Author: Sorvi Mahajan, a student at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS)
To the point
Despite the foundational guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the practical realization of this right has long been shaped by evolving legislative and judicial interpretations. Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has continuously expanded the scope of Article 21, recognizing a wide array of derivative rights—including the right to privacy, health, clean environment, shelter, and livelihood—as integral to the right to life. Recent years, particularly leading up to 2025, have witnessed significant legislative reforms and landmark judicial pronouncements further broadening these protections. Initiatives addressing digital privacy, environmental justice, and access to healthcare reflect a growing recognition of contemporary challenges.
Nevertheless, persistent structural, administrative, and socioeconomic barriers continue to impede the full realization of Article 21’s promises for all citizens. While progressive statutes and judicial activism have set important precedents, implementation gaps, bureaucratic inertia, and uneven regional development hinder consistent access to these rights. The enforcement of new safeguards, such as data protection laws and environmental regulations, remains inconsistent, and marginalized communities often struggle to claim their entitlements.
Ultimately, achieving the full potential of Article 21 requires more than legal innovation; it demands sustained political commitment, robust institutional mechanisms, and a societal shift towards recognizing the indivisibility of civil, social, and economic rights. Only through comprehensive, inclusive, and persistent efforts—combining legislative action, judicial vigilance, and grassroots empowerment—can India ensure that the right to life is meaningful, substantive, and universally accessible in the evolving landscape of 2025 and beyond.
Abstract
The right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has, over time, evolved far beyond its original textual boundaries, shaped by a complex interplay of legislative innovation and judicial interpretation. Despite the constitutional guarantee, the realization of this right has long been constrained by legal ambiguities, administrative inertia, and deep-rooted social inequalities. Judicial activism, particularly by the Supreme Court, has gradually expanded Article 21’s ambit to encompass rights such as privacy, health, education, clean environment, and dignified living, reflecting the dynamic needs of Indian society. However, the translation of these judicial pronouncements into tangible improvements remains uneven, hindered by gaps in implementation, lack of awareness, and persistent socioeconomic disparities—challenges that are especially acute for marginalized communities.
Recent years have witnessed significant legislative and policy efforts aimed at strengthening the right to life, including the enactment of data protection laws, environmental regulations, and measures to improve access to healthcare and social security. Yet, these advances are often undermined by bureaucratic hurdles, inconsistent enforcement, and limited outreach, particularly in rural and underserved regions. The protection of digital rights, environmental justice, and healthcare access, while promising on paper, frequently falls short in practice, leaving many citizens vulnerable and excluded.
Achieving the full promise of Article 21 in 2025 and beyond requires more than progressive laws and landmark judgments. It demands sustained political commitment, robust institutional mechanisms, and a cultural shift towards recognizing the indivisibility of civil, social, and economic rights. Meaningful progress will depend on bridging the gap between legal theory and lived reality through comprehensive policy implementation, public awareness, and targeted support for the most vulnerable. Only through such holistic and persistent efforts can the right to life become truly universal, substantive, and transformative in the evolving landscape of Indian democracy.
Use of legal jargon
The evolution of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—from a narrow guarantee of life and personal liberty to a dynamic foundation for a broad spectrum of fundamental rights—has become a defining feature of India’s constitutional landscape. Over the past several decades, both legislative reforms and bold judicial interpretations have propelled Article 21 into new domains, including the right to health, privacy, a clean environment, and, most recently, digital access and the right to die with dignity. Yet, as of 2025, the full realization of these rights remains uneven and fraught with persistent challenges.
The expansion of Article 21’s protections has been driven by landmark Supreme Court judgments and policy initiatives, such as the recognition of digital access as a fundamental right, the incorporation of substantive due process, and the affirmation of the right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill patients. These advancements underscore the judiciary’s commitment to adapting constitutional rights to contemporary realities.
Regional disparities in healthcare, inconsistent implementation of regulatory standards, and the persistence of police misconduct and political interference further complicate the landscape. While legal frameworks have grown more inclusive and progressive, their transformative potential is often blunted by bureaucratic inertia, lack of awareness, and the absence of robust accountability mechanisms. The journey toward substantive justice under Article 21 is further complicated by the absence of a clear framework for recognizing new rights, leading to uncertainty and occasional judicial overreach.
