated that while the right to livelihood is crucial, it is not absolute and must be balanced with public interest. Compensation for land acquisition ensures procedural fairness, aligning the action with constitutional principles.

M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, the Court examined the regulation of video games that mixed chance and skill, which were considered detrimental to public morality and order. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to livelihood is protected under Article 21 but held that its deprivation could not be extended to activities harmful to public interest. This judgement highlighted the balance between individual rights and societal welfare, asserting that livelihood claims cannot override public morality or order.

MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY

MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY case dealt with employment discrimination against individuals testing HIV-positive. The Court ruled that denying employment solely on the grounds of HIV-positive status violated the right to livelihood and dignity. It emphasised that such discrimination was not only unjust but also unconstitutional under Article 21. The judgement set a precedent for protecting vulnerable groups from arbitrary actions that undermine their basic rights.

Right to Work and its Distinction

The relationship between the right to livelihood and the right to work under Article 21 remains nuanced. In Sodan Singh v. NDMC, the Supreme Court distinguished the right to livelihood from the right to trade or business under Article 19(1)(g). While acknowledging the importance of livelihood, the Court maintained that it does not grant the unrestricted right to work in specific locations, especially on public property like roads and pavements.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Court clarified that the right to employment is not a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgement emphasised that employment rights must be balanced with broader public interest and procedural fairness.

Right to Shelter

The right to shelter is a fundamental right integral to the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 21 and the right to residence under Article 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution. Recognising the essential nature of shelter, the judiciary has expanded the interpretation of these articles to ensure a dignified existence for every individual.

UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited

In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to shelter as a fundamental right derived from Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21. The Court emphasised the state’s responsibility to provide facilities and opportunities for building houses, particularly for the poor. By interpreting the right to shelter expansively, the judgement made it clear that this right is essential for securing meaningful living conditions and enabling holistic development.

Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame

Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame landmark judgement further strengthened the interpretation of the right to shelter. The Court ruled that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses basic needs such as food, clothing, a decent environment, and reasonable accommodation. It highlighted the distinction between the basic need for shelter for animals and the human requirement for a home that supports physical, mental, and intellectual growth.

The Court stated:
“For humans, a suitable accommodation allows growth in every aspect—physical, mental, and intellectual. While every citizen may not have the right to a well-built luxurious house, they are entitled to a reasonable home, which could even be modest housing, provided it meets basic living conditions.”

This judgement underscored the importance of providing a safe and habitable environment, particularly for vulnerable sections of society.

Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court explicitly recognised the right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court ruled that shelter extends beyond mere physical protection; it includes adequate living space, clean surroundings, and access to essential amenities like electricity, sanitation, roads, and water. These are necessary for human development—physical, intellectual, and spiritual.

The Court observed:
“Shelter is not just a roof over one’s head; it must include infrastructure to allow individuals to grow and live as dignified human beings. It is the foundation for ensuring a meaningful right to life.”

Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

The right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, extends beyond mere physical existence to encompass socio-economic rights, including the right to social security and the protection of the family. This interpretation reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that fundamental rights enable individuals to lead a dignified and meaningful life.

Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose

Justice K. Ramaswamy observed in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose that the right to life and dignity is hollow without socio-economic rights. The Court held that the right to social security and the protection of family form an integral part of the right to life. Justice Ramaswamy elaborated:
“Socio-economic rights are fundamental aspirations that lend substance to the right to life. Without means to sustain dignity and status, such rights are cosmetic.”

This case underscores the essential role of social security in enabling individuals and families to live with dignity.

NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (Chakmas Case)

In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh case, the Supreme Court emphasised the state’s obligation to protect the life and liberty of all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status. The Court held that the state cannot allow any group to threaten or harm another group. It asserted that:
“No state government can abdicate its responsibility to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals.”

This judgement highlighted the state’s role in ensuring security and equality, thereby upholding the right to social security and the protection of vulnerable families or groups.

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde

The Court in Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde recognised the right to economic empowerment of disadvantaged groups, including Dalits, as fundamental to their right to life and dignity. It ruled that the socio-economic upliftment of marginalised sections of society is vital to make the right to life meaningful. This judgement bridges the gap between constitutional aspirations and social justice, reinforcing the importance of economic security.

Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa

The Supreme Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa interpreted the right to life to include security against sickness and disablement. By reading Article 21 with Directive Principles under Article 39(e), the Court established a connection between fundamental rights and socio-economic welfare, affirming the state’s duty to provide healthcare and financial support to those in need.

LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre

The Court extended the right to life and livelihood to include access to life insurance. However, it clarified that such policies must be affordable and within the financial capacity of the insured. LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre case reinforced the role of state institutions, like the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), in providing social security to citizens.

