essay on article 21 of indian constitution

Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer

Article 21 (and its many interpretations) is the perfect example of the transformative character of the Constitution of India. The Indian judiciary has attributed wider connotation and meaning to Article 21, extending beyond the Constitution makers’ imagination. These meanings derived from the ‘right to life’ present unique complexities. It is impossible to understand the expansive jurisprudence on Article 21 within the length of this piece. Therefore, Riya Jain understands the various components of freedom that stem from the ‘right to life’. She presents a straightforward and comprehensive explainer on the case laws that have interpreted the right.

By Riya Jain, UILS Panjab University.

*The piece was first published by Riya in 2015, this is the updated form. 

Introduction of Article 21

Article 21 of Indian constitution reads:

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

In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 ’embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society’. Further, Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty’.

Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution . It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1)  Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

It prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

It is also fundamental to democracy as it extends to natural persons and not just citizens. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner to the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

This Article is an all tell for Article 21. The first part will understand the meaning and concept of ‘right to life’ as understood by the judiciary. Further, the piece will lay out how several violations of the body, reputation and equality have been understood and brought under the purview of the right to life and the right to live with dignity.

Meaning, Concept and Interpretation of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21

‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’

The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Section will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India , 1950 provides,

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

‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider, including, including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc.

The right to life is fundamental to our very existence, without which we cannot live as human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from the core concept of the right to life.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [i] , the Supreme Court quoted and held:

By the term ‘life’ as here used, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [ii] , the Supreme Court approved the above observations. It held that the ‘right to life’ included the right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. In addition, it consists of the Right to live and sleep in peace and the Right to repose and health.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [iii] , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The Court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the same view, the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi [iv]  observed:

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”

Another broad formulation of life to dignity is found in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [v] . Characterising Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the Court gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. “These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

Following the above-stated cases, the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [vi] , held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bhagwati J. held that rights and benefits conferred on workmen employed by a contractor under various labour laws are intended to ensure basic human dignity to workers. He held that the non-implementation by the private contractors engaged for constructing a building for holding Asian Games in Delhi, and non-enforcement of these laws by the State Authorities of the provisions of these laws was held to be violative of the fundamental right of workers to live with human dignity contained in Art. 21 [vii] .

In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad [viii] , it has been held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and decency. Therefore, keeping of beauty contest is repugnant to the dignity or decency of women and offends Article 21 of the Constitution only if the same is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene or intended for blackmailing. Therefore, the government is empowered to prohibit the contest as objectionable performance under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [ix] , the Court struck down a provision of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Thi provision provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1 per month to a suspended government servant upon his conviction during the pendency of his appeal as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Sexual harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21.

“The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to compass all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. “

The above statement by Justice Verma in the famous Vishakha judgment liberalised the understanding of Article 21. Therefore, making it even more emancipatory.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [x] , the Supreme Court declared sexual harassment at the workplace to violate the right to equality, life and liberty. Therefore, a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

In this case, in the absence of a relevant law against sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to ensure gender parity in the workplace:

This meant that all employers or persons in charge of the workplace, whether in the public or private sector, should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment.

• Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace should be notified, published and circulated inappropriate ways.
• The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
• As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the prohibitions above in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Appropriate work conditions should be provided for work, leisure, health, and hygiene to ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at workplaces. No employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.
• Where such conduct amounts to specific offences under IPC or under any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.
• The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek the transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer.

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra [xi] , the Supreme Court reiterated the Vishakha ruling and observed that:

“There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in the violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India…. “In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated….”

Understanding Article 21 Through Against Sexual Assault and Rape 

Rape has been held to be a violation of a person’s fundamental life guaranteed under Article 21. Therefore, the right to life would include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and worth living.

In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [xii] , the Supreme Court observed:

“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Art 21”.

Right to Reputation and Article 21

Reputation is an essential part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human civilisation that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referred to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis [xiii] in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [xiv] . It said:

“good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.”

The same American decision has also been referred to in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust [xv]. The Court held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to enjoy life, liberty and property.

It has been held that the right equally covers a person’s reputation during and after his death. Thus, any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would undoubtedly come under the scope of Article 21.

State of UP v. Mohammaad Naim [xvi] succinctly laid down the following tests while dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law. These are:

• whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself.
• whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks.
• Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct, it has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial. It should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve.

In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani [xvii] , a two-member commission got appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in the Bhagalpur district on  October 24, 1989. The commission made certain remarks in the report, which impinged upon the respondent’s reputation as a public man without allowing him to be heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation, and one also had the right to protect it.

The Court further said that if any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to have his say in the matter. Finally, the Court observed that the principle of natural justice made it incumbent upon the authority to allow the person before any comment was made or opinion was expressed, likely to affect that person prejudicially.

Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram [xviii] , a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21. The Court said curtly:

“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument that the word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”

But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 was read broadly. The Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni [xix] , came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to livelihood’.

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xx] , popularly known as the ‘Pavement Dwellers Case’, is important. Herein, a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:

“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

If the right to livelihood is not treated as part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation [xxi] .

In the instant case, the Court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

Emphasising upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the Court stated:

“That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life [xxii] .”

Article 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and, for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Article 21 insists is that such lack ought to be according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore, anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can challenge such deprivation as being against Article 21 and get it declared void [xxiii] .

In DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [xxiv] , the Court was hearing a matter where an employee was laid off by issuing a notice without any reason. The Court held that the same was utterly arbitrary and violative of Article 21.

In M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd [xxv] , it was held that when a government servant or one in a public undertaking is suspended pending a departmental disciplinary inquiry against him, subsistence allowance must be paid to him. The Court has emphasised that a government servant does not have his right to life and other fundamental rights.

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable and in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.

In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [xxvi] , the SC held that the state acquired a landowner’s land following the procedure laid down in the relevant law of acquisition. So even though the right to livelihood of the landowner is adversely affected, it is not violated.

The Court opined that the state acquires land in exercising its power of eminent domain for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in place of land. Therefore, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable.

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors [xxvii] , the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does protect livelihood. However, the Court added a rider that its deprivation could not be extended too far or projected or stretched to the recreation, business or trade detrimental to the public interest or has an insidious effect on public moral or public order.

The Court further held that regulating video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not violative of Article 21, nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair or unjust.

An important case that needs to be mentioned when speaking about the right to livelihood is MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY [xxviii].   In this case, the Court had held that a person could not be denied employment if they tested positive for HIV. And they cannot be rendered ‘medically unfit’ owing to the same. In interpreting the right to livelihood, the Court emphasised that the same couldn’t hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority.

Is Right to Work a Fundamental Right under Article 21?

In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [xxix] , the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to carry on any trade or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g). Regarding the same, the Court held that the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. Thus, Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and business.

The petitioners in the case were hawkers doing business off the paved roads in Delhi. They had claimed against the Municipal authorities who did not allow former to carry out their business. The hawkers claimed that the refusal to do so violated their Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court opined that the petitioners had a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their choice. However, they had no right to do so in a particular place. Hence, they couldn’t be permitted to carry on their trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to conveniently accommodate the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all or permitted once a week.

The Court also held that footpaths, streets or roads are public property intended to several general public and are not meant for private use. However, the Court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. Therefore, the two rights were too remote to be connected.

The Court distinguished the ruling in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xxx]. In the case the Court held:

“in that case, the petitioners were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes existing in the midst of filth and squalor and that they had to stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in the city. It was not the case of a business of selling articles after investing some capital.”

In Secretary, the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [xxxi] , the Court rejected that right to employment at the present point of time can be included as a fundamental right under Right to Life under Art. 21.

Right to Shelter

In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited [xxxii] , the right to shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured under Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The state has to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses to make the right meaningful for the poor. [xxxiii] .

Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable accommodation in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [xxxiv] , the Court held:

“The Right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need for an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.

The Court advanced:

“For the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home, particularly for people in India, can even be a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.”

In Chameli Singh v. State of U P [xxxv] , a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen. And the same was read into Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘right to shelter’ was considered encompassing the right to life, making the latter more meaningful. The Court advanced:

“Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being [xxxvi] .”

Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of the family. K. Ramaswamy J., in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose [xxxvii] , held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under Art. 21. The learned judge explained:

“right to life and dignity of a person and status without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations for meaning the right to life and that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were an integral part of the right to life.”

In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [xxxviii]  (Chakmas Case), the SC said that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. Further, it cannot permit anybody or a group of persons to threaten another person or group of persons. No state government worth the name can tolerate such threats from one group of persons to another group of persons. Therefore, the state is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults. If it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations.

In  Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde [xxxix] , it was held that the right to economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed Dalits was a fundamental right to make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.

In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa [xl] , the Supreme held that security against sickness and disablement was a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Section 39(e) of the Constitution of India.

In LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre [xli] , it was further held that right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured.

Further, Surjit Kumar v. State of UP. [xlii] is a crucial case that reads Article 21 as extending protection against honour killing.  In the case, a division bench of Allahabad high court took serious note on harassment, ill-treatment, and killing of a person for wanting to get married to a person of another caste or community. The accused justified the harassment and killing, claiming that the victim had brought dishonour to the family. The Court said that such a practice of ‘honor killing’ was a blot on society and inter-caste marriage was not against the law. Therefore, the Court directed the police to take strong measures against the accused.

Right to Health and Medical Care

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla [xliii] , it was held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ‘ambit the right to health and medical care’.

In Vincent v. Union of India , [xliv] the Supreme Court   emphasised that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. Further, Article 47, a Directive Principle of State Policy, lays stress note on the improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs detrimental to health as one of the primary duties of the state [xlv] .

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India [xlvi] , the Supreme Court laid down:

“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity requires the state to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilised living. The health and strength of worker, the Court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Art. 21.”

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India [xlvii] , the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that ‘once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored’. [xlviii] It was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with by the police.

Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those in charge of the community’s health to protect life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. No law can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession.

The Court also observed:

“Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the state to preserve life. The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment…. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.”

This link between the right to medical care and health and Article 21 played out most vividly during the pandemic. Especially since the state couldn’t manage the crisis and many people were left to fend for themselves.

To read about the right to health and Article 21, click here

Coming back to understanding the right to medical care pre-covid era, another case that understands this interlink better is Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal. [xlix] In this case, a person suffering from severe head injuries from a train accident was refused treatment at various hospitals on the excuse that they lacked the adequate facilities and infrastructure to provide treatment.

Through this case, the Supreme Court developed the right to emergency treatment. The Court went on to say that the failure on the part of the government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect to such a right. Still, it maintained that the state needed to provide for the resources to give effect to the people’s entitlement of receiving emergency medical treatment [l] .

It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing emergency medical care. Again, in Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others [li] , it was held that a hospital is duty-bound to accept accident victims and patients who are in critical condition and that it cannot refuse treatment on the ground that the victim is not in a position to pay the fee or meet the expenses or on the ground that there is no close relation of the victim available who can give consent for medical treatment [lii] .

The Court has laid stress on a crucial point, viz., the state cannot plead lack of financial resources to carry out these directions meant to provide adequate medical services to the people. The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical assistance to people on account of financial constraints.

But, in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [liii] , the Supreme Court recognised that provision of health facilities could not be unlimited. The Court held that it has to be to the extent finance permits. No country has unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects.

In Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India [liv] , the right to get free and timely legal aid or facilities was not held as a fundamental right of ex-servicemen. Therefore, a policy decision in formulating a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay a one-time contribution does not violate Art. 21, nor is it inconsistent with Part IV of the Constitution.

No Right to Die

While Article 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, does it also confers a right to a person to end their life? If so, then what is the fate of Section 309 Indian Penal Code (1860), which punishes a person convicted of attempting to commit suicide? There has been a difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the statute book.

This question came for consideration for the first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal. In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to die. The Hon’ble High Court struck down Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for an attempt to commit suicide on a person as unconstitutional.

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India [lv] , a two-judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court took cognisance of the relationship/contradiction between Section 309 IPC and Article 21. The Court supported the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case held that the right to life embodies in Article 21 also embodied in it a right not to live a forced life, to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking.

The Court argued that the word life in Article 21 means the right to live with human dignity, and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the Court concluded that the right to live of which Article 21 speaks could bring in the right not to live a forced life. The Court further emphasised that an ‘attempt to commit suicide is, in reality, a cry for held and not for punishment’.

The Rathinam ruling came to be reviewed by a full bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvi] . The question before the Court was:  if the principal offence of attempting to commit suicide is void as unconstitutional vis-à-vis Article 21, then how abetment can thereof be punishable under Section 306 IPC?

It was argued that ‘the right to die’ had been included in Article 21 (Rathinam ruling) and Sec. 309 declared unconstitutional. Thus, any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in enforcing his fundamental Right under Article 21.

The Court overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Art.21 is a provision guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life’ be read to be included in the protection of life. The Court observed further:

“……’Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life”

However, in this regard, in 2020, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the central government. The Court had asked the center to explain its stance on the conflict between Section 309 and the Mental Healthcare Act, promulgated in 2017 (MHCA). As opposed to Section 309, which criminalises attempts to suicide, the MHCA proscribes prosecution of the person attempting it. Given that the Section is colonial legislation, many have vocalised to do away with the same altogether. Additionally, in 2018, in a 134-page-long judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud said it was ‘inhuman’ to punish someone who was already distressed .

Euthanasia and Right to Life

Euthanasia is the termination of the life of a person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvii] , the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and an attempt to commit suicide.

The Court held that death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent, and the process of natural death has commenced. Therefore, these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating the conclusion of the process of natural death that has already started.

The Court further held that this might fall within the ambit of the right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. However, this cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.

Sentence of Death –Rarest of Rare Cases

The law commission of India has dealt with the issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment, collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views expressed by western scholars. The commission recommended the retention of capital punishment in the present state of the country.

The commission held recognised the on-ground conditions of India. By that, it meant the difference in the social upbringing, morality and education, its diversity and population. Given all these factors, India could not risk the experiment of the abolition of capital punishment.

In Jagmohan v. State of U P [lviii] , the Supreme Court had held that the death penalty was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. It was said that the judge was to make the choice between the death penalty and imprisonment for life based on circumstances, facts, and nature of crime brought on record during trial. Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance with the procedure established by law as required under article 21

But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P. [lix] , Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the majority, held that capital punishment would not be justified unless it was shown that the criminal was dangerous to society. The learned judge plead for the abolition of the death penalty and said that it should be retained only for ‘white collar crimes’

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [lx] , the leading case of on the question, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court explained that article 21 recognised the right of the state to deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It was further held that the death penalty for the offence of murder awarded under section 302 of IPC did not violate the basic feature of the Constitution.

Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar [lxi] , it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution-free water and air which is included in ‘right to live’ under Art.21 of the Constitution. The Court observed:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 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 right to have recourse to Art.32 of     the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”  

Right to Clean Environment

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created if not checked.

The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article 21:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) [lxii] , the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries polluting the water.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) [lxiii] , the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [lxiv] , the Court took cognisance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. As a result, the Court issued several directions to deal with the problem.

In Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan [lxv] , the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” means clean surroundings, which leads to a healthy body and mind. It includes the right to freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas.

In  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) [lxvi] , the Court held that the blatant and large-scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi violated the right to a salubrious sand decent environment. Taking note of the problem, the Court issued directives to the government on the same.

In  Murli S. Deora v. Union of India [lxvii] , the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of the act of sTherefore, rights. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.

Right Against Noise Pollution

In Re: Noise Pollution [lxviii] , the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious noise levels due to the bursting of crackers during Diwali. The Apex Court suggested to desist from bursting and making use of such noise-making crackers and observed that:

“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 the noise as pollutant reaching him.”

Continued…

“No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises that would travel beyond his precincts and cause the nuisance to neighbors or others. Any noise, which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man, is nuisance…. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 [lxix] “.

Right to Know

Holding that the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court in RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the conduct of affairs of the state.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong link between Art.21 and the right to know, particularly where secret government decisions may affect health, life, and livelihood.

Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, ruled that the citizens who had been made responsible for protecting the environment had a right to know the government proposal.

Read more about right to know here .

Personal Liberty

The liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As long as 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that,

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned… but… by the law of the land.

The smallest Article of eighteen words has the greatest significance for those who cherish the ideals of liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India, the concept of ‘liberty’ has received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognised as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The meaning of the term’ personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh’s case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits secret picketing.

Oddly enough, both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term ‘personal liberty’ by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois , which held the term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which life was enjoyed.

This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorising domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional.

The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those ‘necessarily’ lost as an incident of imprisonment

Right to Privacy and Article 21

Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy was considered a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. After the KS Puttuswamy judgment, the right to privacy has been read and understood by the Court in various landmark judgments.

The Supreme Court has culled the right to privacy from Article 21 and other provisions of the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Although no single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy, various statutes had provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserved this right . [lxx]

For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of UP , [lxxi] the Court questioned whether the right to privacy could be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came before the Court. “Surveillance” under Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations constituted an infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation 236(b), which permitted surveillance by “domiciliary visits at night”, was held to violate Article 21.  A seven-judge bench held that:

“the meanings of the expressions “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 were considered by this Court in Kharak Singh’s case. Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no explicit guarantee of a “right to privacy”, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation”

In a minority judgment, in this case, Justice Subba Rao held that:

“the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where he lives with his family, is his ‘castle’; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty”.

