The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Scope Evolution and Judicial Interpretation

Introduction:- 

1The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most significant right given to every person. It basically states that no one will be deprived of their life or personal  freedom unless it is done according to the law. At the very introduction of this right, it was seen  through a restricted way only where it only protected people from being unfairly killed or  imprisoned by the government. However, with time the Courts have interpreted and given it a  much wider meaning. Now, the Right to Life is not merely a right to exist but the right to live  with dignity, safety and basic human needs such as food, shelter, health, education and a clean  environment. 

The purpose of this assignment is basically to understand how the Right to Life under Article 21  has developed from being a limited constitutional safeguard to a comprehensive source of  fundamental right that evolved through various landmark cases and judicial interpretations like  A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Justice  K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), highlighting both the theoretical foundations and  practical applications of this right. These developments have indicated that ‘life’ is not just an act  of living, but the enjoyment of all conditions that makes life meaningful and worth living. 

The relevance of this topic in the legal field and society is profound as right to life under article  21 of the Indian Constitution is an essential which forms the backbone of human rights and  constitutional law. The constant evolution of this right in response to changing realities, ensuring  that constitutional principles remain robust and responsive highlights the commitment to  protecting the intricating value of human life. 

Introduction: 

In simple words, the Right to Life under Article 21 is one of the most important fundamental  right that is being guaranteed by the Indian Constitution where it is explicitly written that “No  person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established  by law” which means that nor the government or any authority cannot take away a person’s life  or freedom until and unless it 2is done legally with proper procedure. However, in the beginning this Article was interpreted in a narrow manner which meant simply that a person should not be  killed or imprisoned without following the law. But as time advanced, the Supreme Court of  India gave it a wider and more meaningful interpretation where “life” doesn’t only mean living  

• Menon, Nivedita. “The Expanding Horizon of Article 21: Judicial Activism and Human Rights in India.”  Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 29 (2019). 
• Law Commission of India, Report on Human Rights and Access to Justice, 2020.or breathing but rather living a life with dignity, safety and all those things that make life  meaningful.  

Rights are not only for protection from the government’s actions but also a guarantee of certain  positive conditions for individuals like people having the right to proper healthcare, education,  clean environment and privacy which are necessary for a person to live with dignity in a society. This also shows how the Constitution is a living document which grows and change with time  through judicial interpretation although the Courts play an important role in determining the  meaning of the Right to Life to meet the needs of society. 

Legal Framework:- 

The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is itself found in Part III of the  Constitution which contains the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to every person who is a citizen  of the country. Though Article 21 applies to both Indian citizens as well as the foreigners. Over the  years, Courts have said that the protection under Article 21 is not just being alive, there are other  constitutional provisions that are closely connected to it like: 

• Article 14- Equality before the law making sure that the procedure which takes away  someone’s liberty is not discriminatory or arbitrary. 
• Article 19- Protection of certain freedoms like speech, movement, expression linking with  article 14 and 21. 
• Article 32- Right to Constitutional Remedies if their right to life or any other fundamental  right is violated. 

Apart from the Constitution, there are also statutory laws and judicial decisions that keeps  protecting the right to life like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes acts like murder  (under section 101), culpable homicide (under section 99) and abetment of suicide (section 113)  ensuring protection to someone’s life. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) also  ensures fair investigation and trial procedures to protect personal liberty.  

Over the years, the Apex Court has interpreted and expanded the Article 21 including the right to  live with dignity, right to health, right to education, right to clean environment and right to privacy.  Thus we can conclude by saying that the legal framework around Article 21 is both constitutional  and statutory supported by various judicial interpretations and landmark case laws 3making it a  living and evolving safeguard for human life and liberty.  

Case Laws / Judicial Decisions:- 

After the Constitution came into force in the year 1950, Article 21 was seem jus as a simple  protection against the State taking away a person’s life or liberty without any certain legal  procedure. As time passed by, the interpretation of Article 21 has developed through various  judgements of the Apex Court of India. But among them, three stands most significantly which are  —- A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Justice  K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) playing a major role in shaping the scope and meaning  of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. These three cases are perfect examples of how the Court’s  understanding of human dignity, liberty and fairness have evolved through with the upliftment of  India’s democratic progress. 