Surjit Kumar v. State of UP (Honour Killing Case)

Surjit Kumar v. State of UP (Honour Killing Case) case is a critical precedent addressing societal issues like honour killings. The Allahabad High Court held that harassment, ill-treatment, and killing in the name of “family honour” were unconstitutional. It ruled that inter-caste marriages are legally protected, and any violence against individuals exercising this right violates Article 21. The Court directed strict action against offenders, underscoring the state’s role in protecting individual freedom and family rights.

Right to Nutritional Food

The right to nutritional food is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This was emphatically recognised in the landmark case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002), which addressed the pressing issue of starvation deaths despite an abundance of food grains in government storage.

The case was filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) to highlight the contradiction of overflowing godowns and widespread starvation among India’s poor. PUCL contended that the mismanagement of food resources and lack of implementation of government welfare schemes violated the fundamental right to life.

The Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed that access to adequate food is a fundamental right under Article 21. It transformed existing government food schemes into enforceable legal entitlements, mandating minimum allocations of food grains and nutrients for vulnerable populations. The Court directed the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to distribute food grains in drought-hit areas and identified public officials responsible for implementing these schemes. Non-compliance was made actionable, ensuring accountability.

Right to Make Reproductive Choices

The right to make reproductive choices is an essential aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as highlighted in the landmark case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2010).

This case involved a 19-20-year-old orphan woman with mild mental retardation who became pregnant while residing in a government-run welfare institution. The authorities sought the court’s permission for a termination of her pregnancy, raising significant ethical and legal questions.

The Supreme Court recognised a woman’s right to make reproductive choices as an integral part of her personal liberty, privacy, and dignity. This right encompasses the freedom to procreate as well as to abstain from procreation. However, the Court balanced this right against the “compelling State interest” in protecting the life of the unborn child. It ruled that the termination of pregnancy could only occur under the conditions specified in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

The Supreme Court of India has unequivocally held that sexual harassment of women at the workplace is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. Justice Verma, in the landmark Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgement, emphasised that gender equality, including the prevention of sexual harassment, is encompassed within the scope of Article 21.

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan Guidelines

In the absence of specific legislation addressing sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure a safe and equitable workplace. These guidelines, now known as the Vishakha Guidelines, mandate:

• Prohibition and Prevention: Employers must expressly prohibit sexual harassment in workplaces. Notification, publication, and circulation of the prohibition must be ensured.
• Incorporation in Rules: Government and public sector regulations must include provisions prohibiting sexual harassment, with appropriate penalties for offenders. Private employers must incorporate these provisions in standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Supportive Work Environment: Employers must provide suitable conditions to ensure no hostile environment exists, safeguarding women’s dignity and health.
• Legal Action: Employers are obligated to file complaints against offenders under relevant laws.
• Redressal Mechanism: Victims should have the option to request their own transfer or the perpetrator’s transfer.

Reiteration in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra

The Supreme Court reinforced the Vishakha judgement, stating that sexual harassment at the workplace violates fundamental rights of gender equality and dignity. The Court observed:

• Sexual harassment undermines the honor and dignity of women.
• Courts have a constitutional duty to protect these rights and ensure workplaces are free from such misconduct.

Right to Health and Medical Care 

The Right to Health and Medical Care has been recognised as an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judiciary has consistently upheld this interpretation, emphasising that access to healthcare and medical assistance is essential for a dignified life.

Judicial Pronouncements on Right to Health

State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla 

The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla  explicitly held that the right to health and medical care is encompassed within the ambit of Article 21. This ruling affirmed the state’s duty to ensure basic healthcare for its citizens.

Vincent v. Union of India

The Court in Vincent v. Union of India stressed that a healthy body is foundational for human activities. Citing Article 47 (Directive Principles of State Policy), the judgement highlighted the state’s responsibility to improve public health and prevent the misuse of drugs.

Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India

The Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India stated that social justice demands a minimum standard of health and economic security for workers. Denial of these facilities violates the right to life under Article 21, emphasising the state’s obligation to ensure a dignified life for workers.

Parmananda Katara v. Union of India

The Court in Parmananda Katara v. Union of India declared that preserving life is paramount, asserting that no legal formalities or administrative hurdles should delay medical assistance. The judgement held that all doctors, whether in public or private practice, have a professional obligation to provide immediate care to preserve life, irrespective of legal circumstances.

Emergency Medical Treatment: Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal

The right to emergency medical treatment was firmly established in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal. In this case, a victim of a train accident was denied treatment by multiple hospitals citing lack of facilities. The Supreme Court ruled that failure to provide timely medical treatment is a violation of Article 21. While acknowledging financial limitations, the Court maintained that the state must ensure emergency medical resources to uphold this right.