This case, especially Justice Subba Rao’s observations, paved the way for later elaborations on the right to privacy using Article 21.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [lxxii] , The Supreme Court took a more elaborate appraisal of the right to privacy. In this case, the Court was evaluating the constitutional validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which provided for police surveillance of habitual offenders including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects. The Supreme Court desisted from striking down these invasive provisions holding that:

“It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to surveillance.”

The Court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an emanation from Arts.19(a), (d) and 21. Mathew J. observed in the instant case,

“The Right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a process of case by case development.        Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty. the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them that one can characterise as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute….. …… Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest.”

Scope and Content of Right to Privacy Pre-Puttaswamy Judgment

Read more about the right to privacy as part of Academike’s Constitutional Rights Series here

Tapping of Telephone

Emanating from the right to privacy is the question of tapping of the telephone.

In RM Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that Courts would protect the telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen against wrongful or high handed’ interference by tapping the conversation. However, the protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants.

Telephone tapping is permissible in India under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 . The Section lays down the circumstances and grounds when an order for tapping a telephone may be passed, but no procedure for making the order is laid down therein.

The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India held that in the absence of just and fair procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens under Section 19 and 21. Accordingly, the Court issued procedural safeguards to be observed before restoring to telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Act.

The Court further ruled:

“right to privacy is a part of the right to ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”. The Court has further ruled that Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.”

Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

In Mr X v. Hospital Z [lxxv] , the question before the Supreme Court was whether the disclosure by the doctor that his patient, who was to get married had tested HIV positive, would be violative of the patient’s right to privacy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy was not absolute and might be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.

The Court explained that the right to life of a lady with whom the patient was to marry would positively include the right to be told that a person with whom she was proposed to be married was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable.

Since the right to life included the right to a healthy life to enjoy all the facilities of the human body in prime condition, it was held that the doctors had not violated the right to privacy.

Right to Privacy and Subjecting a Person to Medical Tests

It is well settled that the right to privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken to prevent crimes or disorder or protect health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. If there is a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, which advances public morality would prevail.

In the case Sharda v. Dharmpal [lxxvi] , a three-judge bench ruled that a matrimonial court had the power to direct the parties in a divorce proceeding to undergo a medical examination. A direction issued for this could not be held to violate one’s right to privacy. The Court, however, said that there must be sufficient material for this.

Right to Privacy: Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

A woman’s right to make reproductive choices includes the woman’s right to refuse participation in the sexual activity or the insistence on using contraceptive methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. The woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth subsequently raise children.

Right to Travel Abroad

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi [lxxvii] , the Supreme Court has included the right to travel abroad contained in the expression “personal liberty” within the meaning of Article 21.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [lxxviii] , the validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967, which empowered the government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of the general public, was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of the right to “personal liberty” the impugned Section didn’t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was violative of Art. 21.

The Court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that the right to travel abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding a passport under the Passport Act. Bhagwati, J., observed:

The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be “‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Right against Illegal Detention

In  Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxix] , the petitioner was detained by the police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days. Taking serious note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during the investigation:

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled if he so requests to have a friend, relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

In the case of  DK. Basu v. State of West Bengal [lxxx] , the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and detention. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the guidelines be followed till legal provisions are made on that behalf as preventive measures. It also held that any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Article 21 and Prisoner’s Rights

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not deprived of all the fundamental rights they otherwise possess by mere reason of their conviction. Following the conviction of a convict is put into jail he may be deprived of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed under Article 21, and he shall not be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by a procedure established by law [lxxxi] .

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21. The Court has interpreted Article 21 to have the widest possible amplitude. On being convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty following the procedure established by law. Article 21 has laid down a new constitutional and prison jurisprudence [lxxxii] .

The rights and protections recognised to be given in the topics to follow.

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

In  M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [lxxxiii] , while holding free legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure, the Court explained:

“the two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as government charity.”

In other words, an accused person, where the charge is of an offence punishable with imprisonment, is entitled to be offered legal aid if he is too poor to afford counsel. In addition, counsel for the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defence. Breach of these safeguards of a fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction.

Right to Speedy Trial

In  Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [lxxxiv] , the Supreme Court observed that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of law.

The Court noted the situation and observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such long periods without trials.

The Court held that detention of undertrial prisoners in jail for a period more than what they would have been sentenced to if convicted was illegal. And the same violated Article 21. The Court ordered to release of undertrial prisoners who had been in jail for a longer period than the punishment meted out in case of conviction.

In  A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [lxxxv] , a Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court dealt with the question and laid down specific guidelines for ensuring speedy trial of offences some of them have been listed below [lxxxvi] :

Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.

Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision, and retrial.

The concerns underlying the right of the speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are:

The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.

The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and

Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend him.

While determining whether the undue delay has occurred, one must regard all the attendant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the number of accused and witnesses, and the Court’s workload concerned. Every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. An accuser’s plea of denial of the speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the accused did at no time demand a speedy trial

In the case of  Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [lxxxvii] , the Supreme Court directed the Judges of the High Courts to give quick judgments, and in certain circumstances, the parties are to apply to the Chief Justice to move the case to another bench or to do the needful at his discretion.

Right to Fair Trial

The free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme Court in  Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [lxxxviii] said that the right to free and fair trial to the accused and the victims, their family members, and relatives and society at large.

Right to Bail

The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to bathe present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which insists merely on financial security from the accused and their sureties. Many of the undertrials being poor and indigent are unable to provide any financial security. Consequently, they have to languish in prisons awaiting their trials.

But incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offences during the pendency of trial cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. In Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxxix] , the Court held that the right to bail was included in the personal liberty under Article 21. Its refusal would be the deprivation of that liberty, which could be authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Anticipatory bail is a statutory right, and it does not arise out of Article 21. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.

Right Against Handcuffing

Handcuffing has been considered prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. It has been held to be unwarranted and violative of Article 21.

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration [xc] , the Supreme Court struck down the Rules that provided that every undertrial accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. Instead, the Court ruled that handcuffing should be resorted to only when there was “clear and present danger of escape” of the accused under  -trial, breaking out of police control.

Right Against Solitary Confinement

It has been held that a convict is not wholly denuded of his fundamental rights, and his conviction does not reduce him into a non – person whose rights are subjected to the whims of the prison administration. Therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison system is conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguard.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [xci] , the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Delhi session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high Court. He was detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement.

It was contended that Section 30 of the Prisoners Act does not authorise jail authorities to send him to solitary confinement, which by itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could be imposed by a court of law. Therefore, it could not be left to the whim and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner’s argument and held that the imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of Article 21.

Right Against Custodial Violence

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of having committed crimes are routine. There has been a lot of public outcry from time to time against custodial deaths.

The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities, intimidation, harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has classified these as being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with human dignity and the same are available against torture.

Death by hanging is Not Violative of Article 21

In  Deena v. Union of India [xcii] , the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging was challenged as being “barbarous, inhuman, and degrading” and therefore violative of Article 21.

The Court, in this case, referred to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949, the opinion of the Director-General of Health Services of India, the 35 th Report of the Law Commission and the opinion of the Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts. Finally, it held that death by hanging was the best and least painful method of carrying out the death penalty. Thus, not violative of Article 21.

Right against Public Hanging

The Rajasthan High Court, by an order, directed the execution of the death sentence of an accused by hanging at the Stadium Ground of Jaipur. It was also directed that the execution should be done after giving widespread publicity through the media.

On receipt of the above order, the Supreme Court in  Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi [xciii] held that the direction for the execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.

It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice. Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric, it would be a shame on the civilised society to reciprocate the same. The Court said,

“a barbaric crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.”

Right Against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [xcv] , the Supreme Court held that the delay in execution of a death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection under Article 21 and the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of the delay is immaterial. The accused himself may be the cause of the delay.

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [xcvi] , the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for the execution of a death sentence is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure, and the only way to undo that is through Article 21.

But the Court held that this could not be taken as the rule of law and applied to each case, and each case should be decided upon its own facts.  

Procedure Established by Law and Article 21

The expression ‘procedure established by law’ has been the subject of interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in judicial interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression.

The Supreme Court took the view that ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American ‘due process of law’.

But, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘right, just and fair’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’.

It also held that otherwise, it would be no procedure, and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration said:

“(though) our Constitution has no due process clause (but after Maneka Gandhi’s case) the consequence is the same, and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of the due process clause in American Constitution.”

In December 1985, the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for killing two young women by setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move, the Court ordered both prisoners to be publicly executed.

In response to a review petition by the Attorney General against this judgment, the Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings, observing that ‘a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty’.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the execution of a death sentence by public hanging violates Article 21, which mandates the observance of a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

Thus, an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground, among other things, that it was violative of Article 21. Again, in Sher Singh v State of Punjab , the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death sentence violates Article 21.

The Supreme Court has taken the view that this Article read is concerned with the fullest development of an individual, ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Therefore, every procedure must seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just’.

The right to life and personal liberty has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity.

The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be proportional to protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and the right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favour of the state is not reasonable, fair and just, even though the state cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood for all.

Under this doctrine, the Court will examine whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair and just. And whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable manner.

This has meant, for example, the right to a speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable, fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State action covering civil, criminal and administrative action.

In one of the landmark decisions in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India , the Supreme Court of India observed that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law.

The Court observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any process of law. Considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed the prohibition of smoking in public places.

It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take adequate steps to ensure the prohibition of smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions etc.

In this manner, the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon to include the rights of non-smokers.

Further, when there is an inordinate delay in the investigation – it affects the right of the accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can be no cause of action.

But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation, then the provisions of Article 21 are attracted. The right is against actual proceedings in Court and against police investigation.

The Supreme Court has widened the scope of ‘procedure established by law’ and held that merely a procedure had been established by law, a person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

Hence, it is well established that to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty must be done under a ‘procedure, established by law’. Such an exception must be made in a just, fair and reasonable manner and must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Therefore, for the procedure to be valid, it must comply with the principles of natural justice.

Article 21 and The Emergency 

In ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla [xcviii] , popularly known as the habeas corpus case, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty.

Therefore, if the presidential order suspended the right to move any court to enforce that right under Article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for challenging the legality of his detention.

Hence, such a wide connotation of Article 359 denied the cherished right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established that during the emergence of 1975, the people’s fundamental freedom had lost all meaning.

So that it must not occur again, the constitution act, 1978, amended article 359 to the effect that during the operation of the proclamation of emergency, the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential order.

Given the 44 th amendment, 1978, the observations in the above-cited judgments are left merely of academic importance.

India, legal Service. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – the Expanding Horizons , www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Scribd , Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India.

Math, Suresh Bada. “10. Rights of Prisoners.” Nimhans.kar.nic.in , www.academia.edu/1192854/10._RIGHTS_OF_PRISONERS.

“SC Agrees to Examine Right to Shelter for PAVEMENT DWELLERS-INDIA News , Firstpost.” Firstpost , Sept. 2013, www.firstpost.com/india/sc-agrees-to-examine-right-to-shelter-for-pavement-dwellers-1108073.html.

admin on August 31, 2016 4:32 PM, et al. Human Rights and Jurisprudence: Right to Life / Livelihood Archives , www.hurights.or.jp/english/human_rights_and_jurisprudence/right-to-lifelivelihood/.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India – DISCUSSED!” Your Article Library , 24 Feb. 2014, www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-discussed/5497/.

“Honour Killing.” LAW REPORTS INDIA , 29 Apr. 2011, lawreports.wordpress.com/category/honour-killing/.

Grewal, Puneet Kaur. “Honour Killings and Law in India.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science , vol. 5, no. 6, 2012, pp. 28–31., doi:10.9790/0837-0562831.

Annavarapu, Sneha. “Honor Killings, Human Rights and Indian Law.” Economic and Political Weekly , www.academia.edu/5386926/Honor_Killings_Human_Rights_and_Indian_Law.

Nandimath, Omprakash V. “Consent and Medical Treatment: The Legal Paradigm in India.” Indian Journal of Urology : IJU : Journal of the Urological Society of India , Medknow Publications, July 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779959/.

http://www.hrln.org/hrln/peoples-health-rights/pils-a-cases/1484-sc-reaffirms-workers-right-to-health-and-medical-care.html

Cases as appearing in the Article:

[i] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[ii] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[iii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[iv] 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

[v] 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

[vi] 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

[vii] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42 nd Ed. (2005), p. 222

[viii] AIR 1998 AP 302

[ix] 983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327

[x] AIR 1997 SC 3011 : (1997) 6 SCC 241

[xi] AIR 1999 SC 625

[xii] 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490

[xiii] 55 American LR 171

[xiv] 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 20

[xv] AIR 1989 SC 714.

[xvi] 1964 AIR 703, 1964 SCR (2) 363

[xvii] AIR 2003 SC 3357

[xviii] AIR 1960 SC 932

[xix] AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC 124

[xx] AIR 1986 SC 180

[xxii] http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf

[xxiii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5 th Ed. (2003), p. 1315

[xxiv] AIR 1991 SC 101

[xxv] AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679

[xxvi] Air 1996 SC 1051 : (1996) 2 SCC 549

[xxvii] AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC

[xxviii] AIR 1997 Bom. 406

[xxix] AIR 1989 SC 1988

[xxx] Supra Note ( 10 to be corrected.. olgatellis)

[xxxi] 2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806.

[xxxii] AIR 1996 SC 114

[xxxiii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India

[xxxiv] AIR (1990) SC 630 : (1990) 92 BOMLR 145 : JT 1990 (1) SC 106

[xxxv] 1996 AIR 1051, 1995( 6 )Suppl. SCR 827, 1996( 2 )SCC 549

[xxxvi] http://nsm.org.in/2008/08/29/judicial-activism-on-right-to-shelter-rights-of-the-urban-poor/

[xxxvii] AIR (1992)573 :(1991) SCR Supl. (2) 267 (Minority Opinion)

[xxxviii] AIR (1996) 1234 :(1996) SCC (1) 742

[xxxix] (1995) Supp 2 SCC 549

[xl] AIR 1995 SC 1811

[xli] AIR (1995)1811 :(1995) SCC (5) 482

[xlii] AIR 2002 NOC 265

[xliii] AIR (1997) SC 1225

[xliv] 1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468

[xlv] Supra note p.1639

[xlvi] AIR (1995) 922, (1995) SCC (3) 42

[xlvii] AIR (1989) 2039, (1989) SCR (3) 997

[xlviii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6 th (2010), p. 1616

[xlix] 1996 SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43

[l] http://blog.medicallaw.in/supreme-court-of-india-on-emergency-healthcare/

[li] II (2005) CPJ 35 NC

[lii] Supra note 41 paschim bagga case online like at end of paragraph

[liii] AIR 1998 SC 1703 : (1998) 4 SCC 117

[liv] AIR 2006 SC 2945 : (2006) 8 SCC 199

[lv] 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

[lvi] 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

[lvii] Ibid

[lviii] AIR 1973 SC 947

[lix] AIR 1979 SC 916

[lx] AIR 1980 SC 898

[lxi] 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

[lxii] AIR 1988 SC 1037 : (1987) 4 SCC 463

[lxiii] AIR 1997 SC 734 : (1997) 2 SCC 353

[lxiv] AIR 1996 SC 2721 : (1996) 5 SCC 647

[lxv] (2007) 2 SCC 413

[lxvi] (2006) 3 SCC 399

[lxvii] AIR 2002 SC 40 : (2001) 8 SCC 765

[lxviii] Writ Petition (civil) 72 of 1998

[lxix] Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution v. Union Of India &Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3136 : (2005) 5 SCC 439

[lxx] https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/ii-legal-framework-0

[lxxi] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[lxxii] 1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946

[lxxiii] 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632

[lxxiv] AIR 1997 SC 568

[lxxv] AIR 1995 SC 495

[lxxvi] AIR 2003 SC 3450

[lxxvii] 967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525

[lxxviii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[lxxix] AIR 1994 SC 1349

[lxxx] AIR 1997 SC 610

[lxxxi] Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India 47 th Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 269

[lxxxii] See Kumar, Narender, The Constitutional Law of India, 1 st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009, p-158

[lxxxiii] AIR 1978 SC 1548

[lxxxiv] AIR 1979 SC 1360

[lxxxv] AIR 1992 SC 170

[lxxxvi] Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6 th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010, p.1200

[lxxxvii] AIR 2001 SC 3173

[lxxxviii] AIR 2006 SC 1367

[lxxxix] AIR 1978 SC 527

[xc] AIR 1980 SC 1535

[xci] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[xcii] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xciii] AIR 1986 SC 467

[xciv] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xcv] AIR 1981 SC 643

[xcvi] AIR 1983 SC 465

[xcvii] AIR 1966 SC 424

[xcviii] AIR 1976 SC 1207

Related Posts:

47 thoughts on “Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer”

The information is quite helpful. Thanks

above the information sufficient for my case……….thanks

thanks ? If u need any help please let me know

very very informative…thanks..god bless you for spreading knowledge….

Awesome .this is 360′ information canopy .

very well presented…very useful and informative article

it is very nice work to 21 artices i am very heipful in all my acadimc year .LLb

what about right to choice falling under the same article?

I would expect, that falls within the ambit of “personal liberty.”