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88;  (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383: 

Intro: This is the earliest case based upon Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. A. K.  Gopalan, a political activist was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. After his  detention, he argued that his detention has violated the right to life and personal liberty under  Article 21. However, the Apex Court held in a narrow view that as long as there was a law, even  if that law was harsh or unfair, the State could deprive a person of their liberty. The judges did not  checked as if the law was reasonable or not. This judgement didn’t only restricted this right in a  narrow manner but also made it clear that Article 19 and 21 should be seen as separate and not  inter-connected, which was although changed later on by future judgements.  

Background: After India got her Independence from the British Raj, our country faced a  politically turbulent time which forced the then newly formed government to enact the Preventive  Detention Act, 1950 which gave power to the authorities to detain any person who were suspicious and detention might be necessary in order to maintain public order and national security. A. K.  Gopalan, a famous communist leader, was detained under this act in that time. He challenged his  detention as a violation of his fundamenta4l right before the Supreme Court. 

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that as long as the State followed “a procedure  established by the law” it does not matter whether the law was fair or unjust. In simple words,  Parliament made a law and consequently the government followed it hence there was no violation  of Article 21 or 19. Though in the later period of time, the judgement was heavily criticized and  were questioned regarding Court’s narrow interpretation of the case. 

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383 ii. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597, (1978) 2 SCR 621 iii. Seervai, H.M. Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary. Universal Law Publishing, 2019

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597, (1978) 2  SCR 621:  

Intro: After the case of A. K. Gopalan, this case redefining Article 21 and adding clarity to  it. So what happened was while travelling abroad Maneka Gandhi’s passport was confiscated  by the government without providing any proper reason. As a result, she challenged this arguing  that it violated her right to personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India gave a remarkable  judgement saying that the law which deprives someone of their life or liberty should be “fair, 

just and reasonable” not just any law which meant that the government cannot just make any  unfair law which can be executed to deprive rights, it also added that Articles 14,19 and 21 are  inter-connected with each other and should be read together expanding the concept of Right to  Life. This case is the sole reason which made the right to life and liberty much broader and  humane. Today many rights like the right to travel, education and livelihood are protected only  because of this judicial decision. 

Background: Maneka Gandhi was a journalist and the daughter in law of former Prime  Minister Indira Gandhi who had a passport issued by the government. Soon the government  suddenly seized her passport in public interest without giving any reason and when she asked  for an explanation, the government denied it. She filed a petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution before the Supreme Court feeling that her right to personal liberty and freedom  were violated. 

Judgement: The Supreme Court heard the case and gave the a judgement that completely  changed the nature and scope of Article 21. While delivering the judgement, it simply overruled  the narrow interpretation of the A.K. Gopalan case and held that: 

• ‘Procedure established by the law’ does not merely mean any procedure that is  being laid down by the Legislation. The procedure must be “fair ,just and  reasonable” and not oppressive or arbitrary. 
• Article 14, 19 and 21 are not separate, instead the three of them are interlinked and  must interpreted together. 
• Any law which deprives a person of its fundamental rights under article 14, 19 and  21 must satisfy the tests of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. 

This case marked a revolution in the field of constitutional law which transformed Article 21 from  a limited safeguard to a broad source of human rights making it a cornerstone of the modern  constitutional interpretation. This judgement was widely appreciated by distinguished jurists  around the country ensuring justice in a democratic society. 

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 or AIR 2017 SC  4161: 

Intro: This one is a recent and an important judgement for the wider interpretation of  Article 21, where retired judge KS Puttaswamy challenged the Aadhaar scheme which required people to give their biometric information to the government. The Court held that the right to  privacy is a fundamental right that falls under article 21 of the Constitution which gives the right  to every person to keep their personal information private and live with dignity. It further explained  that privacy is an important part of living free and safe which is protected by our Constitution,  ultimately adding the right to privacy under article 21 of the Indian Constitution apart from others. 