Refusal of Treatment: Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospita

In Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital, the Court emphasised that hospitals cannot deny treatment to critically injured or accident victims based on their inability to pay or lack of immediate consent. The ruling reinforced the moral and legal duty of healthcare providers to prioritise saving lives.

Financial Constraints and State Obligation

While recognising the financial constraints of the state, the Court has balanced this with the obligation to provide adequate healthcare:

• State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga: The Court held that healthcare provision cannot be unlimited and must align with financial resources.
• Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India: A contributory healthcare scheme for ex-servicemen was upheld as consistent with Article 21 and Part IV of the Constitution.

No Right to Die

While Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Life, whether it includes the Right to Die has been a subject of intense debate. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, criminalises attempts to commit suicide, leading to a conflict between the sanctity of life under Article 21 and the punishment for suicide attempts.

The Bombay High Court Ruling in Maruti Sripati Dubal Case

In State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal, the Bombay High Court became the first judicial body to consider whether Article 21 extends to include the right to die. The Court held that the Right to Life encompasses the Right to Die, declaring Section 309 IPC unconstitutional. The reasoning was that forcing a person to live against their will could infringe upon their dignity, a fundamental component of life protected by Article 21.

P. Rathinam v. Union of India

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court supported the Bombay High Court’s interpretation. It ruled that:

• Article 21, which protects life with dignity, indirectly includes the Right to Die.
• Attempting suicide is not a crime but rather a call for help, and punishing such individuals is unjust.

The Court deemed Section 309 IPC violative of Article 21, reasoning that compelling individuals to live a life of suffering is antithetical to the right to live with dignity.

Reversal in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court revisited the issue, questioning the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC and its implications for Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The Court unequivocally overruled the Rathinam ruling, holding:

• Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, not its extinction.
• Suicide, being an unnatural termination of life, is inconsistent with the concept of the Right to Life.
• Section 309 IPC was upheld as constitutional, reinforcing that life must be preserved.

The Court clarified that while the Right to Die is not a fundamental right, cases involving terminal illness and euthanasia require a separate legislative framework.

Emerging Conflicts: Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA), 2017, introduced a significant shift by decriminalising attempts to suicide. Section 115 of the Act presumes that anyone attempting suicide is under severe stress and mandates care and treatment rather than prosecution. This provision starkly contrasts with Section 309 IPC, which still criminalises such attempts.

The Supreme Court has called for a review of the conflict, asking the central government to clarify its position. Justice DY Chandrachud, in a 2018 judgement, criticised Section 309 IPC, calling it “inhuman” to punish individuals in distress.

Present Scenario and Debate

Although the courts have settled that Article 21 does not encompass the Right to Die, evolving societal norms and legislative reforms like the MHCA challenge this position. Critics argue that punishing suicide attempts reflects colonial-era morality, incompatible with modern principles of mental health and individual dignity.

Euthanasia and Right to Life

Euthanasia refers to the intentional termination of life for a person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state, aimed at alleviating suffering. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court distinguished between euthanasia and an attempt to commit suicide, emphasising their distinct legal and ethical implications.

The Court observed that euthanasia involves cases where death is certain, imminent, and the process of natural death has already commenced. It clarified that euthanasia does not equate to extinguishing life prematurely but rather to hastening the inevitable conclusion of a natural process.

Importantly, the Court held that euthanasia might fall under the ambit of the Right to Live with Dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21. This interpretation includes the right of a dying person to experience dignity in their final moments when life is fading. However, the Court cautioned that this cannot be equated with a broader Right to Die, which would involve prematurely curtailing the natural span of life.

The ruling paved the way for recognising passive euthanasia under stringent conditions, balancing the sanctity of life with the compassionate need to allow dignity in death. This distinction underlines the nuanced approach to preserving both life and dignity within constitutional boundaries.

Sentence of Death – Rarest of Rare Cases

The issue of the death penalty has been a topic of intense debate worldwide. In India, the Law Commission of India has extensively examined whether to abolish or retain capital punishment. Taking into account India’s unique social, moral, and cultural diversity, as well as its vast population and differing levels of education and awareness, the Commission recommended retaining the death penalty, considering it unsuitable to experiment with abolition under current conditions.

Judicial Interpretations on the Death Penalty

The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in shaping the discourse on capital punishment. In Jagmohan v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, ruling that it did not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court reasoned that a judge’s choice between life imprisonment and the death penalty was guided by the facts, circumstances, and nature of the crime, ensuring adherence to the “procedure established by law” as mandated by Article 21.