Sir how could I get natural justice as poor man, I am not able to afford fees of court etc. Help me. Facts with related land disputed.

Very Well drafted after depth research on the topic. Good reference specially to the judgments/law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. THANK YOU for serving society. Very useful for everyone.

Good work. It is very helpful to everyone to know about Article 21, especially to law students.Thanks a lot.

Thanks for the details

it’s good relay helping to the staudy

1. Thanks for a very exhaustive discussion and its footnotes. 2. I am an accused in a fake criminal case filed by my sibling about misappropriation of funds from our father’s firm. Based on this the IO sealed all bank accounts belonging to my father, me, my wife etc., in year-2014. They continue to be sealed. 3. My father died in 2016, so anyways the banks have sealed his accounts till a successor is decided. The charge sheet was filed in Feb-2017. 4. There is a nexus between my sibling and the IO and whatever information that I provide to the IO reaches my sibling, which is detrimental to me. 5. U/s 173(8) CrPC, (ongoing investigation), can the IO force me to provide details of my new bank accounts, which I started after the date when he sealed all accounts in 2014? 6. Can I refuse to provide the IO this information using the protection offered by Article 21 of the Constitution? 7. Thanks.

It’s really help me for my clat preparation ….

can a resident of society ,write on Facebook /social media that association members are goonda/goons ,related to apartment owners association

thank u for the wonderful explanation

Thank u so much This information is really helpful

its very effective

A wonderful article

Is there any special format for filing cases in supreme court for the violation of dignity?

Floods, due to human negligence and loss of human lives, loss of livestock and agricultural loss that disrupts Right to Life which also comes under Article 21, have not been covered in the article.

People are fighting for resarvations these days why? Art 21 of our constitution embodies Equal right to life and liberty still why they fight for Resarvations why?

Reservation is politically motivated, every political party wants to continue reservation for seeking votes, since in our country caste and religion play a vital role In every election. The only solution is to give up reservation by those who don’t really need it.

It is in article 15 where suoreme court held that the state is permitted to make any provision for the advancement of any social and educationally backward classes. I prefer you to go through RIGHT TO EQUALITY article(14-18) Its clear all your fought regarding reservation and quota etc

If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

It is my first comment. If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

If you are going for finest contents like me, simply go to see this site daily as it offers quality contents, thanks

Is premature termination from employment without any reason against Article 21 of our Constitution?

Awesome post.

thankyou your feedback

The whole Article is explained in a very easy laungage, with land mark cases this is the best example of compilation of the work. I appreciate the efforts taken by the author

reservations in education and jobs are supposed to be for 10 years. But they appear to be perennial. In this context in have got certain doubts. 1. Did Dr Ambedkar suggest reservations only based on cast. regardless of merit,aptitude and capability? 2. Is it fair for a collector or doctor to retain the reservation facility for his children? 3.Reservation is snatching away opportunities from poor eligible, so called upper class candidates. Is it not against his fundamental right to live ?

The very purpose of Reservations is Adequate Representation in all feilds mandated by the Indian Constitution.But people from certain communities think Reservations means earmarking certain number of posts in the field of employment for the SC and ST communities.Here one more thing is to mention. Reservations are extended after every ten years.Why? Becasue in the knowledge of Govt the goals set by are not acheived. But the occupancy in high level posts by the non reserved communities is abnormal.It is an open secret but nobody questions.The answer is best known to the people who points their finger at the SC and STs only.

what is the relation between liberty and life

Excellent Information provides To read more visit the link :

‘The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ Can somebody please cite the case in which this was held by Supreme Court of India?

This article is so informative and yet not too exhaustive to understand! Thankyou so much, it’s of great help

Greetings, Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. You’re doing a great job, Keep it up. You can check out this article, might be of help 🙂

it is very useful

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Thanks, I’m not interested

EXPANDING HORIZONS OF RIGHT TO LIFE WITH DIGNITY UNDER ARTICLE 21

• 3(3):174-207

• Amity University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Insights IAS Brochure |
• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2025
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude
• Insights IAS Brochure

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Article 21 of the Constitution provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Analyse the value principle involved and its relevance in today’s context.

Topic:  Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary—Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.

3. Article 21 of the Constitution provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Analyse the value principle involved and its relevance in today’s context.(250 words)

Reference:  Indian Polity by Lakshmikant

Why this question: The question is based on the significance of Article 21, the principle involved in it and its relevance. Key demand of the question: Explain the relevance of Article 21, its significance with respect to right to life and the principle underlying. Directive: Analyze – When asked to analyse, you have to examine methodically the structure or nature of the topic by separating it into component parts and present them as a whole in a summary. Structure of the answer: Introduction: Explain Article 21 in short first. Body: Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found shelter, growth, and nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements those are essential, and unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to life. The expression of personal liberty in Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation. The court emphasized that the expression of personal liberty is of wide amplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man. Discuss the contemporary situations which limit life and personal liberty. Analyse the value principle of Article 21 and its relevance in today’s context Conclusion: In the course of time, Article 21 has come to be regarded as the heart of the Fundamental Rights. It has enough positive content in it, and it is not merely negative in its reach.

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

Article 21: Guardian of Right to Life and Personal Liberty Under Indian Constitution

• Post author: Manik Tindwani
• Post published: 17 July 2023
• Post category: Articles
• Reading time: 12 mins read

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty to all persons. It states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” [1]. This right is available not just to citizens but to all persons within the territory of India [2]. Over the years, the scope of Article 21 has been considerably expanded through judicial interpretation. From mere existence, the Right to Life under Article 21 now comprehends within its ambit the right to live with dignity and encompasses a variety of rights essential for meaningful existence [3]. Similarly, the expression ‘personal liberty’ has acquired a wide interpretation covering varied aspects of individual freedom [4]. Article 21 is no longer confined to protection against executive action but has been extended even against hostile legislation [5]. This paper analyzes the evolutionary journey of Article 21 and its emergence as the guardian of precious fundamental rights.

Historical Background of Article 21

India became an independent democratic republic on 26th January 1950 after centuries of colonial rule. The framers of the Constitution wanted to secure socio-economic justice and dignified life to common masses. Fundamental rights were incorporated in Part III to arrest State encroachment on individual liberties. Right to life and personal liberty received specific mention in Article 21 owing to its supreme importance. The language of Article 21 is similar to the due process clause of the American Constitution [6] and Article 31 of the Irish Constitution [7]. However, ‘due process’ was replaced with ‘procedure established by law’ during drafting to prevent judicial review of laws violating Article 21 [8]. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [9], the Supreme Court gave a narrow interpretation to Article 21 limiting personal liberty to merely freedom from physical restraint. This was overturned in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [10], where the Court ruled that procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. Post-Maneka Gandhi, Article 21 has been given an expansive interpretation enhancing human rights and dignity.

Right to Live with Human Dignity under Article 21

In Francis Mullin v. UT of Delhi [11], the Supreme Court ruled that Right to Life includes right to live with human dignity, having bare necessities like nutrition, clothing, shelter, facilities for reading, writing, expressing oneself and interacting with fellow humans. Any act debasing dignity constitutes deprivation of Article 21 rights. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI [12], the Court held that Right to Live with dignity encompassed freedom from exploitation. Non-implementation of labor laws and non-payment of minimum wages violated workers’ right to live with dignity under Article 21 [13]. Right to shelter and housing is also part of human dignity [14].

Right to Livelihood

Right to livelihood emerged from judicial interpretation of Right to Life under Article 21. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [15], eviction of pavement dwellers was held unconstitutional since it deprived them of livelihood without procedure established by law. In D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries [16], the Court ruled that lay-off allowing employer to refuse work under the Industrial Disputes Act violated workers’ livelihood affecting their quality of life and hence, contravened Article 21. Right to livelihood includes several ancillary rights like right to shelter [17], right to food [18], right to water [19], right to education [20], right to health [21] etc. which are integral to dignified living.

Right to Free Legal Aid

In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [22], the Supreme Court recognised right to free legal aid as implicit in Article 21 and part of reasonable, fair and just procedure. Lack of legal aid to poor or ignorant persons would render Article 21 ineffective. Hence, legal aid at State’s expense was mandatory under Article 39A read with Articles 14 and 21 in case of deprived accused persons.

Right to Free and Compulsory Education under Article 21

Though originally placed under Directive Principles [23], Right to Education up to age 14 years became a fundamental right under Article 21A through the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002. It operationalised the State’s obligation under Article 21 to provide educational facilities and opportunities as an integral component of dignified life and personality development. Education is quintessential for growth of human capital and meaningful exercise of citizenship.

Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21

Inordinate delay in criminal trial infringes personal liberty under Article 21. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar [24], the Court directed release of undertrial prisoners detained beyond period of punishment prescribed for offence charged with since detention beyond that period was unjustified, unfair and unreasonable. Right to speedy trial secures ends of justice, prevents undue hardship and crucially upholds liberty. Guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal cases were outlined in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [25]. Repeated adjournments and frivolous litigation tactics by the State violate accused’s right to speedy trial [26].

Right to Pollution-free Environment

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [27], the Supreme Court recognised Right to pollution-free environment under the wide scope of Right to Life in Article 21. It held Right to Life included right to sustainable environment and ecology free from air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution and other hazards injurious to health. The Polluter Pays principle was evolved as a condition for carrying on hazardous industries and operating controls and technologies to combat pollution [28]. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [29], the Court reiterated that Right to Life comprised right to protect and preserve environment including lakes, forests, rivers and wildlife.

Right to Privacy

Right to privacy i.e. right to be left alone is a concomitant of personal liberty under Article 21. Telephone-tapping [30] and narco-analysis tests [31] against consent were held to be unconstitutional invasions of privacy. Privacy includes autonomy to make intimate decisions regarding marriage [32], procreation [33], contraception [34] etc. without State interference. In the landmark Puttaswamy judgment [35], the Supreme Court unanimously declared Right to Privacy as intrinsic to Right to Life and personal liberty under Article 21. It is an essential facet of human dignity and agency. However, no right is absolute and reasonable restrictions are permissible.

Rights of Prisoners

Prisoners retain their fundamental rights save those lost owing to detention [36]. Solitary confinement and other forms of custodial torture violate prisoner’s Right to Life under Article 21 [37]. Right to health and medical care extends to inmates as well [38]. The State has a duty to ensure prisoners are treated humanely and provided safe, hygienic living conditions in jails. Disciplinary action must follow principles of natural justice and fairness [39]. Capital punishment per se does not violate Article 21 [40]. However, execution of death sentence must satisfy due process and be subject to judicial review [41].

Right against Custodial Violence

Custodial torture and violence abridges both life and personal liberty without sanction of law. It reduces humans to their animal existence bereft of dignity. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra [42], the Court issued directives for welfare and safety of women prisoners. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [43], guidelines were framed for arrest, detention and interrogation to curb custodial deaths and abuse of police power. Award of compensation for custodial torture has also received judicial sanction as a mode of redress under public law jurisdiction [44].

From its limited original scope, Article 21 has blossomed into the magna carta of human rights and dignity through remarkable judicial activism. Instead of verbatim application, it has witnessed progressive interpretation guided by socio-economic realities. The Indian Supreme Court has creatively capitalized on the phrase ‘right to life’ to recognize many un-enumerated liberties and entitlements essential for meaningful existence in current times. Article 21 symbolizes the living Constitution open to re-interpretation with changing circumstances. By continually expanding frontiers of Article 21 through purposive construction, the Court has emerged as custodian of fundamental rights and dispenser of social justice in India. Dynamic interpretation has transformed Article 21 into a guarantor of human rights and development inline with constitutional goals. However, expansive construction also raises concerns about judicial overreach [45]. The delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint needs continual calibration for robust realization of constitutional vision and values.

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 21.

[2] Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465 (India).

[3] P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 (India).

[4] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

[5] Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 (India).

[6] U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.

[7] Art. 40(4), Constitution of Ireland 1937.

[8] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 (India).

[10] (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

[11] (1981) 1 SCC 608 (India).

[12] (1984) 3 SCC 161 (India).

[13] Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 (India).

[14] Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 (India).

[15] (1985) 3 SCC 545 (India).

[16] (1993) 3 SCC 260 (India).

[17] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 (India).

[18] PUCL v. Union of India, (2001) 5 SCC 294 (India).

[19] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.

[20] Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 (India).

[21] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37 (India).

[22] (1978) 1 SCC 598 (India).

[23] INDIA CONST. art. 41.

[24] (1979) 1 SCC 27 (India).

[25] (1992) 1 SCC 225 (India).

[26] Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (India).

[27] (1991) 1 SCC 598 (India).

[28] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 (India).

[29] (1997) 1 SCC 388 (India).

[30] R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471 (India).

[31] Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 (India).

[32] Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 (India).

[33] Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 (India).

[34] Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726 (India).

[35] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).

[36] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., (1978) 4 SCC 494 (India).

[38] Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286 (India).

[39] Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 (India).

[40] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 (India).

[41] Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 (India).

[42] (1983) 2 SCC 96 (India).

[43] (1997) 1 SCC 416 (India).

[44] Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 (India).

[45] A.L. SOMAIAH, Dynamics of Judicial Activism, THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 566–585 (2006).

You Might Also Like

Influence of legislation on judiciary, insanity defence: a loophole for criminals, overview on platform & gig worker.

• Journal Website
• Call For Papers
• Volume 1 Issue 2
• Submit Assignment
• Join our team
• Write for us
• Case Analysis
• Legal Drafts
• 20th Edition Harvard Blue Book
• Submit Event
• Quiz Competitions
• Call for Papers
• Courses & Workshops
• Essay Competitions
• MUNs, Youth Parliament & Other Competitions
• Apply For Internship
• Internship Reviews
• Verify Internship Certificate
• About LawFoyer

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Constitution
• Constitutional law

Ambit of Article 21 under Indian Constitution

This article is written by Shruti Singh , a student at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida. In this article, she discusses the Constitution of India, Article 21. 

Table of Contents

Introduction 

The article prohibits the deprivation of rights according to procedures established by law. Article 21 is the heart of the Indian Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in our Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights are protected under the charter of rights in the Constitution of India. Article 21 talks about equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, religious and cultural freedom, etc. Article 21 is valid for every citizen of India. It is also valid for foreign citizens. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 21 has two types of rights: 

• Right to life 

Right to personal liberty

Right to life.

Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The right to life is the fundamental right in the Indian constitution. Human rights are only attached to living beings.  The right to life is the most valuable rights to citizens. There would have been no Fundamental Rights, worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This article examines the right to life which is interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in numerous cases.

Right to life is a fundamental aspect of life without which we cannot live as a human being and it includes all those aspects of life which go to make a human being’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is only the article in the constitution that has received the widest possible interpretation. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to shelter, growth, and nourishment are mentioned. Because it is the bare necessity, minimum and basic requirements that are essential and unavoidable for a person for the right to life and other rights.  

Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts of the case

By the terms of the life, the existence of animals is more important. The inhibition against deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul of our body communicates with the outer world. 

The Judgment of the case:

The apex court held that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right in the Constitution of India

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

  The protection of our liberty is the mere responsibility of our law as our Constitution of India quoted. As we see the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution of India. So according to this Supreme Court has the mere responsibility to protect and guarantee fundamental rights. As a citizen of India, we have all the fundamental rights which are established by law. So we can enforce it through the Supreme Court whenever our fundamental rights get violated.

Right to constitutional remedy is the part of fundamental rights so it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to exercise the Judicial Review through writs or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme court has made the judicial process as a bulwark of personal liberties. 

“The Article 32 of the Constitution is the soul of the constitution of India and it is also considered as the heart of the Indian Constitution because in case of Right to life or any right which belongs to human beings we only refer Article 32 of the Indian Constitution”.

  T he Constitution of India is the most valuable law. Personal liberty is developed from the Magna Carta. Personal liberty is not subjected to imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner. Positivity is the basic element of personal liberty. 

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

In this case, Manenka Gandhi issued a passport for the foreign tour from the passport office. But the Regional Passport officer Delhi has informed the petitioner about the passport that this decision is taken by the Government of India for the acceptance of passport. Because of this reason the petitioner had to surrender her passport within 7 days. After some time the Government rejected the passport saying it is against the interest of the general public. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the government for impounding the passport and declining from doing so.  

In the case of Maneka Gandhi the Supreme Court gave a new direction to Article 21 and said that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes the ambit of the right to live with human dignity.

Right to Equality

Right to equality is also the part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which is the fundamental right. This right includes equality before the law, the prohibition of discrimination, etc.  No citizen can be discriminated against based on sex, caste, colour, creed or religion. And it is a fundamental right which cannot be violated by anyone. If this right is violated then it is the dishonour of Article 21. 

Equality before law:  

The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. 

The rule of law is governed by the State Government or the people who are appointed by the law. Equality before the law means every person has to follow the rules and regulations of law that are implemented under the Constitution of India. No law should be violated by any person. If anyone violates the rule of law they are punishable by a court of law. Rule of law also confers that every person is protected within the territory of India. No person can be discriminated against related to sex, gender, caste or religion. Every citizen of India has the right to life under Article 21. The person who came from other countries to India is also guaranteed the right under Article 21.

Supremacy of law

It is a fundamental concept of Rule of Law which requires both citizens as well as governments to understand the concept of law. It gives generality in the concept of law. In past days, it is the principle of Equality before the Law. No person can make their law because the law is governed by the established laws. The rule of law is not easily changeable. Rule of law is the stable laws that are an essential part of individual freedom and security.

