Right To Life And Personal Liberty And Its Expanding Horizons (Article 21)
Article 21 is heart of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 grants fundamental right to life and personal liberty to every person irrespective of whether he is a citizen of India or not. Article
The word “life” used in Article 21 does not mean only animal existence but it means fuller enjoyment of life through limbs and faculties. The Supreme Court observed in Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. UT of Delhi (1981 AIR 746) that right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes alongwith it.
The “personal liberty” was has been narrowly interpreted to mean only mere freedom from bodily restraint in A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1950 SC 27). But in Kharak Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors. (1963 AIR 1295) the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “personal liberty” and held that “personal liberty” was used in article as a compendious to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberties of man. Personal Liberty includes Right to go abroad, Right to privacy etc.
What is “procedure established by Law” ?
Article 21 is differently worded in Indian Constitution in comparison to American Constitution. Further Article 21 used the phrase “procedure established by law” while American Constitution uses the word “due process of law”.
Under due process of law, as it exists in USA executive as well as legislative actions can be invalidated if they infringe right to liberty.
In India Supreme Court in early days has made narrow interpretation of the term “procedure established by law. In A K Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) the Supreme Court held Procedure established by law meant procedure prescribed by law of the State. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that “law” used in Article has been used in the sense of “jus lex” i.e. just law. In ADM Jabalpur Vs. Sivakant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207) the Supreme Court held that Article 21 is suspended when emergency under Article 359 is proclaimed and a person right to approach High Court under 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of Article 21 is also suspended.
Towards due process of law
Indian jurisprudence has gradually moved towards due process of law as existing in the USA. As such now Article 21 protects persons from illegal deprivation from executive action as well as legislative actions. In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978 AIR 597) the Supreme Court has held that it is not only required that procedure has been established by law but procedure established has to be fair, just and reasonable. In many subsequent judgments the Supreme Court has intervened when it has found that a law is not fair, just and unreasonable.
Expanding scope of Article 21
Horizons of Article 21 is expanding. No other article has been liberally interpreted as Article 21. Article 21 has been interpreted to include various rights.
Right to die with dignity
The Supreme Court in P. Ratinam Vs. Union of India (1994 SCC (3) 394 has held that Right to life included right to not live.
This judgment was overruled by the Supreme Court in “Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” (1996 SCC (2) 648) wherein the Supreme Court held that Right to Die is not included under Article 21.
In Aruna Shaunbaug Vs. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 1290) the Supreme Court has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Court has allowed passive euthanasia in case of terminally ill patients with permission of jurisdictional High Courts.
The Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1) held that a person in his sound mind can issue advance directive regarding his medical treatment in terminally ill condition.
Right against Solitary Confinement
The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra vs Delhi Adminsitration (1978] 4 SCC 494 has held that solitary confinement is in violation of Article 21.
Right to go abroad
In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978 AIR 597) the Supreme Court held that right to go abroad is covered under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Right to Speedy Trial
In Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369) , the Supreme Court has held that speedy trial is covered under Article 21.
Right to Legal Aid
The Supreme Court in M. H. Hoskot vs State of Maharastra (1979) 1 SCR) has held that right to legal aid is covered under Article 21.
Right against handcuffing
The Supreme Court in “Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCR 855) has held that handcuffing before court is in violation of Article 21.
Right against custodial violence
The Supreme Court in Sheela Basre Vs. State of Maharastra (1983) 2 SCC 96 has held that custodial violence is violation of Article 21.
Right to Shelter
The Supreme Court in Santistar Builder v. N.K.I. Totame, [1990] 1 SCC 520 & U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited (1996 AIR 114 ) has held that right to shelter is included in Article 21.
Right to live in a pollution free environment
The Supreme Court in Subhas Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1991 AIR 420) has held that Article 21 includes right to enjoyment of pollution free environment.
Right to Education
In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 AIR 2178) the Supreme Court held that right to education is very well within the scope of Article 21
Right against Sexual Harassment
In Vishakha Vs. State of Rajastan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 the Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment at workplace is in violation of Article 21.
Right to privacy
In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has held that right to privcacy is covered under Article 21.
Right To Education
Article 21 A has been introduced vide 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002. Under Article 21 A , the State has to provide by making law free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. Parliament has enacted Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2002 which provides free education to children between 6 to 14 years in neighborhood school.
_________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