Later, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P., Justice Krishna Iyer took a progressive stance, arguing that capital punishment should be used sparingly and only in cases where the offender posed a grave threat to society. He emphasised that the death penalty might be more suitable for crimes of significant societal impact, such as “white-collar crimes,” while calling for its broader abolition.

The Landmark Judgement: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

In the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of the “rarest of rare cases,” which remains the guiding principle for awarding the death penalty in India. The Court held that:

• Fair Procedure Under Article 21: The death penalty, as prescribed under Section 302 of the IPC, was constitutional and did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court clarified that Article 21 allows for the deprivation of life if done through a just, fair, and reasonable procedure established by valid law.
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The Court ruled that the death penalty should only be awarded in cases where the crime was so heinous and extraordinary that no other punishment would suffice. The doctrine aimed to strike a balance between individual rights and societal interests.
• Judicial Discretion: The judgement emphasised that judges must consider both the crime and the criminal while deciding on the death penalty. The circumstances surrounding the crime, the offender’s mental state, and the possibility of reformation must be meticulously evaluated before imposing capital punishment.

Implications and Continuing Debate

The “rarest of rare” doctrine, established in Bachan Singh, brought a structured approach to the application of the death penalty. However, its subjective nature has led to varying interpretations across cases, prompting concerns about inconsistency.

The debate over capital punishment remains alive, with proponents arguing that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes, while critics question its effectiveness, fairness, and potential for misuse. Cases like Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab have further elaborated on the “rarest of rare” standard, identifying factors such as the manner of commission, the victim’s vulnerability, and the societal impact of the crime as key considerations.

Right to Get Pollution-Free Water and Air

The right to pollution-free water and air is a fundamental extension of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right ensures the citizens’ entitlement to an environment conducive to their well-being, free from pollutants that can harm their health and diminish their quality of life.

Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of pollution-free water and air within the ambit of Article 21. The Court observed:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”

This case paved the way for recognising the significance of a clean and healthy environment in ensuring a meaningful existence.

Right to a Clean Environment

The Right to Life under Article 21 extends to a life of dignity in a clean and healthy environment. It encompasses the preservation of air, water, and soil quality, as environmental degradation affects citizens’ health and well-being. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that neglecting environmental safeguards amounts to slow poisoning, reducing citizens’ life expectancy and infringing upon their right to life.

Environmental Rights 

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988)

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) landmark case, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries that were polluting water bodies. The judgement underscored the importance of balancing industrial activity with environmental preservation, prioritising the public’s health and well-being over economic considerations.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997)

The Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) took measures to protect the Taj Mahal from environmental degradation caused by industrial emissions. It issued several directives to control pollution and preserve the cultural and historical heritage of the monument. This case demonstrated the Court’s proactive approach to safeguarding the environment for future generations.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India case, the Court addressed the severe environmental issues caused by tanneries polluting rivers, canals, and groundwater. It recognised the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle as integral parts of environmental law in India. The decision mandated industries to adopt sustainable practices and adhere to environmental norms.

Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

Here, the Court in Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan linked the right to life with clean surroundings. It observed that a healthy environment, free from stray cattle and animals in urban areas, is essential for maintaining physical and mental health.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006)

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) case addressed the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes in Delhi, which resulted in environmental degradation and affected citizens’ quality of life. The Court ordered corrective measures, emphasising the importance of maintaining a salubrious and decent environment in urban areas.

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India case focused on the harmful effects of passive smoking in public places. The Court acknowledged that non-smokers’ Right to Life under Article 21 was infringed upon by exposure to tobacco smoke. As a result, it banned smoking in public places, recognising the link between public health and environmental cleanliness.

Right Against Noise Pollution

The Right Against Noise Pollution is a fundamental facet of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasising the need for a peaceful and pollution-free environment. 

Re: Noise Pollution

In Re: Noise Pollution (2005), the Supreme Court addressed noise pollution caused by the excessive bursting of crackers during Diwali and ruled that such activities infringed upon individuals’ right to live with dignity.

The Court observed:

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the life and personal liberty to all persons. It guarantees the right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are included all the aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. The human life has its charm, and there is no reason why life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort, and quiet within his house has a right to prevent noise as a pollutant reaching him.”

This judgement stressed that while individuals have the right to enjoy festivities, they cannot exercise such rights in ways that violate the peace and comfort of others. Noise pollution, when it intrudes upon others’ lives, is a nuisance that can affect the ordinary comforts of life, judged by the standard of a reasonable person.

The Court elaborated that:

1. Limits of Speech: While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute. It cannot be exercised at the expense of others’ Right to Life under Article 21.
2. Aural Aggression: Any noise generated, especially with artificial amplifying devices, that forcibly exposes unwilling individuals to unpleasant or obnoxious levels of sound, constitutes a violation of their right to a peaceful life.
3. No Right to Noise Creation: Individuals cannot claim a right to create noise, even within their premises, if it causes nuisance to neighbors or others. This principle underscores that rights come with responsibilities and that one’s actions must respect the well-being of others.

