Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Right to live a free, full and dignified life is one of the most basic principles of human existence. Every person is entitled to live their life on their own terms , with no unfair interference from others. A successful democracy can only be one that guarantees its citizens the right to protect their own life and liberty .

            In India , the protection of life and personal liberty is a Fundamental Right granted yo citizens under part III of the Constitution of India ,1950.  These fundamental rights represent the foundational values cherished by the people and are granted against actions of the State.

Article 21 of this part states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."  and this

is known as the Right to life and personal liberty.

           Hence , this article prohibits the encroachment upon a person's right to life and personal liberty against the State. The State here refers to all entities having statutory authority, like the Government and Parliament at the Central and State level , Local authorities etc. Thus , violation  of the right by private entities is not within its purview. 

 

Personal Liberty : Meaning and scope -

The meaning of Personal liberty of a citizen in India has evolved and its scope has widened . Prior to the Maneka Gandhi case , it had a relatively narrower scope, comprising only some liberties of a person. 

         Personal liberty was first interpreted in the case of - 

 A. K. Gopalan  vs State of Madras ,1950 SC : Prevention detention

 

The court stated that Personal liberty meant liberty of the physical body and thus did not include the rights given under Article 19 (1) .  Hence, personal liberty was considered to include some rights like the right to sleep and eat etc. While the right to move freely was relatively minor and was not included in one's "Personal" liberty.

 

The subsequent case of  Kharak Singh vs State of U.P., 1963 SC : Personal Liberty Curtailed- 

 It was held that the right to personal liberty constitutes not only the right to be free from restrictions placed on one's movements but also to be free from encroachment on one's private life . Thus, Personal liberty was considered to include all the residual freedoms of a person not included in Article 19 (1).

           However, in case of Maneka Gandhi

proved to be a landmark case in the evolution of Personal liberty  , greatly widening the scope of this right as granted by Article 21.

Maneka Gandhi vs union of India, 1978 SC : Right to Travel -

The SC held that the Right to travel and go outside the country must be included in the Right to personal liberty. It stated that "personal liberty" given in Article 21 had the widest amplitude and covered a variety of rights related to the personal liberty of a person . Such a right could only be restricted be a procedure established by law , which had to be  " fair , just and reasonable not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary." 

Scope of right to life and personal liberty -

Right to live with human dignity -

 

It is not enough to ensure that a person has a right to live . An essential element of life is one's dignity and respect ; therefore,

each person has been guaranteed the right to live with dignity which means having access to the necessities of human life as well as having autonomy over one's personal decisions.

In Occupational Health and Safety vs Union of India ,2014 SC  the protection of health and strength of workers and their access to just and human conditions of work were taken as essential conditions to live with human dignity .

The SC, in case of Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India ,2019 SC  said that the right to dignity means the right to "full personhood" , and "includes the right to carry such functions and activities as would constitute the meaningful expression of the human self ".  In this case, a very important aspect of human dignity was talked about the control over one's own intimate relations (Homosexuality).

Right to livelihood - 

Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 SC 

Fact - the petitioner, In this case , were slum and pavement dwellers in the city of Bombay . They filed a writ petition against the earlier decision of the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation to forcibly evict dwellers and depart them, which led to the demolition of certain dwellings.

Held - The court conclude that though the slum and pavement dwellers were deprived of their Right to livelihood , the government was justified in evicting them as they were making use of the public property for private purposes. However, they should not be considered as trespassers as they occupied the filthy places out of sheer helplessness. It was ordered that any evictions would take place only after the approaching monsoon season and the persons who were censured before 1976 would be entitled to resettlement.

Right to Privacy-

In case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Rtd.) Vs Union of India and Ors., 2017 SC ,SC held that right to privacy is a fundamental right and it is protected under Article 21. Court overruled M.P Sharma's case and Kharak Singh's case to the extent they held that right to Privacy  is not a fundamental right .

