Authored By: Ramanjeet kaur
Lloyd School of Law
Introduction
Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantee the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. This article protects individuals from infringement on their right to life and personal liberty. The term “state” includes governmental bodies and other entities with statutory authority. This interpretation stems from the recognition that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is integral to the enjoyment of the right to life. According to Indian constitution article 21 stating that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
The concept of ‘personal liberty’ has also been given a wide interpretation, covering various rights that constitute the personal liberty of an individual. This includes the right to travel abroad, the right to privacy, and the right against solitary confinement, among other. The court has emphasized that any procedure restricting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, oppressive and fanciful.
Evolution of interpretation
The interpretation of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ has evolved significantly through landmark court cases, expanding the scope of article 21. Initially, the courts narrow defined “personal liberty”, but later ruling broadened its meaning to include various rights.
A.K. Gopalan v. state of Madras (1950)
The court narrowly interpretation personal liberty to mean liberty of the physical body and excluded freedoms such as the freedom of movement of under article 19(1)(d). the court ruled that “procedure established by law” simply meant any procedure enacted by the state legislature. It held that the preventive detention Act was a valid law passed by the parliament and therefore did not violate article 21. The court concluded that the personal liberty and freedom of movement guaranteed by article 19 were not connected to the right against preventive detention under article 21.
Maneka Gandhi v. union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is included in personal liberty. The court stated that “personal liberty” has the widest scope, covering various rights related to an individual’s personal freedom. The court also stated that any procedure to restrict personal liberty must be “fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. “Procedure Established by Law” The phrase “procedure established by law” in Article 21 requires that any deprivation of life or personal liberty must follow a legally established process. This procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive. The Supreme Court, in the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), expanded the interpretation of “procedure established by law” to include the principle of “procedural due process.” This ruling ensured that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, not whimsical or oppressive.
Expanding scope through judicial interpretation
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P (1964)
Fact: – Kharak Singh the person asking for justice was let go from a robbery investigation due to lack of proof against him but the police in up began keeping a record of his activities as a potentially habitually criminal person under chapter 20 of the up police rules. These rules allowed the police to watch people who were either already repeat offender or were believed to become repeat offences.
Judgement: – privacy not a part of article 21.
Subhash Kumar v. state of Bihar (1991)
Fact: – Subhash Kumar filed a writ petition alleging that the discharge of slurry from the tata iron & steel co. into the Bokaro river was polluting the water, affecting his livelihood and the health of resident.
Judgement: – right to clean environment is a part to life.
Murali S. Deora v. Union of India (2002)
Fact: – The petition was intended to bring about a ban on Tabacco smoking at public places which is adversely affecting the health of the citizens.
Judgement: – The case back bn to public smoking on public places because smoking in public places violating the right to passive smoker.
Chemli Singh v. state of U.P (1996)
Fact: – chemli Singh was accused of committing multiple murders, including those of children and women in brutal manner. The killing accrued over a dispute and the way the crime was carried out showed extreme cruelty.
Judgement: – the trial court convicted chemli Singh and sentenced him to death citing the “Rarest of Rare” doctrine for capital punishment.
Chemli Singh appealed to the SC challenging the death penalty.
Right to shelter is a part of article 21.
Ram Lila maiden v. home secretary, Delhi (2012)
Fact: – yoga guru baba Ramdev and his followers were peacefully protesting against corruption. The government failed to convince baba Ramdev to stop his fast, so they ordered the police to evict the protestor. The police used tear gas, water cannons, and batons on the protester, who were waken up from their sleep one person died in the incident.
Judgement: – Right to undisturbed sleep is a part of right to article 21.
Parmanand katra v. union of India (1989)
Fact: – The petitioner a human right activist filed a writ petition based on a newspaper report about a scooterist, who died after being knocked down by a speeding car. The report stated that the injured person was taken to the nearest hospital, but the doctors there refused to attend to him, directing that he to be taken to another hospital authorized to handle medico – legal cases, which was 20 km away. The scooterist died on route to the other hospital.
Judgement: – Right t first aid or medical assistance is a part of article 21.
Satwant Singh v. passport officer (1967)
Fact: – The petitioner carried on the business of import export and the manufacturing; he was holding a two valid passport. The petitioner regional passport officer at Bombay respectively wrote to the petitioner calling upon him to surrender the two passports as the central government had decided to withdrawn the passport facilities extended to him.
Judgement: – Right travel abroad as a part of personal liberty is a part of article 21.
State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Umed Ram (1986)
Fact: – He filed a petition, claimed that the absence of a motorable road violated his fundamental right to life, dignity, and equality, as guaranteed under article 21 and 14 of the constitution.
Judgement: – Excess to road in hilly area is a part of right to life.
Remedies for violation
If there is a violation of fundamental rights, a person can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court can quash proceedings, drop charges, acquit the accused, or grant bail as remedies for delays in the proceedings that violate Article 21.
Conclusion
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision protecting the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. Over time, the judiciary has expanded its scope and interpretation to ensure that any deprivation of these rights follows a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. The right to a speedy trial, due process, and other rights, like the right to livelihood and adequate housing, are all encompassed within the broad framework of Article 21.