The Court effectively rejected the argument that Article 19(1)(a) could be invoked to justify noise pollution, emphasising that the fundamental right to free speech does not extend to creating environmental harm or disturbing public peace.

Right to Know

The Right to Life has evolved to include the Right to Know, which is particularly significant in a democracy. This right ensures transparency and accountability in governance, as citizens must be informed about decisions affecting their lives.

RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.

In RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court emphasised that democracy requires an informed citizenry. The Court observed that for democracy to function effectively, people must have the right to know about the conduct of state affairs.

Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti

Similarly, in Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Court linked Article 21 with the right to know, especially in cases where secret governmental decisions might impact public health, life, or livelihood.

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers

Further, in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, the Court reinforced the citizens’ right to information, particularly when government proposals might affect environmental well-being. This ruling established that informed citizens are crucial for protecting the environment and holding the government accountable.

Right to Privacy 

The Right to Privacy, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, was progressively recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21. Its evolution in jurisprudence was marked by landmark judgements that explored its scope, albeit within varying contexts and limitations. Before the seminal KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgement (2017), the development of this right reflected judicial caution and case-specific interpretations.

Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1964)

The foundation for the right to privacy was laid in Kharak Singh v. State of UP. The Court, while deliberating on police surveillance, examined whether such activities violated Article 21. Although the majority refused to explicitly recognise privacy as a fundamental right, they acknowledged its link to personal liberty. Regulation 236(b), which allowed domiciliary visits, was deemed unconstitutional as it infringed upon personal liberty.

Justice Subba Rao’s minority opinion went further, asserting that:

“The right to personal liberty includes the right to be free from encroachments on one’s private life.”

This observation, though not binding at the time, became instrumental in shaping subsequent judicial interpretations.

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975)

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court evaluated the constitutional validity of police surveillance on habitual offenders. While acknowledging privacy as a derivative right from Articles 19(a), 19(d), and 21, the Court emphasised that it was not absolute. Mathew J. articulated:

“The right to privacy must undergo a process of case-by-case development and may be restricted in compelling public interest.”

This judgement underscored the conditional nature of privacy rights and introduced the idea that privacy could be limited for public safety or security.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case broadened the scope of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court ruled that any law affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. Though privacy was not directly discussed, the judgement laid the groundwork for interpreting Article 21 expansively, allowing privacy to emerge as a penumbral right.

PUCL v. Union of India (1997)

The issue of telephone tapping was addressed in PUCL v. Union of India, where the Court held that the right to privacy is a subset of the right to life under Article 21. The judgement emphasised that unauthorised intrusion into private conversations constitutes a violation of privacy unless justified by law and necessary for public safety.

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi case marked a significant step toward recognising privacy as integral to personal dignity and liberty. The Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual homosexual acts between adults, stating that privacy was a core aspect of Article 21. The judgement highlighted how privacy is essential for protecting individual autonomy and freedom of choice.

KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India

Before the Puttaswamy judgement, the right to privacy was seen more as a derivative or implied right, often subject to limitations and justified invasions based on public interest. The judicial stance reflected a balancing act between individual rights and state interests, leading to varied interpretations and inconsistent applications.

The case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India marked a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. A nine-judge bench unequivocally declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, drawing from India’s constitutional ethos and global human rights standards.

Key Highlights:

• Privacy as Intrinsic to Liberty and Dignity: The Court recognised privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and liberty, emphasising its foundational role in ensuring human dignity.
• Autonomy and Decisional Privacy: The judgement highlighted individual autonomy, including the freedom to make personal choices related to family, marriage, sexual orientation, and bodily integrity.
• Data Protection and State Accountability: The Court acknowledged the need for safeguards against state and private interference in matters of personal data and surveillance.
• Tests for Invasion of Privacy: Any infringement of privacy must satisfy three tests:
  • Legality: It must be sanctioned by law.
  • Necessity: It must serve a legitimate aim.
  • Proportionality: It must be the least restrictive means to achieve the intended purpose.

The judgement catalysed a shift in judicial and legislative approaches, influencing decisions on issues like:

• Decriminalisation of Section 377 IPC (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India), where privacy played a central role in affirming LGBTQ+ rights.
• Aadhaar Case (Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Aadhaar), balancing state interests in implementing welfare schemes with individual privacy rights.
• Abortion Rights (X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department), expanding reproductive autonomy under privacy.