 

Right to Health and Medical Assistance -

In case of  Parmanand Katara vs Union of India, 1989 SC ,  SC held that , it is the professional obligation of all doctors, whether government or private, to entend

medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without waiting legal formalities to be complied with by the police under CrPC . Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. 

Right to Sleep - 

In Case of Re- Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary and Ors., 2012 SC , the Court held that sleep is an essential part of healthy life and a necessity for the maintenance of individual peace.  If any person's sleep is disturbed without any reasonable justification, it amount to torture and is a violation of his human rights . Therefore, making the sleeping persons free and causing mayhem at the location was held as unlawful, since there was no illegal activity taking place there.

Arrest and detention of a judgment debtor-

In Jolly George  Varghese vs Bank of Cochin , 1980 SC it was held that the imprisonment of a poor person for non- payment of debts amount to deprivation of his personal liberty without fair procedure and is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bonded labour - 

In case of  Neerja Chaudhry vs State of M.P., 1984 SC , SC held that under the Labour System (Abolition) Act , 1976 it is not enough merely to identify and release bonded labourers but it is more important that they must be rehabilitation.

Right to die -

In Gyan Kaur vs State of Punjab,  1996 SC , a five judge Constitution Bench of the SC overruled the P. Rathinam's case and held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include "right to die " or "right to be killed". 

Environment protection and Article 21 -

Right to get pollution free water and air. In Subhas Kumar vs State of Bihar ,1991 SC , SC held - Public interest litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included in the "right to live" under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Self determination of gender by Transgender Hijra-

In National Legal Services Authority vs Union Of India, 2014 SC ,SC held that self determination of gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under   Article 21 of the Constitution.

Prisoner's right and Article 21 -

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jails, the convicts are not by mere reason of their conviction deprived of all the FR which they otherwise possess.

Right against solitary confinement -

In Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, 1978 SC , the convict, Sunil Batra was sentenced to death by the district and session judge and his sentence was subject to the confirmation by the HC and to a possible appeal to the SC. Batra complained that since the date of his conviction by the session judge he was kept in solitary confinement. SC accepted the argument of petitioner and held section 30 of the prison Act did not empower the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement upon a prisoner under sentence of death. If by imposing solitary confinement there is total deprivation of comraderie (friendship) amongst co-prisoners comingling  and talking and being talked to ,it offends Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right against handcuffing - 

In Prem Shankar vs Delhi Administration,1980 SC , the validity of certain clauses of Punjab Police Rules were challenged as violative of Article 14 , 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Krishna Iyer, J. , delivery the majority judgment held - The provisions in paras 26 , 22 that every undertrial who is accused of a non bailable offence punishable with more than three years jail term will be handcuffed, is violative of article 14, 19 , 21 of the Constitution.     He observed             "Handcuffing is prima facie in human and , therefore, unreasonable, is overharsh and at the first flush , arbitrary. Absent of fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict 'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Art.21."

Right against inhuman treatment by the

Police- 

In kishore Singh vs State of Rajsthan, 1981 SC , the SC held that use of  "third degree" method by police is violative article 21 . The punishment od solitary confinement for a long period from 8 to 11 months and putting bar fetters on the prisoner in jail for several days on filmsy ground like "loitering in the person", "behaving insolently and in an uncivilized  manner", " tearing of his history ticket" must be regarded as barbarous and against human dignity and hence violative of Art. 21 , 19 and 14 of the Constitution.

Right to speedy trail - 

In Hussainara Khatoon vs Home secretary , State of Bihar , 1979 SC , A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus was failed by number of under- trail prisoners who were in jails in the state of Bihar for years awaiting their trail. The SC held that the "right to a speedy trail", a   FR , is implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Non- citizens also entitled to right to life - 

In National Human Rights Commission vs  State of Arunachal pradesh , 1996 SC,

(Chakmas migrants case )  - 

Fact - A large number of Chakmas who migrated from East Pakistan in 1954, first setted in Assam and Tripura and became Indian citizen in due course. Since the state of Assam and state of Arunachal pradesh expressed their inability to rehabilitate all of them by threatening to forcibly expel them from the State.