Equality before law

The principle of supremacy of law is used in cheques and balances which is under government for making and administering the law. The law does not discriminate between people about sex, religion, race, etc. this concept is codified in the Indian Constitution under Article 14 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the preamble and article 7.  

The Predominance of a legal spirit

This is a requirement for the rule of law because it was insufficient to simply include the above two principles in the Constitution of the country or in its other laws for the state to be one in which the principles of rule of law are being followed. There must be an enforcing authority and it is believed that this authority could be found in the courts. The courts are the enforcers of the rule of law and they must be both impartial and free from all external influences. Thus the freedom of the judicial becomes an important pillar to the rule of law. 

Right against discrimination:  This is defined under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. No person can be discriminated based on:

• Religion, race or caste
• Place of birth 

Every citizen has the right to life, education, work, speech, and expression, etc. even the weaker section of the society has the right to education or work in the reputed institution with higher caste people. They have full right to get marks based on merit, not based on caste or religion.

Every person has the right to respect. No one can be humiliated or tortured based on caste or religion. Today in many places low caste people have to face many difficulties based on caste. Higher caste people torture them and kill them because of the caste system. Because in India maximum peoples are unaware of law prescribed in our Indian Constitution. This happens because of low education standards. The person who belongs to the lower caste is not allowed to study in schools with the higher caste people and even they have no money to get an education.

This is a reason high poverty in India. Every person has the right to worship in the temple as well as a masjid or any god house they want to pray  Because god is the same for everyone. So no person is discriminated against based on religion or caste. Even lower caste people have the right to enter the temple to pray to god. Even Muslims can celebrate all the festivals of any religion and celebrate together.    

• Right of opportunity to employment : No person can be unemployed after pursuing higher education. Even the person who is not educated and belongs to a lower society has the right to work according to their area of interest. If any person knows and if he is from low caste than also they have the right to work and earn money. And everyone has the right to choose their area of interest where they want to work.

It is not enforceable by law. Even a woman has the right to work in reputed companies and institutions. Because women are also educated so they have the right to employment too. Weaker section of society has also the right to work with normal people in the same company as well. There should be no discrimination. Every child has the right to get marks in the examination based on their merit and select the student for higher studies based on their merit and it cannot be violated.

Even after education anyone can move to foreign for employment and get a higher paid in the company. Employment also includes promotion. Anyone can start their business as per and requirements. Employment also includes reservation for the special persons. Note: rephrase  

• Right against untouchability: Untouchability is abolished by Supreme Court. So no one gets discriminated based on caste and untouchability. Even today in small cities the person who belongs to the low caste has to work in houses for cleaning the dustbins and toilets. They have to face untouchability. Even when the government has provided free education for these people then also they don’t pursue education and work in houses and have to face these problems. They have to live with their community people in a  separate place. They are not allowed to live with high-class people. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Environment protection 

This is recognized by our legal system that it is a very old invention of our judiciary. It is also part of our Fundamental right. There were some judicial pronouncements for this right. Environmental protection is the most important duty of the Government as well as a citizen of India. If we do not protect our environment we can’t live in it. The most important thing for the protection of the environment is growing more and more trees in our area. Because trees give us oxygen, food, water, etc. and if we don’t plant trees, birds and animals don’t get food to eat and they can die. Birds and animals make our environment healthy and beautiful. Pollution is the reason why our environment is getting polluted. People cut down trees to make buildings and complexes. Birds are not getting shelter to live and they are getting extinct.    

Judicial pronouncements on Right to clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. The state and its citizens have to take responsibility for the right to clean the environment because we live in this environment. It gives us shelter, food, water, light, etc. so we keep our environment safe and clean and pollution-free.  

Subhash Kumar v. The State of Bihar .

In this case of Subhas Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, the Court observed that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for a healthy life. 

Judgment of the case:

From this case, the Court recognises some of the rights related to environmental rights that are:

• The right to a healthy environment is a part of the fundamental right to life. 
• Municipalities and a large number of other concerned governmental agencies have no content and unimplemented measures for the abatement and prevention of pollution. The government may take some positive measures to improve the environment.    

   Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun and others .

The petitioner alleged that illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun region causing damage to the fragile ecosystem in the area in the Supreme Court of India. This petition is considered as the public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

After the petition filed Supreme has given the order to inspect the illegal mining sites. After the inspection, it is noticed that the illegal mining site has a very adverse effect on the environment.

Right to clean environment

Every citizen has the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. Under the Indian Constitution, every person in this world has responsibility for a healthy environment and they have to take some appropriate measures to prevent any kind of environmental harm so they can maintain a healthy environment. They also work to prevent environmental destruction and aim to preserve nature and its natural resources. There are many treaties registered under the UN environmental program for the protection of the environment. 

Stockholm 1972 – Declaration of the United Nations Conference .

Stockholm Declaration was the first international conference on the human environment held   1972 which emphasises on the right to a healthy environment. 

Principles of Stockholm Declaration:

•  Stockholm Declaration is established for the foundation of human rights and environmental protection, it declares that man has a fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life in an environment that permits a life of dignity and well-being. 

The resolution is held for the enhancement to give efforts towards ensuring a better and healthier environment. The conference issued the Declaration on the Human Environment stating 26 principles.   

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

Facts of the case- 

There is a company named Birla Textile in Calcutta. There were 2800 workers who worked for 30 years. Their services were in jeopardy upon the closure of the industry in Delhi. They claimed that they should get full back wages with effect from December 1, 1996. And they also claimed that they should get a 1-year bonus as a shifting bonus. 

When workers claim the work period of 30 years then the court gives the order to the relief sought:

• Payment of wages to the workers
• Treat all the workers as regular employees. 
• It also gives the order to give a 1- year wage as a shifting bonus. 

 Facts of the case

In this case, the Supreme court has removed the vehicle named BS-IV. Since this vehicle created a high amount of pollution in the city and destroyed nature as well. So for the right to clean environment, the court decided to remove the vehicle from the country as well. 

The court brings the decisions on the issue as to whether such a vehicle is a two-wheeler, four-wheeler, or a commercial vehicle, etc. 

Right against Noise Pollution 

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that forces our ears and it causes pain and annoyance. Section 2 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ). Pollution means the destruction of the environment because of various reasons like solid, liquid or gaseous substance including the presence of noise. It may cause injury to human beings as well as plants and animals. Noise is described as unpleasant and irritating to the ear. If we see the measurement of noise, a decibel is a standard for the measurement of noise. The zero on a decibel scale is at the threshold of hearing, the lowest sound pressure that can be heard, on the scale. 

Sources of noise pollution 

• Road traffic – The noise which is created by the vehicles on the road is the most disturbing element which causes noise pollution in comparison to all types of noise. Because the population of vehicles is increasing day by day. People all the time uses vehicles to roam around. So it creates noise 24 hours a day.  
• Aircraft noise : This is the type of noise which is created by airplanes. In today’s time, people prefer to travel from airplanes to save time. So it creates very high noise pollution in society. These noises distract people from their work. Many times kids get attracted to this sound.
• Noise from railroads : The noise which is created from the vehicles which move on the road. Horns and whistles and switching and shunting operation in rail yards can impact neighboring communities and railroad workers.  
• Construction noise : many times in society, construction works are done to make the buildings in which machines are used for cementing which creates very serious noise pollution. That machine creates a lot of noise in society and it becomes a very serious issue for everyone. It goes on for many days. 
• Noise in the industry : Noise which comes from industry does not create so much noise because industries are not established everywhere in the city. Factories and industries in some particular places far from societies. But the person who works in the industry face some problems with the industrial noise. Their ears get highly affected by the sound of machines which are used in factories and buildings. 
• Noise in building : This is a type of noise pollution which is created by the home appliances which are used in the home for the personal use of families like generator, motor, coolers, mixers, etc. noise is also created from the music player, T.V which we play in our homes for our entertainment. In the time of marriage, people use a DJ in their homes for entertainment, it also creates noise pollution. In metropolitan cities, the government restricts DJ at night after 10 pm. But in smaller cities, this rule must be followed for public safety from noise destruction.     
• Harmful effects : all the people are affected by noise pollution like human animals, birds, etc. noise pollution could make irritational to anyone. 
• Legal control : noise pollution can be prevented by the limited use of the products from which noise pollution is created. All the products which create noise pollution are to be used in only specific times.   

Right to pollution-free water and air 

Environment and life are interrelated with each other.  Life exists on the earth depends on the environment. Human beings are responsible for the environment. Human beings are at the center of sustainable development and they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Pollution becomes a very serious issue in the case of the environment. The overuse of petrol and diesel in the vehicle creates excessive pollution. Every year a new vehicle is launched. Because more and more are used in the roadside it creates pollution. Because of this reason plants, birds, and animals are getting adversely affected. They are getting extinct day by day. Plants are getting polluted. Human beings are also getting affected and they are caused by different types of diseases. Water is also get affected. In many states, water was scarce by which people are dying. All the persons, animals, birds need fresh air and water and shelter to live. 

• Chhabil Das vs. State & others .

Facts of the case:

Bhartiya Kisan Singh filed a Writ petition before the court for the issue of pollution of water in a minor canal, which passes through the Sri Ganganagar district. After some time this case transferred to National Green Tribunal after giving some directions. After some days again Bhartiya Kisan Singh filed a writ petition for other canals of Sri Ganganagar district claiming that water in these canals is polluted. 

The first decision was issued by the Division Bench and the division bench transferred the case to the National Green Tribunal. Second, the High Court of Jodhpur passed the report to the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board. 

Right to privacy under article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Meaning and concept of the right of life.

“ The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.

India’s Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental …

The right to privacy is developing from the past 60 years. And it is the most consistent right in the Constitution of India. After two judgments right of privacy becomes the fundamental right. Privacy is the necessary condition of guaranteed freedom. The supreme court has not guaranteed the right to privacy as an explicit fundamental right to the citizens.

The Supreme Court has constructed the right to privacy as a part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. At last Supreme court declares “The Right of Privacy” as a Fundamental Right that does not need to be separately articulated but can be derived from Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The fundamental right to privacy is not absolute and always subject to reasonable restrictions. The State imposes some restrictions on the right to privacy to protect the public interest. If we talk about the right to information in the case of the right to privacy, both are related to each other in holding, they complement each other in holding governments accountable to individuals. Law provides information to the people who are held by the government bodies. 

The relation between Privacy and RTI 

• The relation between privacy and RTI, they are the two sides of the same coin means both acts as complementary rights that promote an individual’s right to protect themselves and to promote government accountability. 
• This is a type of considerable debate. Around 50 countries adopted these laws.
• Privacy is challenged by new technologies and practices but RTI laws have access to new information and communications technologies, and web sites containing searchable government records.

  Case laws

   Kharak Singh vs The State Of UP & Others .

 This case is related to dacoity, the petitioner was challenged in the dacoity but he gets released because there was no evidence against. But police opened the history sheet against and put him under surveillance. Surveillance means involving in secret pickpocketing of the house or approaches to the houses of the suspects, domiciliary visits at night. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, in which he challenged the constitutional validity of U.P police regulations. 

The court gives separate judgment and put the enquiry on the police officials. And said petitioner right gets violated. 

  Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration

In this case, the petitioner is the prisoner,  he has been tortured. 

judges of the court alleges that torture was practiced by other prisoners to recover money from the victim. Because of the letter, this case is converted into Habeas Corpus.  

Rajagopal vs State Of T.N

There were three petitioners in the case the first petitioner is the editor, printer and publisher of a Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran, published from Madras. The second petitioner works as the associate editor of the magazine. 

All the petitioners were challenged for more than 6 murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death. The petitioner has appeared in court but judges dismissed his petition.  

Scope and content of Right to Privacy

• Impact of Right to Privacy in the case of Aadhaar, freedom of expression and sexuality

The privacy of the individual is the duty and responsibility of the government. In the case of aadhar card, it is the government id proof for the individual. Aadhar card should be biometric and is fully protected so no fraud can cause.

• Tapping of telephone

To protect the country from crime or fraud and for the protection of national security of the country, the government has started tapping the phone calls, texts, and emails of people. But this is a very serious question raised against the Right to Privacy. Their fundamental rights are being violated through this phone tapping.

There must be some limitations in the phone tapping of people. Because the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As the right of tapping the phone of people is mentioned under the Union list so the Government has the right to tapping. The authority needs the permission of the Home Minister to tap the phone of the people during the investigation of any crime.  

• Safeguards against phone tapping 

Phone tapping is a very serious issue coming around. Many scandals have come regarding the issue of phone tapping. It has become a political agenda. It is a rule that phone tapping can be done by the government officials only and not by a normal person. The apex court has said that tapping of phones or wiretaps is a very serious invasion of privacy of an individual, and also recognized as the right to privacy which falls under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Right to Privacy is also under ICCPR in article 17. India is the party of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The conversation of the people is considered as the freedom of speech and expression which is also coming under article 19(1)(a).  

•    Remedies 
• Unauthorized tapping of the phone and interception is the violation of the right to privacy, and it is the rule that if anyone gets tapped fraudulently than he can make a complaint against them with the National Human Rights Commission. 
• Disclosure of diseases

Diseases can be disclosed in front of doctors. Because the relationship  between doctor and patient is a trusting relationship. So, there was no privacy between doctor and patient in the case of healthcare. This is the duty of the patient to share all the information related to their health problems like bodily functions, physical and sexual activities and medical history so the doctor can protect the patient from severe diseases or any other severe problem related to health. There were female as well as male doctors so women can comfortably share their sexual issues in front of a female doctor.

Medicines are also available for the protection of health. Doctors help the patient to gain knowledge about some of the diseases that create in the body due to genetic issues. They are the big informer of the patient. In today’s world, many schools and colleges give sex education to the students so they can protect themselves from harmful diseases that   due to reproductive parts of the body. But there are some limitations in the privacy of the information which is provided by the doctor to the patient related to pregnancy.  

• Legislation of health privacy
• Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Epidemic diseases include all infectious diseases like chikungunya, dengue fever, and many infectious diseases. There were many severe infectious health diseases in India as well as foreign countries through which threat is increased to the public health security of India. Legal frameworks are very important in the case of public health security. So that the government has to respond in case of health issues and duties and rights of the citizen. Then this act came into existence in the year 1897. This act is invoked in many states of India. 

• Limitations of this act :

This act is made about 118 years ago and has many limitations.                      

Woman’s right to make reproductive choices

In the case of reproductive choices, abortion and surrogacy is the major issue in India nowadays.Many times due to some medical issues people are preferring surrogacy mother for the child and they don’t try to adopt the child. People usually try to threaten people with the help of money and force women to become surrogacy mothers against their choice. Women are seriously affected by this abortion and surrogacy.

In the case of abortion, many times families force women to abort their child because of a girl child. Families fraudulently get to know the gender of the child and force women to abort their child. This becomes a very serious crime in India. This crime mainly happens in village areas. Many women get tortured due to girl child if abortion doesn’t happen. Reproductive rights are the personal autonomy of a woman’s privacy.

Women have the full right to make a reproductive choice even after marriage. Even after marriage if the husband tries to force their wife for the sex then it is considered as the marital rape and the woman can file a petition against her husband. Consent is very important in the case of reproductive choices. Because it is the most sensitive part of the female body.  

Right to privacy to private medical test

The term privacy means about to with concerning medical is called domestic legislation in the context of a doctor and patient relationship. This relationship is established from the Indian Medical Council Act of 1952, under section 20(a) . Section 20(a) says that the doctor has to adhere all the time. 

Privacy of health care includes some of the privacy:

• Informational privacy which means confidentiality, anonymity, secrecy and data security.
• Physical privacy means modesty and bodily integrity.
• Associational privacy means intimate sharing of death, illness ,and recovery.
• Proprietary privacy means self-ownership and control over personal identifiers, genetic data, and body tissues. 
• Decisional privacy means autonomy and choice in medical decision-making. 
• Medical confidentiality

It is a set of rules which say that medical problems are only shared with doctors or other medical practitioners. It is the responsibility of the doctor to keep all the details of his or her patient confidential. If because of some reasons patient has to change the doctor for their medical issue so they have to share their medical report to the new doctor in case patient must take consent from the previous doctor so they can share their confidentiality report to a new doctor. 

• Privacy violations about to with concerning policy and information.

The policy of health care privacy is that the report of the medical health cannot be shared with the third party without the consent of the patient. It is the issue of breach of the privacy of health care. 

Here are some issues which violate the privacy of medical health:

• Inadequate information to the patient related to data.
• Data is collected unlimited and unnecessary related to personal health data.
• Collection of health data which is inaccurate or irrelevant.
• Doctor’s refusal in providing the medical records.
•  Disclosure of personal health information is caused by embarrassing the patient.
• Mental Health Act, 1987

The provisions of the Mental Health Act,1987 is to protect the privacy of the medical health of the patient and medical report is to be kept confidential. Medical health data cannot be disclosed. 