Tapping of Telephone

The right to privacy forms a critical dimension of the fundamental rights under Article 21, extending to protections against unauthorised interference, including telephone tapping. This aspect has been explored in various judicial decisions to balance individual privacy with state security and law enforcement needs.

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra

In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court emphasised that the telephonic conversations of innocent citizens must be protected from wrongful interference. However, this protection does not extend to those guilty of corruption or criminal acts. The Court clarified that law enforcement efforts to uphold the law and prevent corruption do not infringe on privacy if conducted within legal bounds.

Telephone tapping is permitted under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which specifies grounds such as national security and public safety. However, the absence of procedural safeguards led to concerns about arbitrary misuse.

PUCL v. Union of India

In PUCL v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that arbitrary telephone tapping violates Article 21. The Court underscored the need for procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The ruling affirmed:

• Privacy as Integral to Article 21: Telephone conversations are part of private life, and their unauthorised tapping infringes upon the right to privacy.
• Just and Fair Procedure: Tapping must adhere to reasonable, fair, and legally sanctioned procedures.
• Accountability: Government agencies must ensure compliance with these safeguards.

Right Related to Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

The right to privacy must often be balanced with public interest, as illustrated in Mr. X v. Hospital Z.

Mr. X v. Hospital Z

The Court in Mr. X v. Hospital Z addressed whether disclosing the HIV-positive status of a patient to his fiancée violated his privacy rights. The hospital had revealed the patient’s condition to protect the fiancée from potential harm.

The Supreme Court ruled that privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for legitimate purposes such as protecting public health. The judgement held:

• The fiancée’s right to life, including a healthy life, superseded the patient’s right to privacy.
• Disclosure of such information in this context was lawful and ethical, aligning with the principles of protecting public health.

This case established a nuanced approach where individual privacy could be curtailed to safeguard the health and rights of others.

Right to Privacy and Medical Tests

The right to privacy also intersects with situations involving medical examinations.

Sharda v. Dharmpal

In matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of courts to order medical tests when necessary for adjudication. It was ruled in Sharda v. Dharmpal that:

• Such directives do not violate privacy if justified by sufficient evidence.
• Privacy rights must sometimes yield to public or judicial interests.

This judgement highlighted the conditional nature of privacy rights, particularly when balanced against competing claims or public interest.

Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

The right to privacy extends to a woman’s autonomy in making reproductive choices, encompassing:

• Refusal to engage in sexual activity.
• The right to use contraceptives.
• Decisions regarding carrying a pregnancy to term.

These rights reflect a broader interpretation of privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21.

Right to Travel Abroad

The right to travel abroad has been recognised as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

Satwant Singh Sawhney v Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi

The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi included the right to travel abroad within the ambit of Article 21, recognising it as an essential facet of personal liberty.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, which allowed the government to impound passports in the public interest. The petitioner argued that the provision lacked procedural safeguards, violating her rights under Article 21.

• Right to Travel as Personal Liberty: The Court held that the right to travel abroad is an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21.
• Natural Justice: Procedural safeguards, including fairness and non-arbitrariness, must be applied when exercising powers under the Passport Act.
• Interlinkage with Article 14: Reasonableness and non-arbitrariness are integral to ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.

Justice Bhagwati observed:

“The principle of reasonableness pervades Article 14 and applies equally to procedures under Article 21. They must be just, fair, and not oppressive.”

This case reinforced the idea that all actions curtailing personal liberty must adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Right Against Illegal Detention

The right against illegal detention is a cornerstone of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It safeguards individuals from arbitrary arrests, unlawful imprisonment, and violations of procedural fairness. Through various landmark judgements, the judiciary has established guidelines and protections to ensure that arrests and detentions comply with the principles of natural justice and human rights.

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner, Joginder Kumar, was unlawfully detained by the police without informing his family of his whereabouts for five days. The Supreme Court took strong notice of the police’s high-handed behavior and laid down important guidelines to regulate arrests and detentions:

• An arrested person has the right to inform a friend, relative, or another individual about their arrest and detention.
• Police officers must inform the arrested person of this right upon being brought to the police station.
• An entry must be made in the official police diary, detailing who was informed about the arrest.

These measures aim to ensure transparency and accountability in the arrest process, protecting individuals from arbitrary detention.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

The D.K. Basu judgement is a landmark case that further strengthened the framework against illegal detention. The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by central and state investigating agencies:

• Identity Tags: Police personnel carrying out the arrest must bear accurate, visible, and clear identification.
• Arrest Memo: A memo of arrest must be prepared and signed by at least one witness, preferably a family member of the arrested person.
• Right to Information: The arrested person must be informed of their rights, including the grounds for arrest.
• Medical Examination: A medical examination of the arrested person must be conducted every 48 hours.
• Diary Entries: Arrest details must be recorded in an official diary.

The Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal emphasised that any form of torture, inhuman treatment, or degrading behavior during interrogation violates Article 21.

Article 21 and Prisoners’ Rights

The scope of Article 21 extends even to individuals who have been convicted and are serving time in prison. Convicts, while deprived of certain freedoms, retain their fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has consistently reinforced the principle that imprisonment does not strip an individual of their constitutional protections.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case broadened the interpretation of Article 21, emphasising that life and liberty encompass the widest possible dimensions. It laid the foundation for modern prison jurisprudence, ensuring that even convicts are treated with dignity and afforded their rights.

Right to Free Legal Aid and Right to Appeal

M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra underscored the importance of free legal aid as an essential component of fair procedure. The judgement outlined:

1. Judgement Copies: Prisoners must be provided with copies of their judgement in time to file an appeal.
2. Free Legal Aid: Indigent or disabled prisoners unable to afford legal representation must be provided counsel at the government’s expense.

The Court observed that providing free legal aid is not a charity but a duty of the state, integral to ensuring fairness and reasonableness under Article 21.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar case highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners and emphasised that speedy trials and legal aid are fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unconstitutional and directed the state to provide necessary legal aid to underprivileged detainees.

Right Against Torture and Inhumane Treatment

The judiciary has also taken a strong stance against custodial torture and inhumane treatment, considering it a violation of Article 21.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights of prisoners cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. It ruled that:

• Solitary confinement and inhumane treatment of prisoners are unconstitutional.
• The state has a duty to ensure humane conditions in jails.

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana

The Court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana ruled that custodial torture and deaths due to police brutality are grave violations of Article 21. It emphasised the need for accountability and strict adherence to human rights standards in custodial settings.

Right to Speedy Trial and Article 21

The right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Delayed trials not only infringe upon an individual’s fundamental rights but also undermine the credibility of the judicial system. This right ensures that justice is not delayed, which, as the maxim goes, is justice denied. Several landmark cases and judicial pronouncements have established the contours and implications of this right.

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar case brought to light the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails for extended periods without trials. The Supreme Court, in this case, observed:

• A significant number of undertrial prisoners had been in custody for periods exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed for their alleged offenses.
• Such detention violated their fundamental right under Article 21.

The Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial was illegal and ordered the immediate release of such prisoners. This judgement underscored the necessity of timely trials and highlighted the systemic inefficiencies in the judicial process.

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak

In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure the timely completion of trials. Key observations included:

1. Fair and Reasonable Procedure: The Court reiterated that Article 21 guarantees the accused a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, which includes the right to a speedy trial.
2. Stages of Trial: The right encompasses all stages, from investigation and inquiry to appeal and retrial.
3. Factors to Consider: Determining whether there has been undue delay involves examining the nature of the offense, the number of accused and witnesses, and the workload of the court.
4. Remand and Pre-Conviction Detention: The Court emphasised that pre-trial detention should be minimal and not extend unnecessarily.

Anil Rai v. State of Bihar

The Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar highlighted the need for timely judgements. It directed High Court judges to expedite pending cases and advised parties to approach the Chief Justice for redress in case of undue delay. This judgement emphasised judicial accountability and the importance of efficient case management.

Right to Fair Trial

A fair trial is a cornerstone of justice and an essential component of the right to life under Article 21. 

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court declared:

• A fair trial ensures justice for the accused, victims, their families, and society at large.
• It is a constitutional mandate that guarantees transparency and impartiality in judicial proceedings.

The principle of fair trial includes:

• Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
• The right to be heard.
• Access to legal representation.
• Cross-examination of witnesses.

Right to Bail

The issue of bail is intricately linked to the right to liberty under Article 21. The denial of bail results in prolonged pre-trial incarceration, which may violate fundamental rights.

Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court in Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that:

• Bail is a part of personal liberty under Article 21.
• Refusal to grant bail must align with the procedure established by law and be justified based on the circumstances of the case.

Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail, unlike regular bail, is a statutory right provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While it safeguards an individual from potential harassment, it is not an inherent right under Article 21. Courts exercise discretion in granting anticipatory bail, considering factors such as the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of misuse.

Right Against Handcuffing

Handcuffing is viewed as a violation of human dignity and has been consistently condemned as prima facie inhuman and arbitrary unless justified by compelling circumstances. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted to prohibit the indiscriminate use of handcuffs.

Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration case, the Supreme Court struck down rules mandating the routine handcuffing of undertrial prisoners accused of non-bailable offenses punishable with more than three years of imprisonment. The Court held that:

• Handcuffing must be an exception, not the rule: It can only be applied if there is a “clear and present danger” of the accused escaping custody.
• Reasonableness and necessity: The police must justify handcuffing by demonstrating a tangible risk of escape or violence.