Background: In an era where digital safety and issues of privacy are increasing day by  day, the Government of India introduced a scheme namely “Aadhaar scheme” where every citizen  was given a unique identification number linked with their biometric data. Retired judge K. S.  Puttaswamy of Karnataka High Court came to know about this and filed a petition challenging the  scheme on the violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21. 

5Judgement: To decide this case, a nine bench judge of the Supreme Court was formed  which delivered an unanimous decision recognizing the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right  under Article 21. The Court explained that privacy is very intrinsic in nature without which a  person cannot live with dignity in the society. It was mentioned explicitly that even the state cannot  violate this right unless it satisfies few conditions. Since the judgement of the Maneka Gandhi  case, this judgement was historic too which helps to resolve the modern issues. The Court stated  that the Constitution is a living document which evolves with the time and technology. 

Critical Analysis & Observations: 

The evolution of Article 21 is imminent as it highlights how by the influence of time and  technology it has grown from rigid legalism to a more human centered understanding of rights. A  critical analysis of this right reveals how Indian law has evolved alongside the international  standards of human rights. Originally, Article 21 was first interpreted focusing mainly on physical  safety and lawful deprivation of liberty. Soon thereafter the case of Maneka Gandhi and KS  Puttaswamy, the Apex Court has expanded the scope and broadness of the right making it more  humane as per the time demands. 

When compared with the international laws, we can find similarity with Article 3 of the Universal  Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which declares that “everyone has the right to life, liberty  and security of a person”. In addition to that we can also find Articles 6 and 9 of the International  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which defines the inherent right to life and  protection against the arbitrary arrest or detention. Any violation of Article 21 can be directly  challenged in the apex court under article 32 making the right a practical and enforceable guarantee  for individuals in India. 

Conclusion: 

Through this assignment on “The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Scope,  Evolution and Judicial Interpretation”, I have successfully got a clear idea and understanding that  Article 21 isn’t just a legal provision of the Constitution, it is the very heart and foundation of all  human rights in India. It represents the very spirit of justice, liberty and dignity that our  Constitution promises to every citizen of our country. Over the years the Right to Life and Personal  Liberty have evolved from a narrow, procedural protection into a broad living concept that  safeguards almost every aspect of a meaningful human existence. 

Bibliography: 

The following bibliography lists the main sources of reference, legal texts, and judicial decisions  consulted during the preparation of the research project titled “The Right to Life under Article 21  of the Indian Constitution: Scope, Evolution and Judicial Interpretation.” The materials include  constitutional provisions, landmark case laws, books on constitutional law, online legal  commentaries, and international documents that provide a deeper understanding of the evolution  and present scope of Article 21. 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597, (1978) 2 SCR  621 
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 or AIR 2017 SC  4161 
• Bhatia, Gautam. “The Transformative Constitution and the Right to Privacy.” Indian  Journal of Constitutional Studies, 2018. 
• Menon, Nivedita. “The Expanding Horizon of Article 21: Judicial Activism and Human  Rights in India.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 29 (2019). 
• Law Commission of India, Report on Human Rights and Access to Justice, 2020.
• Basu, D.D. Commentary on the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 2023 Edition. (Used for  detailed interpretation and evolution of Article 21 and fundamental rights.)
• Seervai, H.M. Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary. Universal Law  Publishing, 2019. (Referred for analysis of landmark judgments and judicial trends related  to liberty and due process.) 

The above references together form a comprehensive foundation for understanding the legal,  judicial, and philosophical aspects of Article 21. They show how Indian constitutional  jurisprudence has grown alongside global human rights movements, balancing State power and  individual liberty through evolving judicial interpretation.

1 Bhatia, Gautam. “The Transformative Constitution and the Right to Privacy.” Indian Journal of  Constitutional Studies, 2018. 

3 Basu, D.D. Commentary on the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 2023 Edition.

5Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 or AIR 2017 SC 4161