Authored By: Khushmandeep Kaur
NIMS University, Jaipur
- ABSTRACT
India is a developing nation in terms of improving people’s lives as well as its economy. This is demonstrated by the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right—that is, the right to life—to all people, irrespective or not they are citizens. Even in dire circumstances, this is one of the most significant rights granted to individuals and cannot be restricted.
The most beautiful essence of these Articles is that it is not a straight jacket rule instead it jeeps on evolving with the change in time.
This article highlights the developing meaning and scope of this right enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 21.
- INTRODUCTION
Fundamental Rights, the soul of the Constitution, guarantee essential freedoms necessary for dignity and democratic living. Enshrined in Part III, they ensure equality, liberty, freedom of expression and religion, protection of life, and the right to constitutional remedies. These rights apply to all individuals irrespective of caste, religion, sex, or place of birth, securing a just and harmonious society.
Among all the rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution, Article 21 guarantees a right which is the most important for the survival of the humankind. Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”
- IMPORTANCE
Article 21 of the Constitution of India prevents the deprivation of rights except through procedures established by law. It is the heart or bedrock of our Constitution. It is the purest and reformist provision in our Constitution and is valid for every citizen of India as well as foreign citizens. Either it is by the British Magna Carta (1215) which states that “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deceased or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor will the King pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land”.Or from the Universal Declaration, 1948, Article 3 saying “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.Or conferring to the Article 9 which provides that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” Or by Article 2 of the statement of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 which states that “Everyone’s Right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law”.
- THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21
Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” Despite being one of the most important fundamental rights, it is not unqualified. In addition to protecting fundamental human rights, Article 21 permits acceptable limitations.
on the same through legal procedures, in order to prevent ambiguous circumstances in society.
- Right to life
The right to life is crucial to our survival because without it, we could not exist as human beings. It includes all of the viewpoints that contribute to the idea that a man’s life is worthwhile, essential, and comprehensive. The Constitution’s sole article that has undergone
the widest possible interpretations. The rights to food, shelter, and growth are also included. The reason for this is that a person’s right to life and other rights are based on the most basic, essential, and unavoidable conditions.
Field J. noted in Munn v. Illinois that the phrase “life” in this context refers to more than just animal existence.
- Right to Personal Liberty
The case of A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, (Preventive Detention Act, 1950) has developed Article 21 a long way through a range of various authoritative declarations by the Apex Court. In this case, the Court narrowed down the meaning and scope of “personal liberty” and held that the term “personal liberty” meant only freedom of the physical body and that Articles 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 have to treated separately.
- Procedure Established by Law
“There need be law, and the procedure should be followed,” according to the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “procedure established by law.” It suggests that the protection provided by article 21 is limited to administrative actions and does not extend to parliamentary bodies.
The phrase “process established by law” appears in Article 21 rather than “Due Process of Law.”
“Due process of law” is essentially a substantive due process. Additionally, procedural due process encompasses both law and procedure and requires that both be reasonable—that is, grounded in natural justice principles. In India, the term “due process of law” has been abandoned due to conceptual vagueness and indefiniteness.
The most critical and productive aspect of Maneka Gandhi case is the reinterpretation of the term “procedure established by law”. According to it, the procedure must be reasonable, rational and non-arbitrary. Justice Krishna Iyer said, “Procedure in article 21 means fair and not formal procedure and the law is a reasonable law and not any enacted piece.
Over time, Article 21 has been construed so liberally that it now encompasses a number of additional rights that aid in a person’s life, including the right to sleep, the right to die, and many more.
Among those rights are:
- Right to livelihood
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) is an important case in this regard. In this instance, the Court determined that although though the people of the pavement and slums were denied their right to a livelihood, the government was found not guilty in
removing them because they were using public resources for their own objectives. The Court further ruled that since they overcame the unpleasant areas out of complete helplessness, they shouldn’t be considered trespassers. It was decided that any evictions would only occur following the approaching monsoon season, and those who had been counted prior to 1976 would be given the opportunity to relocate.
- Right to Privacy
The case R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) was the first to definitively acknowledge the Right to Privacy in India. Auto Shankar, a sentenced killer, penned an autobiography revealing his connections with jail authorities. When his wife submitted it to Nakkheeran magazine for release, officials attempted to prevent it. The Supreme Court ruled that neither the Government nor corrections officials could block its publication, confirming that a person has authority over their private information. This ruling established the basis for subsequent decisions that acknowledged the Right to Privacy as included in the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Additionally, in the instance of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017, a former Karnataka High Court Justice presented a case to a nine-judge Constitutional bench, challenging the Government’s initiative to implement the Aadhaar card (a uniform biometric identification card system) for all citizens. He claimed that it violated the Right to Privacy. The lack of strict data protection laws in India suggested that individuals’ personal information might be misused. The bench generally concluded that the Right to Privacy is included in the Right to Life granted by Article 21 and encompasses the Right to keep personal information confidential.