This judgement emphasised that handcuffing should be a last resort, applied only under extraordinary circumstances, as it infringes on the dignity and personal liberty protected under Article 21.

Right Against Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement is a severe punishment that isolates prisoners, often leading to psychological and emotional harm. The Supreme Court has ruled that the imposition of solitary confinement, without due process, violates Article 21.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the petitioner, a death row convict, challenged his solitary confinement under Section 30 of the Prisoners Act, arguing it was imposed arbitrarily and amounted to additional punishment.

The Supreme Court held:

• Solitary confinement is a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code and can only be imposed by a court of law.
• The prison administration’s discretionary use of solitary confinement was deemed unconstitutional.
• Procedural safeguards must be observed, and arbitrary imposition of solitary confinement is a violation of the convict’s fundamental rights.

This case reinforced that prisoners retain their basic human rights, including the right to be treated with dignity, even while serving a sentence.

Right Against Custodial Violence

Custodial violence, including torture and intimidation, has been a persistent issue in India, often leading to public outrage. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right against custodial violence as a fundamental aspect of Article 21.

Judicial Interventions

• Inhuman treatment: The Court has classified custodial torture and third-degree methods as a direct affront to human dignity and a gross violation of Article 21.
• Guidelines against torture: In cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence, including mandatory procedures for arrest and detention.

The judiciary has emphasised that the state bears the responsibility to ensure that detainees are treated with respect and protected from harm.

Death by Hanging: Not Violative of Article 21

The mode of execution for the death penalty has also been scrutinised under Article 21. Critics argue that certain methods, including hanging, are inhuman and degrading.

Deena v. Union of India

In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether death by hanging violates Article 21. The Court analysed:

• Expert opinions: It referred to the UK Royal Commission Report, the Law Commission of India’s 35th Report, and forensic medical opinions, all of which deemed hanging as the least painful method of execution.
• Reasonable procedure: The Court concluded that hanging, being quick and efficient, does not constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Thus, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of death by hanging as a mode of execution.

Right Against Arbitrary Detention

Arbitrary detention, often accompanied by handcuffing or other degrading practices, has been addressed by the judiciary through guidelines that protect the dignity and liberty of individuals during arrest.

Balancing Security and Liberty

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the need to balance societal security with individual rights. While handcuffing and confinement are necessary in certain cases, these measures must not override the fundamental principles of fairness, reasonableness, and dignity.

Right Against Public Hanging

Public hanging, a practice that invokes widespread fear and humiliation, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi. 

Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi

This case arose from a directive issued by the Rajasthan High Court to execute the death sentence of an accused at a public stadium in Jaipur, with the media widely publicising the event.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• Unconstitutionality: The Supreme Court held that public hanging violates the right to dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Barbarity and Civilisation: The Court observed that while the crime committed might be barbaric, the punishment meted out by the state should reflect the values of a civilised society. It stated:
  “A barbaric crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.”
• Deterrence vs. Dignity: The Court clarified that the deterrence of crime does not justify the degradation of human dignity through public executions.

Right Against Delayed Execution

The psychological and emotional agony caused by prolonged delays in the execution of death sentences has been a critical area of judicial intervention under Article 21. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter in several landmark cases.

T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

• Grounds for Commutation: In T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence is sufficient to invoke the protection of Article 21. The death sentence, in such cases, should be commuted to life imprisonment.
• Immateriality of Cause: The Court noted that the cause of the delay—whether by the accused or the state—was irrelevant when assessing the mental agony caused to the convict during the prolonged wait.

This ruling was pivotal in addressing the plight of death row inmates, recognising that delays could lead to cruel and inhuman treatment, violating their fundamental rights.

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab

In contrast to the ruling in Vatheeswaran, the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab adopted a more nuanced approach in Sher Singh, stating:

• Case-Specific Decisions: Prolonged delays in execution should not automatically lead to commutation of the death sentence. Instead, each case must be evaluated on its own merits and circumstances.
• Fairness and Reasonableness: The Court reiterated that unreasonable and prolonged delays in execution amount to an unfair procedure, violating Article 21.

While the judiciary has been cautious in granting relief for delays, it has underscored the importance of a humane approach. The Court emphasised that the state must ensure timely action to prevent undue mental torture for convicts awaiting execution.

Conclusion

Article 21 stands as the cornerstone of fundamental rights in India, evolving through progressive judicial interpretations. It ensures that life is not merely about survival but encompasses dignity, liberty, and fulfillment. As society evolves, the judiciary continues to expand its horizons, making Article 21 a living testament to the dynamic nature of the Constitution.