Statements and objects of the Mental Health Act:

• Mental ill persons are to be treated from the early period. They are to be treated like a normal person so it will help them to cure fast at an early stage. 
• In the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 it says that, with the advancement of medical science, there is a provision in this act for the treatment of mentally ill persons by following per under the new approach.
• Many times mentally ill persons become dangerous to society if they are not in the early stages of life. 
• Maintenance charges to be paid for the admission of a mentally ill person if in any case, they try to harm people in the mental hospital.
•   has the power to regulate the license to control psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric nursing homes. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution right to life 

Prisoners right is also a fundamental right. They have the right to life as a normal being, no matter if they are in prison. They have full rights in the prison as well.

•   Article 14 of the Indian Constitution cannot deny to any person for equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
• Article 19 of the constitution of India mentions six freedoms to all citizens of India. 
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India mention about Right to Life and Personal and personal liberty

These articles that all persons, as well as prisoners, have the right to life, right to equality, and the right to personal liberty. In the prisons as well.  

There are more following rights which are especially for prisoners:

• Violations of Human Rights of Prison Inmates – Legal Service India
• Right to Free Legal Aid – Legal Services India
• Right to a Speedy Jury Trial – FindLaw
• Amendment VIII – The United States Constitution
• Article 6: Right to a fair trial | Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Custodial violence | ABDUL AZEES SIRAJUDEEN – Academia.edu
• Prisoners right

Prisoners are also considered as the normal human beings as they convicted crime and they have to stay in prison for whole life this does not mean they have no right. They have an equal right to life and personal liberty. Prisoners have their rights which is provided by our Government of India. Prisoners should not be treated as in-humans in prison. They are to be treated nicely in prison.

They have the full right to get a chance to change themselves, so prisons provide them with all the facilities in the prison-like food, schooling ,and medical facilities as well. In all the rights prisoners don’t have the right to release. They have to spend their whole life in prison as the decision of the court. 

• Right against illegal detention  

Illegal detention means the unjustifiable and unlawful imprisonment for a wrongful cause. Many times, usually the weaker sections are illegally caused detention because they have not enough money to feed their family. Most women are convicted because of their poor condition they have to forcefully involved in crime like the drug trade.

If we talk about the youth they are also convicted of the crime because of the need for money. Youth are generally involved in the crime because of money because of the financial conditions of their family they are not able to get sufficient pocket money from their family so they involved in theft, robbery, kidnapping, etc. But in prisons youth and women are supported so they can be released early from jail.

Youth are provided with school so they can study and get educated so they can earn money after they released. Women get employment so they can also earn money and they don’t have to bear money from others or to be involved in any other crime. But most times men   detention. Even if they are not involved in the crime. Because many times people try to protect themselves from the illegal detention so they involve police officials in their crime and they fraudulently detain other people who are from the weaker section who is not able to hire a lawyer for their release. And they have face in-human and torture in the jail. This mostly happens in Indian.   

•   Right to personal liberty

“ In our world prisons are still considers as torture, warehouse for the prisoners in which human commodities are sadistically kept and where spectrums of inmates range from driftwood juveniles to heroic dissenters.” 

If we talk about women, they have to lead their family before marriage and after marriage according to Hindus. And because of this reason women’s get involved in illegal trade if her husband is not capable to feed their family and because of social pressure she gets involved and convicted for the crime and get prisoned for the whole life. In prison, a woman has to face torture and many more things.

Many times prisons are not safe for women they get sexually abused in the prison. So there is a rule in the Constitution of India that if any woman is convicted for the crime they only get caught by the female police officials and they questioned by the female police. Men are not allowed to detain women in prison. Women are kept in the special prison were only female prisoners can stay no men are allowed in the female prisoners. Because women have the right to personal liberty. And according to this right, women’s safety is very important everywhere as well as in prison.

Women are treated nicely so they can improve themselves and also they are provided with employment so they can lead their family after their release from prison. Women’s release has very high chances. Because they don’t involve in the crime with bad intentions.   

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21

Human rights include the right to freedom, justice ,and peace in the world. All the members of the family have equal respect and dignity about to with concerning others. No one should be disrespected in the family. Even a new-born has the right to dignity because they are also a Citizen of India. Human right is a universal declaration. Every person has an equal right, either he/she belongs to any community. No person should face caste discrimination. Untouchability is also against the human rights declaration. Caste discrimination is very serious from historic times.

In the past, people get discriminated against because of the lower caste. They are not allowed to live in a society of higher community people. They are not even allowed to work with high caste people. They are considered as the waste material of society. Even after the Human Rights Act came into existence in many villages today also lower caste people are treated in-human and also higher caste people murder them because they are from lower communities. Because many people are not aware of rights that are provided to human beings. 

• Right to live with Human Dignity

Human dignity includes the economic welfare of the people. The state must promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting their justice, social, economic and political institutions of life. 

Social justice means making rule of law dynamic. Social justice is very important to the citizens of India. All the citizens have equal rights to justice, even the lower community has full justice to equal opportunities for education, medical health, employment, etc. Equality of opportunity helps them to develop their personalities and help them to participate in happiness to reach the goal in life. Because education is the biggest opportunity for the people to evaluate themselves and also they can improve their personality in speaking, dressing, walking, reacting to other people.

They also get the opportunity to involve in work. Social justice helps people to gain respect in the society. The constitution gives full opportunity to the weaker section of the society in all fields by giving them reservation so they can easily get admission in colleges and so they can complete their education and get employment. The government also gives free education to students who are not capable of sufficient money to spend on education.    

  Maenka Gandhi vs Union of India

The right to move in any part of India or Abroad is also the fundamental right of the people. It is also part of the rights of human dignity. “ No one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law”. 

There is no law mentioned in the Constitution of India about the revoking of passport act. According to Article 14, 19(1) (a) and (g) and 21, article 10(3) is getting violative of Fundamental Rights.   

Francis Coraile vs Union Territory of Delhi 

This is the case of preventive detention and punitive detention. The petitioner Francis Coraile is detained and arrested and keep him in the Central Jail (Tihar Jail). The petitioner filed a petition in the court for a writ of Habeas Corpus to challenge her detention. 

But the court has rejected her petition and she has to continue in Jail. she treated very harshly, she is not able to meet her lawyer as well as her family. She only allowed meeting her family once a month. Her daughter is only 5 years of age. To  meet her lawyer, she has to interview with District Magistrate Delhi in front of a Customs Officer. After the interview, she doesn’t get the allowance to meet her lawyer and she even doesn’t allow to meet her daughter once a month also.  

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India

This is the case of Public Interest Litigation Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The PIL was filed directly in the Supreme Court of India to take steps to end the Child Labor in Uttar Pradesh. Because of the State of Bihar, many children get kidnapped and experienced child abuse. They are working in the factories of Bihar. All the children are 14 years of age or less than 14 years. 

During the hearing, the court has discussed the protection of child rights to education, health, and development in ensuring progress as a democracy. The court recognizes that child labor cannot be abolished but we can bring some of the changes in child labor. The court has taken some of the measures to protect the child’s rights of education and health.  

People Union of Democratic Rights vs Union of India

The Petitioner has filed the case against the Union of India for the violation of Labor Law in India. The allegations of the petitioner which he put on Union of India:

• The workers in Uttar Pradesh and Orissa are getting the minimum wages of only rs 9.25 per day for their work and even they deduct their one rupee for their commission. This is a violation of the minimum wages act.   
•  Women get 71rs per day for their work. There is a violation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
• Violation of Article 24 of the constitution. Because children below the age of 14 are getting employed by the contractor to work in the factories. 
• Contract Labor Act is also getting violated. 
• Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Act brought into force for such violations. 

As the rights of the labor get violated court has decided to punish the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority and also said that they cannot escape. 

The State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan

The petitioner Chandrabhan Tale, Vithoba ,and Baban all are convicted for different cases. They are sentenced in the court. Chandrabhan’s bail is still pending and he is released for the appeal filed in the High Court. 

The High Court has accepted the bail of Chandrabhan give the order to release not to be lodged him in the prison. 

Right against sexual Harassment at workplace

The Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act is passed for the protection of women at the workplace. This act is passed by Lok Sabha of the Indian Parliament. Employment is the right of a woman. Society has a very low perception of women. They always consider men as superior to women so they can’t work as equal to men. So in most working places, people try to harass women sexually and mentally. Because of sex determination in India women has to face sexual harassment at workplace especially in government organization. It is because of natural human behavior and harmless flirtation.

Because of fear of society or family, women do not report the matter to the police or the concerned authorities. It is considered as a violation of Human Rights. The Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace Act,2013 . Through this act ensures that the government will ensure that they will provide a safe working place for women and build a safe work environment that will respect women’s right to equality and the right to dignity. This will also improve the economic women empowerment and inclusive growth so that they can participate in different types of work.

Vishaka vs. the State of Rajasthan 

It is a case of sexual harassment at the workplace. One of the social activists who tried to stop the marriage of Vishaka because she was an infant and she is not in the age of marriage. Because of this the 5 family members of Vishaka including her husband raped her. And also she was taken to the police station for the encounter. The female police tortured her whole midnight and also in the morning one of the police also said her to leave her lehenga in the police station for the evidence. Then she filed a case against sexual harassment in the High court. 

High Court has observed gang rape of Vishaka and gives the judgment that under article 14(2), 19(3)(1)(g) and 21(4) of the constitution of India that every profession, trade or occupation should provide a safe working environment for women employee .      

Apparel export promotion council vs A.K Chopra

When the petitioner filed the case against the defendant. The inquiry has started and the Enquiry officer concludes that miss X was molested by one of the people who belong to the business center. 

The disciplinary authority gave the order to remove the defendant from the work and filed against him in the case and prove him guilty of such offense. The defendant has challenged in court against the judgment of the court. He is taken in the 34th meeting of the staff committee to prove that he is alleged or not.    

Right against Rape

Meaning and concept of Rape:

Rape is a sexual activity which is done without the consent of the woman and it is carried out forcefully by threating her and give an injury against her consent. This happens because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception of males. Male is accused of rape cases. Rape is the fourth most convicted crime in India. Madhya Pradesh, Mumbai, Delhi has the highest crime rate record of rape. Mostly 18-35 years of women are the victims of rape in India. 

There were 10 reasons why rape is convicted every day in India.

• Less female police in India : Women don’t get a chance to do patrol duty. If they get a chance to work in the police, they are provided with other duties. In India, women don’t involve in this work generally. Because society doesn’t give them the chance to prove themselves as a protector so they can protect our country from rape. In 161 districts there was only one station police officer who is female. And the only female official can’t stop the rape of the whole country. If we see every day many rape cases are filed in the police station but nothing happens. It affects the life of the women who are the rape victims. Generally, women hesitate to share their incidents with male police officials or with anyone else. That is the reason India has the highest number of rape in India. Female police officials are seriously needed in our country for the protection of women.  
• Not enough actual police who are seriously involved in protecting the citizens : Many police officials are just for the money they aren’t serious or dedicated to our country. Police stations are also not safe for women nowadays. Police also become rape convicts for their needs. It is very important to first develop our protector who is employed or studied to protect our country not to make our country a rapist country. This has also become a very serious issue in our country. Female police officials are seriously needed for our country.   
• Because of provocative clothing : Generally, in India, society provokes clothing of girls and women. As our Indian Society generally people blame women every time for rape because they think because of the clothing issue they are facing rape. In some workplaces, women have to wear extra short clothes as their company demands. Then also people blame women for rape because of clothes. But clothes are not an issue as I think. Because kids who are in the age of 2-5 they are also becoming the rape convict. And their rape convicts are their family members, not anyone else. Even old age women are two are facing rape at late night in the road. Clothes are never a matter for rape. Because of the mental illness of male they commit rape every day.    
• Acceptance of domestic violence by women : Women are facing rape domestic violence in the case of marriage. Women’s marriage is caused by their consent in many families. And after marriage, they have to face domestic violence by their husband or maternal families. This domestic violence generally caused due to dowry. In the case of marriage, husband tries to do sex with their wives without her consent. They force them to do so every time. This is also considered as rape. Because without consent of both the person sex cannot happen it is considered as marital rape even in married life. Because it is the personal right of women. They can choose whether they want to be involved with their husbands or not. But women do not complain against her husband because of their family because of society. Because it harms their society and husband. This domestic violence becomes rape because of non-acceptance.   
• Lack of Public safety : Public places are not safe for women, especially at night. Because rape is mostly convicted at night only. In many workplaces, women have to work late at night in private companies. They have to go alone to their homes at midnight. No autos are available at night. Generally, women have to travel by bus at night because only buses roam all day and night. And they are toxicant at night. Because of the toxicity, they try to rape women because they are not in the state of mind. Even cabs or auto are also not safe nowadays. Specially in Delhi. In Delhi, most of the rape cases are filed every year. Delhi is also considered as the rape capital of India. 
• Encouraging rape victims to Compromise : Womenare the victims of rape they have to compromise and they are a force not to go to the police or fight against the rape victim. They are forced by their families and societies because of the image of the family. They think if they go to the police or try to fight with rapist their lives will be destroyed. And no one accepts them in society. Many girls and women facing many bad circumstances because of rape. Every person always blames women for rape. No one tries to help them to fight against rape convict. And because of this, most women commit suicide to avoid society.  
• A sluggish court system: India has very fewer lawyers for this type of case. Every year many cases filed in courts but very few have got justice for the rape. Maximum rape cases are filed are pending for so many years.  
• Few convictions: The conviction rate of India is 26 percent. 
• The low status of women: Maximum time women who face rape are of low community in Indian society.
•   Marriage: This is also the reason why a woman or her family don’t complaint related to rape. Because they think if anyone knows about it then no one accepts her as her wife or daughter in law. Parents have to feed their daughter’s lifetime and social acceptance. A maximum time woman has to marry the rapist who raped her to hide the hold the image in the society. This destroys the life of the victim. And if we see in the court, there were thousands of rape cases registered in the court and pending for many years. Even family leave hope of getting justice and rapist get freedom.   

    Sexual Violence has Long-Term Effects on Victims. 

•  94% of women are facing post-traumatic stress because of rape for two weeks.
• 30% of women report about PSTD after 9 months of rape. 
• 33% commit suicide because of rape.
• 70% of women face severe distress because of sexual harassment and rape. 

Peoples are convicted of rape are getting addicted to drugs.

• 3.4 times started using marijuana
• 6 times started using cocaine.
• 10 times started using other major drugs. 

Bodhisattva Godhwa  vs. Subhra Chakraborty

The petitioner is the professor of the college. And the defendant is the student of that college. One day the petitioner visits the defendant’s house to meet her and promises her to marry her and involved with her and after that when she asked him to marry her, he just ignored her and always says that his family wants him in the govt.

Services before marriage. And sexual contact continues for many days and the defendant got pregnant twice and aborted her baby twice and then also continues her relationship. And then they got married secretly and he accepted her as her legal wife. But after whenever she gets pregnant he always aborted her baby. The complaint was filed against him. He filed a returned case. 

But his suit gets rejected by the court.  

Right to reputation 

• Meaning and nature of the right to reputation.

Right to Reputation is the part of Freedom of Speech and Expression as fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution. It is the part of Article 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution. Because the right to reputation is correlated with the freedom of speech and expression, it is the reason for harm of reputation. People have a full right to speak in front of anyone so many times they don’t before speaking in front of any person, they just express their feelings in words it may cause to harm of reputation.

To maintain or balance the right citizens don’t have to interfere in others’ lives because it violates the fundamental rights of the citizen. It harms the dignity and reputation. For harming the reputation in public, that person has to give compensation for the violation of rights. A person cannot be held liable for slanderous or libelous- statements because it is not a criminal offence.

Media is a wide-ranging coverage who helps to explore the news and advertisements. Many times they are held liable for the harm of the reputation of citizens. A journalist covers the news of every person as well as leaders of the country like politicians, business persons. They cover all their personal as well as professional information and make a piece of news. Many times they intentionally make news to harm the reputation of celebrities or politicians. 

• Harm to Reputation 

Any defamatory statement can harm a professional reputation. If someone made a statement about your business that you are a local business person to prove that you are dishonest to the public. It can cause your customer. Reputation can be harmed in any way. If anyone tells any bad statement about you in front of anyone.

It destroys your image. Many people commit suicide because of their reputation. There were many cases filed for the cause of harm to reputation. Even if any person shows your bad things or some small silly things it can destroy the image of the people. Because of this, many people lost their jobs from the company.  

• When Harm is presumed

The statement which is used in a normal conversation can also presume the harm of the reputation. Any statement which is used for accusing another person of sexual misconduct or of having a sexually transmitted disease. If someone is accused of committing a crime can harm professional or personal reputation. It is also considered as defamatory. If someone in public says about any person that he/she is a racist it can cause a strong reaction. 

• Financial Harm

If you face loss in business or if you lose your business because of someone’s defamatory statement about your business or your personal life it can harm your financial reputation.  

• Mental or Physical Anguish

The harm which is caused by victims related to health problems like insomnia, depression, and anxiety, physical ailments. 

State of UP v Mohammad Naim

The high court directed an investigation to the investigating officer to know why this complaint filed against him. Police force apologies in front of the court for wrongly alleging him in the court. Court has accepted the apology but puts some of the remarks against the police force.  

The High Court gives the remark for this case by saying that:

“If judges felt with some efforts that they can clear the Augean stable, which is the police force and said that I would not hesitate to wage a war single-handed because single-handed is lawless group in the whole country whose record of crimes comes anywhere near the record of the organised unit which is known as Indian police force” 

State of Bihar v Lal Krishan Advani

This is a very serious matter of death and injuries in the state of Bihar in the Bhagalpur District. This is a communal right which creates death and injuries in the Bhagalpur District.