- Right to live with dignity
In the case of Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014), the guarantee of the well-being and vitality of employees and their ability to obtain fair and favorable working conditions were considered optimal circumstances for existing with human dignity.
Furthermore, as can be observed, human dignity is not a rigid framework. Rather, it encompasses the rights and liberties that allow an individual to live their life free from interference one’s own self-esteem, honor, and security. According to Article 21, all individuals, regardless of gender. A woman or member of the LGBTQ community is entitled to live with respect. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018, the Court upheld the conviction of the belief in personal fulfilment, stated that Section 377 of the IPC was inconsistent with Articles 14, 15,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it prohibits consensual physical actions ofgrown-ups in secrecy. Therefore, sexual activities between LGBT adults conducted with their voluntary consent the involved parties were legally certified.
- Right to Sleep
Everyone enjoys sleeping, yet many are unaware that the Right to Sleep is a distinct aspect of Fundamental Rights serve as protection against State actions extending to the unjust deprivation of an individual’s rest.
In Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012), the Supreme Court acknowledged the Right to Sleep as a component of Fundamental Rights. In June 2011, during a peaceful demonstration at Ramlila Maidan, police invaded the area at night, employing tear gas while individuals were resting. The Court determined that sleep is crucial for health and personal freedom, and that disrupting it without proper reason constitutes cruelty and infringes on human rights. Due to the absence of any illegal activity, the midnight eviction and violence were deemed unlawful.
- Right to Die
The Right to Life grants individuals the entitlement to lead a complete life and requires that the State cannot interfere in this Right except through the procedure set by law. However, what if a individual desires to terminate his own existence? Can he interfere with his Right to Life?
Section 108 OF BNS makes it a crime to abet suicide, meaning the help provided by an individual in the act of another’s suicide involvement.
However, in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), the management of Article 21 alongside the principles of natural justice in mind, the two-judge panel directed that Right to Life also included the Right to not live a limited life. Consequently, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (108 OF BNS) was deemed invalid.
However, the Court subsequently changed its stance in the following case of Smt. Gian Kaur against the State of Punjab (1996), where it was held that Section 309 of the IPC was valid and Section 306, which makes abetment to suicide a criminal offense, was also deemed Constitutional. The Court determined that suicide, as an irregular end to life, contradicted the principle of Right to Existence. The Court also mentioned that euthanasia could be addressed lawful only by legislation. The logic behind this was to prevent illegal actions by ill-intentioned people.
The pivotal case in the scenario of euthanasia, however, was Common Cause (A Regd. Society) versus Union of India (2018), which legalized passive euthanasia. In this situation, the Constitution comprising five judges, the bench ruled that the Right to Life encompasses an individual’s Right to Die with dignity, and so permitted passive euthanasia, meaning the desire of patients to cease medical support in situations of slipping into an unchangeable condition of unconsciousness.
- Right to speedy trial
The Court presented this Right in detail in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), where the Supreme Court upheld that though the Right to a speedy trial is not explicitly listed as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, it is inherent in the broad scope of Article 21.
- Right to Education- Article 21A
In the matter of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others. Etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, it was stated that every citizen of India possesses a Fundamental Right to Education. No person is able to be deprived of his schooling by the State. This Right includes access to free education until the individual reaches the age of 14 years and afterward, it will rely on his or her financial capacity as also as a part of the State.
- Right to get pollution-free water and air
This right under Article 21 was emphasized in the 1991 case of Subhash Kumar v. the State of Bihar.
In this instance, the Court upheld that the right to clean air and water is part of the Fundamental Right to Life, and that anybody can petition the court if anything jeopardizes these right.
- CONCLUSION
The right to life and personal freedom has a broad scope that is only evolving over time. The variety of perspectives of a person’s life is increasingly recognised, which he can control, thus promoting an improvement in life quality. However, these rights, which are developed under the scope and scope of Article 21 and are often brought to the Court of Justice to be decided, are not expressly granted under the Constitution. In fact, our Constitution does not guarantee citizens’ right to a life full of opportunity and honour. Article 21 must be further expanded to ensure that all wisdom is reaffirmed on occasion in the basic structure of our Constitution, which has been established in its preamble.