Held - SC held that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every being whether citizen or non-citizen. It is the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the life, health and well being of Chakmas.

Starvation Death - Right to food - 

In case of PUCL vs Union of India, 2000 SC, 

SC held that the people who are starving because of their inability to purchase food grains have right to get food under Art.21 and , therefore, they ought to be provided the same free of cost by the state out of surplus stock laying with the state particularly when it is unused and rotting.

Ban on smoking in public place- 

In Murli S. Deora vs Union of India, 2002 SC , the petitioner filed a PIL in the supreme court seeking order foe banning smoking in public places.

The court held that fundamental right guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution, inter alia , provides that non-smoker shall not be deprived of his life without due process of law.

Constitutionality of death sentence- 

In Jagmohan singh vs State of UP , 1973 the court held that death penalty constitutionally permissible . Pardoning power of the president under Art. 72 (1)(c) , 72 (3) of the Constitution , Sec- 401 , 402 of CrPC , entries 1 and 2 in list III of seventh schedule and Art.134 of the Constitution make it clear that the framers of the Constitution were aware of death sentence.

Hanging by rope - 

In Deena vs Union of india , 1983 SC , the court held that method prescribed by  sec- 354(5) of CrPC for executing the death sentence by hanging by rope does not violate Art.21 as mode of execution is fair , just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of art.21 and hence constitutional.

Public hanging - 

In Attorney General of India vs Lachmi Devi , 1986 SC, the SC held that the execution of death sentence by public hanging is barbaric and violative of art.21 of the Constitution. The crime of which the accused are found to be guilty may be barbaric but a barbaric crime does not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty such as public hanging. 

Right to adoption- 

In Shabnam Hashmi vs Union of India , 2014 SC, the SC by the three Judge bench decision held that the present is not appropriate time and stage that the right to adopt a child or the right to be adopted can be raised to the statues of a FR and/or such a right to be encompassed by article 21 .

Emergency and Art.21 - 

In A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla, 1976 SC , popularly known as the "habeas corpus" case , and in this case the SC held that Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty ans if the right to move to any court for the enforcement of this right is suspended by the  presidential order under art.359 , the detenue has no "locus standi" to file a writ petition for challenging the legality of their detention . 

After the judgment ,  44th Constitutional Amendment Act , 1978   has amended  Article 359 which now provides that the enforcement of the right to life and personal liberty under art.21 can not be suspended by the presidential order. This amendment is intended to prevent the violation of person's life and personal liberty.

Right to education - 

In case of  Mohini jain vs State of Karnataka, 1992 SC , the court interpreted Art.21 liberally and held that the right to education at all level is a FR under art.21 of the Constitution and charging capitation fee for admission illegal and amounts to denial of citizens right to education . The education in India has a never been a commodity.

In Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh , 1993 SC ,the court specifically held - The right to free education for the children of the age of 6 to 14 years is a fundamental right. After 14 years of age of the children, the obligation of the State depends on the economic capacity and development. The court did not agree with the decision of the Mohini Jain and overruled it on the point. 

         The constitutional (86th amendment ) Act , 2002 added a new Article 21- (A) . It provides " The state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may , by law , determine".  The parliament to give effect tot he 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 , passed the right of children to Compulsory Education Act, 2009 .

Conclusion -

The right to life and personal liberty has a wide ambit which is only growing over time.

There has been increasing awareness about the various aspects of a persons life which he or she is entitled to control and which would , thus , facilitate the enhancement in quality of his or her life . This Right has been described as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution of india by the supreme court and certainly proves to be so representing the very basic necessities of human life.

                          - Deepak Kumar 

                         -  Anjali  Singh

                            ( Law Student )

                     ( University of Allahabad)