 It is a matter of concern in the state of Bihar for the Bihar State Government. The state government decided to put inquiry into this matter to the Commission of Enquiry under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act .  

Smt Kiran Bedi v Committee of Inquiry  

Police officers and lawyers involved together in an incident is apprehended by the students of a college and handed them to the police for committing an offence within the campus of the college. The magistrate discharged the students and take action against police officials. The report has been submitted by the inquiry officer about the conduct of the police officials. Police officials are filed before the committee under section 5(2)(a). 

The notice is issued by the committee in the High Court Bar Association on behalf of the High Court Bar Association and the Commissioner of police together with the supporting affidavits were filed before the committee. The examination of the police will be held on 16 May 1988. Affidavit and evidence were submitted to the inquiry officers.

Right to livelihood

The right to livelihood is not under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is not the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution. Because already right to life is mentioned under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. But Right to Livelihood is mentioned under Article 19 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.   

Olga v municipal corporation

The petitioner has filed a writ petition about the conditions of the shelter they are living in. They said that they are living on the pavements and in the slums in the city. Other petitioners also complained about the condition of their area of Kamraj Nagar, Basti where they live. This case is filed about the conditions of the slums and Basti of Bombay City. they filed a case against the municipal corporation of Bombay about the conditions of Bombay.

Respondents must take some actions related to this issue but they are not even responding in this matter. This case is filed for the violation of Article 32, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Because this is the duty of the government to protect the rights of the citizen of India. 

The court has given a decision that all the pavement dwellers and the slum or busty dwellers in the city of Bombay will be evicted forcibly and deported to their respective places of origin or removed to places outside the city of Bombay.     

D.T.C v D.T.C mazdoor congress

The Writ Petition is filed for the condition of the Delhi road transport. And also allegation put on the authority that they are not working properly on road development, not performing their duties properly in case of road development. After the Writ petition filed many of the employees of the authority has to resign from their job as they are not performing their jobs. Then the three respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Constitutional Validity of Regulation 9(b), which gave the management right to terminate the services of an employee by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof.  

It is a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.      

Chameli singh v state of UP

The land which the petitioner owned is not the agriculture land and it is not amended by the U.P state legislation who provides power to take possession of the case lands and waste lands or arable lands where the land is acquired for the sanitary improvements for the development of society in a planned manner. The state government is empowered to give the possession of the land to the Dalits, a building houses. The appellant has challenged the validity. 

The three contentions put by the division bench, the first contention is that our land is not a waste of arable land, secondly, there is no urgency to the Dalits for the possession of the land. Third contention is that property is the only source of their livelihood. They have no other work for feeding themselves. 

M.J. Sivani v state of Karnataka

The petitioner has filed a petition for the license of Video Games requires to be regulated under the Mysore Police Act, 1963.  

The petitioner has got the permission of video games and ordered her to get a license to play video games.

Right to shelter

The shelter is important because it helps humans to grow physically and mentally. It is not for the protection of life but it is for adequate life, space, safety, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, etc. 

The right to shelter is an important component of the right to life under the Indian Constitution. Because if a person has a life then they need shelter because without shelter no can survive in this world. The shelter is defined as the home where human beings live. Even animals, as well as birds, need shelter to live, they also can’t survive without shelter. The shelter provides us food, water, sunlight, etc. and without all this, we can’t survive.

It helps us develop ourselves. The weaker section of our society such as Dalits, SC or ST who have no shelter to live they have to live in the huts which are made on the roadsides. Cases were coming related to the weaker section of the society that they are dying because of no proper shelter. They don’t get proper food or water. They even have to stand in lines to collect water for their daily needs and drinking. They have so many children who are crying all the time for food. They have to work in fields or on the roadside by holding their child.

They are getting so much affected. Because of the caste issue, no one is ready to give them jobs, Because they are not even educated so they can get the job or they can’t get involved in any type of work because of their less education and lower caste. They are helpless in every condition.

In the case of Chameli Singh vs State Of U.P .

It is the case that is concerning the allotment of land or flats to the weaker sections of the society. The Right to shelter is the Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. So the Government must provide them shelter, proper food, and water. The government has enacted the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act of 1956. Citizens have to change their minds related to caste so the lower caste can also explore themselves.

Chameli Singh v state of UP

The land which the petitioner owned is not the agriculture land and it is not amended by the U.P state legislation who provides power to take possession of the case lands and wastelands or arable lands where the land is acquired for the sanitary improvements for the development of society in a planned manner. The state government is empowered to give the possession of the land to the Dalits, a building houses. The appellant has challenged the validity. 

Right to social security and protection of family

• Meaning of Social Security  

Social Security means the security of the citizen of India. Security can be of many types like unemployment, maternity, accident, illness, disability, old age or other such life. State guarantees protection to everyone. It promotes the welfare of the people by securing and protecting them in the social order, social, economic, and political.

Features of the right to social security and protection of families.

• Availability: the insecurity of the state is required for the social security system and provides benefits for the relevant impact on livelihood.  
• Social risk and contingencies: social security provides coverage for health care, sickness, old age, unemployment, injury, family, and child support, maternity, disability, survivors and orphans.
• Adequacy: some benefits and arrangements are done for the protection of family and to provide them an adequate standard of living and adequate access to health care. When a person is involved in social security he might lack in earnings, paid contributions and the amount of relevant benefit. 
• Accessibility: it has five elements that are directly accessible to social security. The key elements are coverage, eligibility, affordability, participation and information and physical access. There are two types of schemes one is a non-contributory scheme which is necessary for ensuring universal coverage.   

Right to health

The Right to health is a public interest. It is guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution. It is also the part of the Right to Life. Health should be maintained. If we don’t take care of our health if we cannot survive. Our body parts can get damaged due to some of the diseases. There were several private and public hospitals for health treatment. Hospitals provide us health facilities for our treatment.

Doctor and patient relationships are very important for the right of health. Because if any person gets sick he/she has to go to the doctor only for their treatment. But if we talk about the conditions of the hospital, government hospitals cost very low for the treatment but the conditions of the government hospitals are very bad.

Hospitals are very unhygienic and in very bad condition, especially in Bihar and Jharkhand. Private Hospitals are very costly with full facilities available. Weaker sections of society cannot afford private hospitals because of the high amount of treatment. And the condition of government hospital is so bad their treatments are done correctly. The right to health implies that every person can get appropriate conditions for the enjoyment of health without any discrimination. 

• Violations of Human Rights in Health. 

Attention is very important in the case of health. If we ignore our health problems we will cause by some severe diseases which cannot be cured if it comes at the last stage. Every disease is to be cured at the very first stage of life. The people who are suffering from disabilities, indigenous populations, a woman living with HIV, sex workers, people who use drugs, transgenders, and intersex people contribute and exacerbate poor health. This is also a violation of Human Rights in Health.

The world health organization is the biggest organization for the health rights of human beings as a fundamental right of every human being. Health care is always affordable and cheap so everyone can take care of health and everyone gets the opportunity to gain the health facilities in the hospitals and nursing homes. Water, food, housing, should be maintained so that no one caused health diseases. All appropriate conditions are taken to maintain the health and there should no discrimination. A Doctor must have the freedom to control the body of the patient to cure diseases and health-related problems. 

• Approach to human rights related to health. 

Some of the approaches is done for the human rights to provide health facilities settings is done to evaluate health policy and service delivery which mainly targets for practices which are the heart of health outcomes. Programmes related to health are performed for the enjoyment of all people to the right to health.

• Principles of human rights for the health policy

There are three types of principles:

• Accountability: Accountability means duties which are performed for the human rights for the health policies. Movements are also establishing to perform for the right of human health. For evaluating the health policies for human rights different types of events and movements are organized to maintain the health rights of human beings. From this type of event, people get entertained and become happy. And being happy is the most useful to keep human beings healthy and strong in every sense.  
• Equality and non-discrimination: This principle is exercised to remove discrimination which is done based on race, caste, creed, religion, color, sex, etc. mostly in small towns or villages people do discrimination with the person who is suffering from HIV, Aids or mental disease. They try to distance from them. Most people abuse those persons who are mentally ill. They don’t allow their family members to talk to them or meet them or even roam around them. The World Health Organization is the biggest principle which is formed to fight against discrimination related to health services. 
• Participation: Participation means all the persons who are involved in the program for evaluating health-related issues like all the stakeholders including non-state actors who have ownership of the program and event for the assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring ,and evaluation. 
• Universal, indivisible and interdependent

Human rights are equal to everyone, it does not do discrimination between anyone they apply to everyone without any distinction. Human rights are the right to food, the right to health, the right to education, free from torture, etc. 

• Core elements and components of a right to health 

There are two types of core elements of health: 

• Progress the realization to use the resources: This means the government is taking some important measures for the fulfillment of the rights of human beings. The Government, as well as our Judicial system, has taken some of the measures for the development of the state so that every human being can live a safe and healthy life.     
• Non-decreasing measures: Non-retrogressive measures cannot be taken in every situation. It is only valid in some situations like free education to children below the age of 5. Retrogressive measures are not to be taken in case of economic, social, and cultural rights. 
• Availability: People have some sufficient need for public health and health care facilities, goods and services for their protection and care of health. Availability includes age, sex, location, and socio-economic status and qualitative surveys to understand our health needs.  
• Accessibility: Everyone has access to good health, facilities, goods, and services. Accessibility has four dimensions:
• Non-discrimination
• Physical accessibility
• Economically accessibility
• Information accessibility  
• Acceptability: Respect others related to medical ethics and gender. Acceptance is very important in the case of medical facilities and every sense. Without we accept our problems we can’t fight with our problems.  
• Quality: Quality of health facilities should be evaluated scientifically. 

Right to medical care

Every person has the right to medical care as it is mentioned under the fundamental rights in the Constitution of India. And the very important part is doctor-patient relations. Patients right is the basic right or basic rule between medical care and patient. This is the duty of the governmental organizations like hospitals, health care personnel as well as insurance agencies or any payors of medical-related costs has to take care of the patient as their medical issues.

No patient should get discriminated based on sex, colour, creed, and religion. Every patient should be treated equally in all hospitals like in private as well as governmental hospitals. Medical care includes good hygienic food, housing facilities are provided to all human beings so they can live safe. 

Right to Die

The Right to die is a right that totally depends on human beings. In this choice, no one has to get involved to make the decision. This decision all depends on the illness of a person like mental or physical illness. The right to die means a human being is entitled to end their life in any circumstances or can go under voluntary euthanasia.

But forcefull suicide does not come under the right to die. Because many times people have to commit suicide because of mental pressure because of someone in case family pressure or because of love life or because of any situation.

In those days youth suicide is increasing day by day because of study pressure and because of their family pressure because their family pressurizing their child for good marks from the very beginning of their school life. Because of so much high mental pressure, they are not able to focus on their studies so they aren’t able to score marks in their exams. 

There is data on youth suicide in India.

2016- 230,314 The number of suicide increased. 

Suicide is very common for this age 15-29 years and 15-39 years. 

People die every year- 800,000

If we see the total residents of India is only 135,000 means 17%.

In the year 1987-2007, the suicide rate is increased from 7.9 to 10.3 per 100,000 with the highest suicide in Southern and Eastern states of India. 

Tamil Nadu – 12.5%

Maharashtra- 11.9%

West Bengal- 11.0%

2012- Kerala and Tamil Nadu have the highest suicide rates. 100,000 have committed suicide. 

Mens- 100,000, 16.4%

Women- 25.8% 

Reasons for Suicide in India

• Reason for youth Suicide in India

India has the highest suicidal rate. If we see the suicide rate of youth which is 35.5 per 100,000. It is increasing every year. Parents are the biggest reason for the suicide of youth. Because today’s parents are very conscious of their children in case of study they think that if we don’t pressurize our children they are not able to score good marks in the exam but this is the biggest mistake of parents.

Everyone needs some space in their life for their improvement. If they are allowed to live their lives by their own choice in some limits. Because everyone has the right to live their life with full freedom. There are more reasons for the suicide which is academic pressure, workplace stress, social pressures, modernisation of urban centers, the relationship these are also very serious issues for the youth suicide.   

Factors include which is the reason for suicide

• Mental health disorder (disorder)
• Previous Suicide Attempts
• Family pressure
• Financial problem
• How suicide can be prevented  

In India suicide is attempted every 40 seconds. The very first and foremost prevention is to bring some resources to maintain mental health. We must speak to advocates and must discuss this issue in front of everyone so we can work on this issue. First, our parents have to change and understand the mental issue of children they are facing nowadays. If they try to work on these issues so we can prevent suicide.

Right to work under article 21 of Indian constitution

Right to work is important because it is an effective way of development, make effective provision for securing the right to education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement. The Right to work is defined under article 41 of the Indian Constitution. And under A rticle 43 of the Indian Constitution mention about the welfare of the people.

The welfare of the state means to secure a living wage and a living standard to all the workers. Under article 38 and 40 states must put some effort into the people so they can put all their capacity in their work so they earn fairly for their living. They can work upon their own choice there is no restriction in choosing their field of work.    

Violation of article 21 of Indian constitution

The violations of human rights mean if any citizen rights get violated which is a fundamental right of the Indian citizen then it is considered as a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.  

Rights are violated in many forms:

• Harassment 

When women’s get harassed at the workplace or a public place or home or anywhere else it is a violation of the fundamental right of women. Women’s fundamental rights get violated every day anywhere in any form. They have to face many problems and even her  society doesn’t listen to her in this case they blame women for harassment caused daily. Many women don’t even speak about this in front of anyone and continue to face this type of problem. To protect women government has some major prevention to protect women from violating their fundamental rights. 

Death by hanging not violative of article 21

This is declared by the apex court that death by hanging is not violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Because if a person has committed any crime and violated the fundamental rights of the citizen, he is not liable for any fundamental right. So hanging is not violative of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that public hanging “even if permitted, under the rules would violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution being barbaric, disgraceful as seen in any civilized society”. . Death penalty is given only if any deterrent crime is committed by the criminal.

The criminal will get 20 years of life imprisonment and in case he doesn’t get changed he is given the death penalty. “One of the reports which are made in the year 1960 which is made by Great Britain has mentioned this line “we were impressed by the argument than the greatest deterrent to crime is not the fear of punishment but the certainty of detection”. Each court has the hanging judges who give decisions related to the death penalty to the prisoners. The error of judgment is not ruled in case of the death penalty. In the Rajiv Gandhi case, 26 criminals got the death penalty for the crime.

Through education, we get to know that poor persons mostly get the death penalty for the crime. In many international Countries, death penalties get abolished for Human Rights. And the Indian Constitution protects the Human Rights of the Indian Citizen.

Right against public hanging

Lichma Devi Case

it is held that the death sentence is unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Death by public hanging is considered as the barbaric practice in India. 

Right against Sexual Harassment  

It is sexual harassment at workplace cases. One of the social activists who tried to stop the marriage of Vishaka because she was an infant and she is not in the age of marriage. Because of this the 5 family members of the Vishaka including her husband raped her. And also she is taken to the police station for the encounter.

The female police torture her whole midnight and also in the morning one of the police has also said her to leave her lehenga in the police station for the evidence. Then she filed a case against sexual harassment in the High court. 

The disciplinary authority has given the order to remove the defendant from the work and filed against him in the case and prove him guilty of such offense. The defendant has challenged in court against the judgment of the court. He is taken in the 34th meeting of the staff committee to prove that he is alleged or not.

Right against Rape 

But his suit gets rejected by the court.

Right to Reputation

The remarks of the High Court are:  if I had felt that with my lone efforts  I could have cleaned this Augean stable, which  is   the police force, I  would not have   hesitated to wage this war single-handed.  That  there is not,  a single lawless, t he group in the whole of the country whose record  of crime comes anywhere near the  record of  that  organised  unit which is  known as the  Indian Police Force.  Where  every fish barring perhaps a few  stinks, it is idle  to pick out one or two and say  that it stinks.”

This is a very serious matter of death and injuries in the state of Bihar in the Bhagalpur District. This is a communal right which creates death and injuries in the Bhagalpur District. It is a matter of concern in the state of Bihar for the Bihar State Government. 

The state government decided to put inquiry into this matter to the Commission of Enquiry under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act .  

The notice is issued by the committee in the High Court Bar Association on behalf of the High Court Bar Association and the Commissioner of police together with the supporting affidavits were filed before the committee. The examination of the police will be held on 16 May 1988. Affidavit and evidence were submitted to the inquiry officers. 

Cases on right to livelihood

The petitioner has filed a writ petition about the conditions of the shelter they are living in. They said that they are living on the pavements and in the slums in the city. Other petitioners also complained about the condition of their area of Kamraj Nagar, Basti where they live. This case is filed about the conditions of the slums and Basti of Bombay City. they filed a case against the municipal corporation of Bombay about the conditions of Bombay. Respondents must take some actions related to this issue but they are not even responding in this matter. This case is filed for the violation of Article 32, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Because this is the duty of the government to protect the rights of the citizen of India. 

Judgment of the case:    

The Writ Petition is filed for the condition of the Delhi road transport. And also allegation put on the authority that they are not working properly on road development, not performing their duties properly in case of road development. After the Writ petition filed many of the employees of the authority has to resign from their job as they are not performing their jobs. Then the three respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Constitutional Validity of Regulation 9(b), which gave the management right to terminate the services of an employee by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. It is a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Chameli Singh v the State of UP

The land which the petitioner owned is not the agriculture land and it is not amended by the U.P state legislation who provides power to take possession of the case lands and waste lands or arable lands where the land is acquired for the sanitary improvements for the development of society in a planned manner. The state government is empowered to give the possession of the land to the Dalits, a building houses. The appellant has challenged the validity and put three contentions in front of the court that our land is not a waste of arable land, secondly, there is no urgency to the Dalits for the possession of the land. The Third contention is that property is the only source of their livelihood. They have no other work for feeding themselves. 

M.J. Sivani v State of Karnataka

The petitioner has got the permission of video games and ordered her to get a license to play video games.  

 Right to shelter

Chameli v state of UP

The land which the petitioner owned is not the agriculture land and it is not amended by the U.P state legislation who provides power to take possession of the case lands and wastelands or arable lands where the land is acquired for the sanitary improvements for the development of society in a planned manner. The state government is empowered to give the possession of the land to the Dalits, a building houses.  The appellant has challenged the validity. 

The three contentions put by the division bench, the first contention is that our land is not a waste of arable land, secondly, there is no urgency to the Dalits for the possession of the land. Third contention is that property is the only source of their livelihood. They have no other work for feeding themselves.

Shantistar Builders  v Narayan Khimlal Totame

The Respondent files a petition challenging the Shantistar builders in respect of construction related to the rate of the building. His main aim to change government policy. 

The high court has rejected the petition because the respondent tried to change the government policy. The court has dismissed the petition. By the order of the High Court petitioner has challenged the respondent.  

Right to social security

N.H.R.C v State of Arunachal Pradesh

The National Human Rights Commission has filed a writ petition against the state of Arunachal Pradesh challenging that the citizen of Arunachal Pradesh is prosecuting the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh. This petition is filed for the violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There were a total of 65000 Chakma tribals in Arunachal Pradesh. More facts came around that a large number of Chakmas from Pakistan and Bangladesh are removed from Kaptai Hydel Power Project. After they removed from their work.

They settled in Assam and taken the citizenship of India. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has allotted them some lands and provide 4,200/- per family. The Chakmas has submitted his report of citizenship that they previously submitted to the Arunachal Pradesh Police officials for their Citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But they have not got any reply from the Commissioner. And the relation between Chakmas and Arunachal Pradesh has deteriorated. NHRC put this issue and issue a letter to the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh and Home Secretary and Government of India to enquire about this issue. 

The first reply came from the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh stating that our Police officials will give protection to the Chakmas.    

Right to health 

Case laws: 

Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors .

The petitioner is prosecuted by the petitioner related to not clearing the garbage from society. Because garbage can cause diseases that can affect every citizen of the state. But the petitioner has filed the plea saying that we don’t have money. 

But the Supreme court has rejected the petition of the petitioner. And give the decision in favour of the defendant that steps must be taken for the improvement of the health of the public. It is very important for public safety. 

C.E.S.C. Ltd. Etc vs Subhash Chandra Bose And Ors .

In this case, the Supreme Court ordered that the Right to health is a Fundamental Right and it cannot be violated. Health is protected in every case not in case sickness only. And Medical care is valid for every citizen of the state. Even weaker sections of society have a right to medical care. They are eligible to get all the facilities regarding health. So they can live their life safe and happy. 

Mahendra Pratap Singh vs State Of Orissa And Ors .

The petitioner has filed the case for the effective measures to be taken to run the Primary Health Center at Pachhikote in the District of Jaipur. For providing all the facilities to the health center for the local people. 

The court issued the order relating to this matter that in every District there should be hospitals and primary health centers for the people’s health and care.    

Right to die

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India

 The petitioner has filed the case for legalizing the living will under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the Ministry of Law and Justice about this issue regarding concerning with the living will. But the petitioner has got no response from the Government of India related to this issue. 

The Supreme Court has put the decision into it that Right to Die is the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held some regard to the patient that medical treatment is necessary for any of the ill-treatment before you think of dying. Because Euthanasia suicide is unlawful in India means you cannot commit suicide because of any ill-treatment.  

  Right to work 

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others

This case is filed to stop the child labor under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to the State of Uttar Pradesh because some children get kidnapped from the State of Bihar and brings to Uttar Pradesh for the Child Labor and involve them in factory works. The children are of less than 14 years and also that children are facing child abuse in Uttar Pradesh during the work. This is the case that violates the Right and Protection of Child Rights.

 The Supreme Court has discussed the protection of child rights and the right to education. But automatically we cannot abolish child labor because of a lot of work. But we can take some steps related to child abuse which is happening in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that the children should get some facilities and provide them education as well as food to them so they can stay healthy to work in the factories. And also take care of them so that they can stay safe.  

Sodan Singh v New Delhi municipal committee

The petitioner has filed a writ petition against Municipal Committee because their right of trading business gets violated. They do business on the pavement of the roads in certain areas in the city of Delhi. And also claim that they were not so rich and this is the only way of their income. 

Judgment of the case

But Delhi High Court dismissed their petition. But according to Article 19(g), everyone has the right to trade and business in any area. But according to Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 has the right to permit Hawkers and Squatters on the sidewalks. 

Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi

The respondent works as an employee in the Commercial taxes Department. Her work is related to the daily wages in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka. She claimed that she has been working for 10 years. And claimed that she should get all the facilities of the regular employee of the Department. She approached Administrative Tribunal with all her claims. 

But the Administrative Tribunal rejected her claim saying that she has no right to get equal wages as a regular employee or for regularization. Then she again filed a petition in the high court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. The high court has accepted the claim and order to give equal wages to her as a regular employee.     

Violation of article 21

Mansing Surajsingh Padvi vs The State Of Maharashtra

  Judgment of the case:

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which is issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers under sub-para (1) of the Para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and the West Khandesh Mehwassi Estate Regulation, 1961 issued by the Governor of Maharashtra under sub-para (2) of para (5) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution .The fundamental right of the respondent is violated by the High Court.   

K.P Hussain Reddy And Ors. vs Executive Engineer

The petitioner filed the case related to the compensation is not paid by the respondent. The petitioner gives the letter to the requesting the respondent to pay the amount of 4,67,622 for land acquisition charges. But the respondent failed to pay the amount. 

The court issued a notice to the defendant for the land amount. In  March, the court dismissed the petition saying that in the matter of land acquisition proceeding will be completed within six months.  

Conclusion  

At last, I conclude that the right to life is the fundamental right of every citizen of India. And fundamental rights cannot be violated by anyone. If anyone’s fundamental right gets violated by any public official or government official then that person can file a petition in the Supreme court. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is going from the past period from the time of the Magna Carta period. Firstly our Indian Constitution is under Magna Carta. That time Judiciary has a limited role in the Constitution. But in today’s time, the Judiciary has an important role in our Indian Constitution.

The law is implemented by the Indian Judiciary which is mentioned in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India makes every person equal who is a citizen of India. All are eligible for each right which is provided by the constitution of India. No person shall be discriminated against based on caste, creed, and religion. Protection of rights is the fundamental duty of the Government of India.   

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Brijendra singh vs. state of m.p. and anr. (2008)   , khazan singh and ors. vs. state of uttar pradesh and ors. (air 1974 sc 669), illegitimate children under muslim law, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp (LIVE only) on

How you can use labour law skills to go from HR manager to business leader

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Constitution of India

Protection of life and personal liberty

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

Article 15, Draft Constitution of India 1948

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 21, Constitution of India 1950

Draft Article 15 was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 6 and 13 December 1948 . It provided for the right to life and personal liberty, subject to procedure established by law; it also gave all persons equality before the law.

Members were divided on whether the term ‘ procedure established by law ’ should be replaced with ‘ due process ’, and the implications of such a move. Some argued that ‘ procedure established by law ’ would allow the legislature to pass laws which violated an individual’s civil liberties. If the term ‘ due process ’ was adopted instead, the judiciary would have the right to protect these liberties by investigating whether a law was consistent with the other fundamental rights. However, others argued that ‘ due process ’ allowed the unelected judges, who themselves are not immune from prejudice, to undermine the authority of the legislature by passing judgment on lawfully-enacted legislation. Ultimately, the members chose to retain the phrase ‘ procedure established by law ’.

The second part of the Draft Article, relating to equality before the law, was not debated. Later, the Drafting Committee decided to move this part into a standalone Article 14 .

Draft Article 15 was passed without amendments on 13 December 1948.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy

Right to Privacy

The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines privacy as the “right to be left alone. The right to a private life…” Taking a cue from this definition, we can say that the right to privacy is the right to keep our personal information private. Personal information can include electronic communication, sexual orientation, professional activities and even feelings or intellect.

Privacy, as a concept, is not new. Ancient Greece was divided into Polis and Oikos – the public or political sphere, and the private or familial sphere. However, the ‘right’ to privacy is something that is more modern in nature. Although the right to privacy can include both physical privacy and privacy related to communications, with the advent of newspapers, television and the internet, the concept is now more about informational privacy. From the recent Pegasus issue to the Edward Snowden exposé- the attack on privacy comes in the form of overreaching encroachment on private communications. However, we must not forget that the right to privacy is much more than just the right to private communication.

Fundamental Rights like such, are a part of the Polity Syllabus for the civil services exam, and questions based on the same are asked under the GS Paper II of UPSC Mains. 

Also, the aspirants preparing for the upcoming IAS Exam can refer to the related links given below and include them as a part of their UPSC preparation:

Right to Privacy [UPSC Notes]:- Download PDF Here

Right to privacy in the Indian context

In India, multiple cases where people have raised concerns over privacy have been registered, and the Supreme Court of the country has fairly announced judgements objecting to any violation of the citizen’s Right to Privacy. To read in detail about India and its Privacy concerns, candidates can visit the linked article.

Despite the absence of any dedicated article in the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has extended the purview of Article 21 and upheld that the right to privacy is a fundamental right too. 

Right to Privacy – Article 21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution speaks about-

• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty

According to this article, every person – citizens and non-citizens have the right to live and the right to have personal liberty. The state can’t deprive any person of these two rights except under procedure as prescribed by the Indian Penal Code .

Supreme Court rulings that gave a new meaning to Article 21

Although Article 21 does not speak specifically about the right to privacy, the Supreme Court of India , in various instances, extended the meaning of Article 21. There are many such SC rulings, but two of them are the most important.

a. Previous Supreme Court Rulings Against the Right to Privacy

• A.K Gopalan v. The State (1950)

In this case, the petitioner argued that the search and seizure operation carried out in his property violated the provision of Right To Property, as mentioned in Article 19(1). However, the court rejected the argument regarding the right to privacy, saying that the act of police did not obstruct his right to utilise his property. The court also mentioned the caveat of ‘reasonable cause’, which gives police the power to search and seize. 

• Kharak Singh V. The State of UP

In this case, the petitioner argued that the nightly domiciliary visit to his home by the police violated his right to move freely across India, as enshrined by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution . The petitioner also objected to the police shadowing him. While the court agreed that the nightly domiciliary visits did violate the petitioner’s right to live a dignified and free life, it also agreed that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right, and hence surveillance of his movements did not violate the Constitution.

We mentioned these two cases because these were the first instances when the concept of the Right To Privacy was discussed in the Supreme Court.

b. Supreme Court Ruling That Upheld the Right to Privacy (Article 21 context)

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India (2017)

During the hearing of a petition that challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhar based biometric system, the Supreme Court of India unanimously agreed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right as enshrined by the Constitution. The court expanded the purview of Article 21 and said that the Right to Life and Liberty, as stated in Article 21, also included the right to privacy. Since Article 21 falls under Part III of the Indian Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, the right to privacy thus automatically became a fundamental right after the judgement. Since then, the right to privacy has been a fundamental right in India.

Read in detail about the Puttaswamy vs Union of India case at the linked article.

Personal Data Protection Bill (2019): Precursor To Right to Privacy Act

As we said in the beginning, privacy in the modern context is more about the privacy in electronic communications and the ensuing personal data generated through such activities. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 aims to localise the data processing activities of the internet platforms, which is akin to the GDPR law in Europe. A concept of ‘data fiduciary’ has emerged from this bill. The data fiduciary is the one who collects the data (like Google). It needs to establish why it is necessary to collect someone’s personal data (for example – enabling the person to sign up for an online service). The fiduciary needs to maintain transparency and the necessary encryption systems to protect personal data.

Above all, the end-user has the right to know whether her data has been processed or not. Some of the lawmakers have objected to some parts of the bill as well, the nature of which will be cleared in the coming years.

Further-Read for UPSC Exam

The subject of the Right to Privacy is one of the most important current affairs topics that encompass a wide range of concepts. We recommend that you read some more information regarding this topic for your IAS exam. Some of the resources are stated below:

• The Right To Privacy Bill (2011) (Source – Chief Information Commission official website)
• Maneka Gandhi Case

Furthermore, IAS exam aspirants must also carefully review the UPSC Syllabus for the Polity section as it is one of the key subjects from which questions are asked in both the Prelims and the Mains examination. 

For any further details, exam updates or study material, visit BYJU’S. 

Frequently Asked Questions on Right to Privacy

Q 1. does india have a right to privacy law, q 2. does the technology act (2000) protect the privacy of indian citizens, q 3. what is the right to privacy article in india.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

Article 21 – Right to Life under Indian Constitution

• Legal Blogs
• October 30, 2022

Introduction

Article 21 of the Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The word State is not used in Article 21 , it means that Article 21 applies to the State as well as to the private individual. Although the article mainly focuses on the state and the state has the following duties:-

It shall not curtail the life and personal liberty of persons in accordance with the procedure established by law. By making laws, the state will not ensure that even a private person does not violate the personal liberty of others.

There exist certain circumstances that infringe on life itself and personal liberty. It is the duty of the state to take proactive action to remove those circumstances. Here it is the duty of the State to bring about social justice to protect and preserve the dignity of life and individual liberty of an individual or group and hence social justice is an overlap between Article 14 and Article 21.

The concept of protective discrimination and upliftment from the point of view of protecting the dignity of life and individual liberty of the individual and the group is also enshrined in Article 21, but not disclosed in the context of Art. 21 As already discussed in context of Equality and Social Justice U/A 14.

Case Laws Relating to Article 21

Personal freedom.

A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India (A.I.R-1950)

The Supreme court held that personal liberty in Article 21 nothing more than the liberty of the body, which is freedom from detention and arrest without any restraint. In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted the law as ‘State made law’.

Right to Livelihood

Vellore Citizen Forum v. Union of India (A.I.R 1996)

It was held that the state is the public trust of all the resources of the country and the people are the beneficiaries of that public trust. It is the duty of the state to manage the resources in such a way that it works in the best interest of the people. The state is accountable to the people in the matter of managing these resources. It is the duty of the state to make efforts to protect the environment in the interest of the people (i.e. the beneficiary).

Right to Free Legal Aid

State of Maharashtra v. Manu Bhai Praggi Vashi 1995 S.C.

It was held that the right to free legal aid is a part of the fundamental right and it is the duty of the state to create conditions for providing better facilities for free legal aid .

Right to Health and Medical Aid

Parmanand Katara (P.K.) v. Union of India (U.O.I) 1989 S.C

It was recognized that the right to health and medical treatment is a fundamental right of every individual. It is the duty of doctors to police action in case of accident or any serious injury.

Right to Privacy

A landmark decision on the right to privacy was delivered by Justice K.S. Puttuswamy v Union of India (2018). In this case, retired judge K.S. Puttuswamy claimed that the government’s plan to introduce biometric-based identity cards for availing government services and benefits violated the citizen’s right to privacy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing both the sides, recognized the right to privacy as an essential part of the right to life.

It also outlined the scope of the right to privacy, saying that it includes personal choices (eg, eating beef), bodily integrity (e.g., rights to reproduction and abortion), and even personal information (For example, autonomy over decisions relating to health records. Simultaneously, the Court also expressed that there is a need for a data protection regime in India.

Right to Education

First time in the case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka et al. (1992 ) , the right to education was recognized as a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Also, hearing a petition on the validity of the Right to Education Act which provided for free and compulsory education till the completion of primary school education for all children in the age group of 6-14 years, the Right to Education was declared under Article 21. As a part of the right to life. In addition, Articles 45 and 39 (f) of the DPSP provide that the state should make provisions for affordable and accessible education for all.

Right to Information

In the case of R.P. Ltd. vs. Indian Express (1988), the right to know was included within the purview of Article 21. The court highlighted the importance of the Right to Information in a participatory democracy. It has been observed that it is important to be informed about various government functioning and other issues affecting our rights as citizens so that we are able to make an informed choice. Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, but it can only be exercised if someone has all the information to influence our choices. Thus, for truly independent decision-making, the right to information is essential. As a result, the Right to Information Act, of 2005 has been enacted to secure this right of the citizens.

Right to Die

In Common Cause v Union of India (1999), it was held that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. Thus, an adult with the mental capacity to make an informed decision may refuse medical treatment or request the withdrawal of life-support systems. The concept of ‘living will’ was also introduced in it.

Right to Life against Death Penalty

The principle of ‘rarest of rare cases’ was established in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980). It held that the death penalty was not a violation of the right to life under Article 21 when carried out in accordance with a just, fair, and proper procedure established by a lawful law. It was also observed that capital punishment should be given only in the rarest of rare cases so that no innocent is sentenced to death.

Is the Right to Life an Absolute Right?

No, the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not an absolute right. Article 21 itself states that life and personal liberty may be taken away in accordance with the procedure established by law.

However, there was a change in this ideology with the famous judgment of Maneka Gandhi , where it was held that not only should life and liberty be taken away as per the established procedure as per the prevailing law, but it should also be just and fair i.e., must be in accordance with due process of law. It should not be arbitrary or oppressive.

However, additional protection has been provided to the right to life, i.e. in case of a national emergency when all other fundamental rights are suspended, Article 20 along with Article 21 is still functional. This means that the right to life and liberty cannot be taken away even if an emergency is declared in the country. Article 21 Keeping in view the life and safety of a citizen, many rights have been included in the Fundamental Rights, the purpose of which is only that the rights of any person are not violated, apart from this, everyone has equal rights and equal rights. Be respected, no one should be deprived of his rights. No citizen should be deprived of his rights.

This article has been submitted by Nandu Dangi, a student of NRI VIDYADAYINI INSTITUTE OF SCI MGT AND TECH, BHOPAL.

You might like

Employment Notice Period: What Does Indian Law Say?

How Does One File a Claim Under an Insurance Policy in India?

The Problems of Legal Language

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Post Comment

Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Right to Life and Liberty

Article 21 ensures that No individual shall be bared of life & liberty except to the procedure established by law. Know all about the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Table of Contents

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Justice P. Bhagwati stated that Article 21 “embodies a fundamental value of supreme importance in a democratic society” in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981). Additionally, Article 21 was described by Justice Iyer as “the procedural Magna Carta protecting life and liberty.”

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”, it also forbids the denial of rights in accordance with legal processes. Article 21 is the core of the Indian Constitution . Article 21 also covers important rights such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of religion and culture. Every Indian citizen is covered under Article 21. Foreign nationals also have been protected under this article. The two categories of rights in Article 21 are:

• Right to Life
• Right to Personal Liberty

Read More: Right to Freedom

Right to Life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

‘Life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution should not merely be taken as the physical act of breathing. It does not imply continual toil or a life of simple animal existence. It covers a far wider range of issues, such as the right to a decent standard of living, the right to a means of support, the right to health, the right to clean air, etc.

The Right to Life is necessary to our very existence and without which we cannot exist as humans, the right to life embraces all those aspects of life that give a man’s life meaning, fulfilment, and value. Thus, the bare essentials, minimum requirements, and fundamental needs of an individual are derived from the fundamental principle of the right to life.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963

Supreme court held that the term “life” is employed in this context, more than only animal existence is indicated. The prohibition against its loss applies to all the limbs and faculties that are used to enjoy life. The provision forbids the mutilation of the body, including the removal of an eye, an armoured leg, or any other organ that allows communication between the soul and the outside world.

Read More:   Article 19 of Indian Constitution

Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

According to the Indian Constitution, the sole intention of laws made is to preserve the rights of the citizens. In light of it, Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered as the guardian and the protector of fundamental rights . We have all of the legally recognised fundamental rights as Indian citizens. Hence, if an individual’s fundamental rights are violated, the Supreme Court can be used to enforce them.

The Supreme Court has the authority to exercise judicial review by issuing writs or orders to enforce fundamental rights because the right to a constitutional remedy is a component of those rights. The Supreme Court has established the legal system as a pillar of individual liberty.

Because it is the sole provider in the Indian Constitution that addresses the right to life or any other right that belongs to human beings, Article 32 is considered the “heart” and “soul” of the Indian Constitution.

The most valuable piece of legislation is India’s Constitution. The Magna Carta serves as the foundation for personal liberty. Personal liberty is never susceptible to detention, arrest, or any other kind of bodily restraint. The fundamental component of personal liberty is positivity.

Article 21 Interpretations by SC in Various Cases

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases. Some of these cases include:

AK Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950

Article 21 was somewhat limited in its application before the 1950s. In this decision, the SC determined that the phrase “procedure established by law” as used in the Constitution had British-style personal liberty, not American-style “due process” at its core.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

In this instance, Manenka Gandhi received a passport from the passport office for an international trip. However, the Regional Passport Officer in Delhi notified the petitioner that the Government of India made the decision to accept the passport. The petitioner was required to return her passport within seven days for this reason. The passport was eventually denied by the government because, according to them, it went against the interests of the general population. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition objecting to the government’s refusal to seize the passport.

The Supreme Court reinterpreted Article 21 in the Maneka Gandhi case by declaring that the right to life encompasses more than just the physical and includes the right to live with dignity.

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi 1981

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi is a 1981 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Union Territory of Delhi was exempt from paying minimum wages to its employees under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The Supreme Court held that the Union Territory of Delhi was not exempt from paying minimum wages and that it was obligated to pay its employees the minimum wages as determined under the act. In this decision, the court ruled that any mechanism used to revoke someone’s right to life or liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just—not capricious, capricious, or fantastical.

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation is a 1985 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether pavement dwellers in Mumbai had a right to livelihood and adequate housing. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution included the right to livelihood and adequate housing and that the Bombay Municipal Corporation was obligated to provide basic amenities, including water and sanitation, to pavement dwellers.

This case established the principle of the right to life as a comprehensive right that encompasses the right to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing. This case reaffirmed the earlier stance that any action that would violate a person’s fundamental rights should adhere to the rules of justice and fair play.

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is a 1993 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the right to education was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to education was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty.

The court stated that education was an integral part of the right to life and that the state was obligated to provide free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14. This case is considered a landmark decision in Indian constitutional history, as it established education as a fundamental right in India. The SC supported the broad meaning of the right to life in this instance.

Read More: Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution Scope

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty. The scope of Article 21 is broad and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases over the years.

Right to Die (Euthanesia)

A person has the right to choose to end their life under any conditions or to consent to euthanasia voluntarily. However, the right to die does not apply to coerced suicide. The right to death is freedom wholly dependent on people.

In Common Cause vs Union of India 2018, SC gave its legal sanctity to Passive Euthanasia. This verdict was made in the line with the case of Aruna Shanbaug who until her death in 2015 lived her life in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades. Although Active euthanasia is not yet legal in India.

Although there is no legal backing for euthanasia in India, passive euthanasia is permitted under strict guidelines, as the individual must give consent to a living will and the patient should either be in a vegetative state or terminally ill.

Right to be forgotten (RTBF)

The right to be forgotten refers to the ability to request the removal of personally identifiable information that is publicly accessible from databases, websites, search engines, and other social platforms once the information is not required.

There is no law in India that particularly addresses RTBF. However, the now-retracted Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB), 2019, included RTBF-related measures. The Information Technology Rules, 2011, which regulate digital data, likewise don’t have any RTBF-related clauses.

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017  recognised RTBF as a component of the rights to life and privacy under Article 21 in this precedent-setting judgement. The RTBF was prohibited from being used if the material in question was needed for the following purposes, according to SC:

• Exercising one’s freedom of expression and information.
• Compliance with legal obligations.
• The performance of responsibility for the public’s welfare or health.
• Protection of privacy in the public interest.
• For statistical purposes, for scientific or historical research, or both; or
• Establishment, carrying out, or defending legal claims.

Right to the Internet as Human Right

All people must have access to the internet in order to exercise their right to freedom of speech, opinion, and other essential human rights.

Supreme Court in Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and Ors, 2018 declared that the Right to Access Internet is a basic fundamental right, which could not be curtailed at any cost, except for when it “encroaches into the boundary of illegality.”

Following the Sabu Mathew judgement in this case, the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2020 also declared the right to Internet access as a fundamental right.

List of Rights Under Article 21 Interpreted by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court through its various judgements has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

As the current form of this article is evolving on a case-by-case basis, many more rights are being added to this list with each passing judgement. This also depicts the flexibility of the Indian Constitution .

Read about: Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution UPSC

Anyone may submit a petition to the Supreme Court if they believe that a public official or government official has violated their fundamental rights. The Magna Carta period of history is referenced in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. First, the Magna Carta is the basis of our Indian Constitution. The Constitution at that time gives the judiciary a very restricted role. However, the judiciary now plays a significant part in our Indian Constitution.

The Indian judiciary, which is listed in the Indian Constitution, is responsible for enforcing the law. According to the Indian Constitution, every Indian citizen is treated equally. Every right guaranteed by the Indian constitution is open to all.

Read about: Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Sharing is caring!

Why is Article 21 being an essential right?

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”.

What is Procedure Established by Law?

It safeguards the rights of citizen from the arbitrary actions of executives and not against Legislative actions.

Where is the Procedure Established by Law originated?

Procedure Established by Law is originated from the British constitution.

What is Due Process of Law?

It protects citizens' rights from both executive and legislative actions.

Where is the Due Process of Law originated?

Due Process of Law is originated from the constitution of the United States.

Is the Due Process of Law is mentioned under Article 21?

Due Process of Law is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution

• indian polity

Leave a comment

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Trending Event

• KPSC KAS Question Paper 2024
• KPSC KAS Answer Key 2024
• SSC CGL Tier 1 Admit Card 2024
• TNPSC Group 4 Result 2024

Recent Posts

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2025
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form
• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

SSC CGL 2024

• SSC CGL Exam 2024
• SSC CGL Syllabus 2024
• SSC CGL Cut off
• SSC CGL Apply Online
• SSC CGL Salary
• SSC CGL Previous Year Question Paper
• SSC CGL Admit Card 2024
• SSC MTS 2024
• SSC MTS Apply Online 2024
• SSC MTS Syllabus 2024
• SSC MTS Salary 2024
• SSC MTS Eligibility Criteria 2024
• SSC MTS Previous Year Paper

SSC Stenographer 2024

• SSC Stenographer Notification 2024
• SSC Stenographer Apply Online 2024
• SSC Stenographer Syllabus 2024
• SSC Stenographer Salary 2024
• SSC Stenographer Eligibility Criteria 2024

SSC GD Constable 2025

• SSC GD Salary 2025
• SSC GD Constable Syllabus 2025
• SSC GD Eligibility Criteria 2025

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Current Affairs

Home / current affairs, constitutional law, rights under article 21 of the constitution,  28-dec-2023.

• Bombay High Court
• Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has observed that a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.

• The Bombay High Court gave this judgment in the case of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others.

What is the Background of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others?

• The Passport Authority had refused to renew the passports of Rajinder Kaur and her two sons on the ground that there was an objection raised by the woman's brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
• Layal had contended that the address belonged to a room standing in his name and there was an ongoing property dispute regarding the same.
• The court clarified that the right to the property can be protected by making it clear that mention of the address in the passports will not confer any title rights to the appellants.
• The court directed respondent no.2 to issue passports to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, without going into the merits of the objection as raised by respondent no.3 and held that the ground cited by the ‘ Passport Authority ’ for refusal is ‘ arbitrary and without jurisdiction.’
• The court also observed that the ‘Passports Act’ does not contain any provision that enables refusal on the ground mentioned.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Since the petitioners have filed the present petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and have challenged the said orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy.
• Needless to state that indication of the petitioners' address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent no.3 in other pending proceeding.

What is Article 21 of Indian Constitution?

• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty
• State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the legislatures, etc.
• The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.
• AK Gopalan Case (1950) : Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘ procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘ due process’.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) : This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19 , thus giving them ‘ additional protection ’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well.
• That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary.
• Right to privacy
• Right to go abroad
• Right to shelter
• Right against solitary confinement
• Right to social justice and economic empowerment
• Right against handcuffing
• Right against custodial death
• Right against delayed execution
• Doctors’ assistance
• Right against public hanging
• Protection of cultural heritage
• Right to pollution-free water and air
• Right of every child to a full development
• Right to health and medical aid
• Right to education
• Protection of under-trials

• Let me explain
• Yen Endra Kelvi
• SUBSCRIBER ONLY
• Whats Your Ism?
• Pakka Politics
• NEWSLETTERS

78 not out: How India's Constitution keeps us steady

India celebrated its 78th Independence Day recently, reminding us of the remarkable journey of a nation that not only survived many challenges but thrived. Our success story sharply contrasts with the recent political turmoil in many of our South Asian neighbours, such as Bangladesh, highlighting the crucial role our Constitution plays in ensuring stability and progress.

The common thread that connects India with most of the South Asian neighbours is that they are all constitutional democracies and largely gained their independence around the same time India did. A constitution is merely a document; its effectiveness depends on its implementation. The manner in which a constitution is crafted and its foundational principles are crucial to its execution. Constitutions are created by the people, for the people, and intended to serve the people.

The South Asian Context: A comparative analysis

Although South Asian nations claim to have democratic governments, their governance systems frequently do not fully embody democratic ideals. Social, political, and economic challenges have led to military coups, regime changes, constitutional overhauls, and violent protests. Over the past two years, three establishment leaders have fled their nations due to misgovernment and public unrest.

Pakistan's repeated collapses are attributed to military coups, the consequence of a Constitution that lacks robust checks and balances. This weakness has permitted the military to wield excessive influence, undermining civilian rule and judicial independence.

In Sri Lanka, political instability stems from frequent government changes and poor representation of ethnic minorities like Tamils and Muslims. The unclear delineation of presidential and prime ministerial powers fuels power struggles.

Nepal faces instability from managing ethnic diversity and regional autonomy, with frequent constitutional changes leading to political fragmentation. Bhutan's democratic constitutional monarchy struggles with power concentration in the monarchy, undermining democratic principles. Afghanistan’s issues arise from persistent conflict and weak institutions. The country’s Constitution, ratified in 2004, failed to address tribalism and ethnic divisions, enabling corruption and culminating in the Taliban takeover.

Bangladesh's turmoil is due to concentrated power and a Constitution that doesn’t prevent autocratic behavior. Weakened institutions lead to governance failures and unrest, with ideological shifts between secularism and Islamism destabilizing the nation. Executive dominance overshadows legislature and judiciary, weakening checks and balances.

A Constitution is a foundational document that must be both contemporary and visionary. The common feature across these South Asian nations is the failure of their constitutions to establish effective checks and balances, ensure political accountability, and manage diversity.

India's journey to independence and the monumental task of nation-building

Colonized for over two centuries, India’s freedom struggle under Mahatma Gandhi was notably marked by non-violent resistance.  Gandhiji’s unwavering principle was that the means must justify the end, rejecting violence in favor of non-violent struggle. He believed that freedom achieved through bloodshed was unworthy. This steadfast commitment, coupled with the unyielding determination of our leaders, united the populace and ultimately secured India's independence in 1947.

After gaining independence, many believed that India's struggles would come to an end, but this was not the case. With a diverse population, the challenge of nation-building looms large. Despite being under colonial rule for nearly two centuries, Indians had not lived under codified law, presenting a practical difficulty.

Moreover, India faced the challenge of partition. Yet, our leaders remained focused on establishing a stable, progressive, and inclusive nation, undeterred by the daunting obstacles. Instead of becoming anxious, they embraced the task of nation-building. Drafting the Constitution was a monumental task, but it was not unprecedented. As early as the 1930s, the Nehru Report demonstrated India's capability to draft its own Constitution. The Constituent Assembly, partly elected and partly nominated, was a microcosm of India's diverse populace, embodying a wide range of expertise.

The Indian Constitution, inspired by global models but carefully adapted to Indian society, emerged from vigorous debates on federalism, language, government structure, and fundamental rights. Consensus was a guiding principle throughout, with leaders like Dr BR Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru making pivotal contributions to create a document that is both visionary and forward-looking.

India’s constitutional resilience

In contrast to other South Asian nations, India’s Constitution has provided a stable framework, effectively preventing the nation from slipping into political turmoil. Several key features and mechanisms have contributed to this resilience:

The Indian Constitution stands as a fortress of democracy, built on the unshakeable foundation of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. Parliament legislates and oversees. The executive, under the President and the Prime Minister, implements. The judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, interprets and safeguards the Constitution. This system of checks and balances ensures no branch oversteps, maintaining our democratic integrity.

The Basic Structure Doctrine isn't just a legal concept - it's our democracy's shield. Born from the Kesavananda Bharati case, this doctrine stands guard over our Constitution's soul, protecting it from any attempt to undermine our democratic values.

Our federal structure isn't about division - it's about strength through unity.  Clear separation of powers between the Union and the states, which is essential for the smooth functioning of democracy.  When boundaries are crossed, the Supreme Court stands ready to restore order. This system of checks and balances, operating both vertically and horizontally, isn't just governance - it's the backbone of our nation's stability.

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our democracy. Public trust in our electoral process is paramount for political stability. The Election Commission must operate with absolute independence, free from political meddling. Independent institutions are vital for a fair and just democratic process, reinforcing public confidence in the political system.

As we celebrate 78 years of independence, it is crucial to acknowledge the vision of our forefathers. Their creation, the Indian Constitution, not only provides a framework for governance but also stands as a beacon for stability and progress in a region rife with political turmoil. It is this living document that has guided us through challenges, ensuring that India remains a vibrant democracy.

(Hasan Mohammed Jinnah is a State Public Prosecutor and Director of Prosecution, Tamil Nadu. Views expressed are author’s own)

Related Stories