The story of Article 21 in 2025 is thus both a testament to constitutional progress and a caution against complacency. As legislative and judicial developments continue to expand the dimensions of the right to life, the integrity of India’s democracy depends on sustained vigilance, effective enforcement, and a commitment to dismantling the remaining barriers to justice. Only by ensuring that all citizens—regardless of background or circumstance—can access and exercise their rights under Article 21 can India realize the promise of a truly just and inclusive society.
The proof
The trajectory of Article 21’s interpretation in India charts a remarkable evolution—from a narrowly defined protection of life and personal liberty to a cornerstone of expansive human rights jurisprudence. Initially conceived as a basic safeguard against arbitrary state action, Article 21’s promise has been transformed by decades of bold judicial activism, legislative innovation, and persistent advocacy. Landmark judgments and reforms have reimagined the right to life as encompassing not only physical survival, but also dignity, privacy, health, education, a clean environment, and digital access.
Yet, beneath these celebrated advances, a complex web of persistent challenges and unintended consequences continues to shape the lived reality of Article 21. The expansion of rights has often outpaced the capacity of institutions to deliver them, with bureaucratic inertia, resource constraints, and uneven implementation threatening to render constitutional promises hollow for many. Marginalized communities, in particular, face formidable barriers—ranging from lack of awareness and legal literacy to socio-economic exclusion and limited access to effective remedies. The symbolic recognition of new rights, while significant, has at times failed to translate into meaningful change on the ground, with disparities in enforcement and access exposing the limits of legal reform alone.
In response, courts, legislatures, and civil society have intensified their scrutiny of the mechanisms that underpin the right to life, calling for more robust enforcement, institutional accountability, and participatory governance. Research and advocacy have underscored the need for strategies that move beyond judicial declarations—emphasizing the importance of administrative reform, public education, and targeted support for vulnerable groups. The ongoing journey of Article 21 stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional progress, if left unguarded, can stagnate or even regress. The wave of legislative and judicial innovation has begun to reshape the contours of fundamental rights in India, but the project remains unfinished. Realizing the full potential of Article 21 demands unwavering vigilance, adaptability, and a steadfast commitment to justice—ensuring that the right to life is not merely aspirational, but a tangible and universal reality for all Indians.
Case Laws
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The controversy began when Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing her any reason, citing “public interest.” Gandhi challenged this action, arguing that it violated her rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, thus rejecting any arbitrary or oppressive state action. The judgment also established that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked, forming the ‘golden triangle’ of fundamental rights, and that any law affecting personal liberty must satisfy all three provisions. This decision marked a major shift toward a more expansive and rights-oriented approach in Indian constitutional law, ensuring that individual liberty cannot be curtailed by unfair or arbitrary procedures.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978/1979)
This case involved the treatment of prisoners and the conditions within Indian jails. The petitioner, a prisoner, challenged the use of solitary confinement and other harsh measures as being violative of Article 21. The Supreme Court held that prisoners, though deprived of their personal liberty, are not stripped of their fundamental rights. The Court ruled that torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners is a violation of the right to life and personal liberty. It emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, even for those behind bars. This judgment led to significant reforms in prison administration and established judicial oversight to prevent custodial violence and abuse.
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Though primarily focused on workplace sexual harassment, this case had far-reaching implications for women’s participation in public life, including politics. The Supreme Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines, recognizing sexual harassment as a violation of women’s constitutional rights to equality and dignity. By mandating safe working environments, the judgment addressed a major barrier that discouraged women from entering and remaining in public and political spheres.
Conclusion
The journey of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—from a narrowly construed procedural safeguard to a dynamic and expansive source of fundamental rights—epitomizes the transformative power of judicial interpretation and legislative innovation in India’s constitutional framework. Landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, and Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan have not only broadened the contours of the right to life and personal liberty but have also embedded within Article 21 a robust commitment to dignity, fairness, and substantive justice.
Judicial activism has been pivotal in reading into Article 21 a wide array of derivative rights, including the right to privacy, health, shelter, livelihood, and a safe working environment.
However, the practical realization of Article 21’s promises remains uneven. Structural impediments such as bureaucratic inertia, resource constraints, and persistent socio-economic disparities continue to limit access to justice and the effective enforcement of rights, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable communities. The gap between progressive legal theory and ground-level implementation underscores the need for sustained political will, robust institutional mechanisms, and widespread legal literacy.
In sum, while the expansion of Article 21 stands as a testament to India’s evolving commitment to human rights and constitutional morality, its full potential can only be realized through holistic efforts that combine legislative action, judicial vigilance, administrative reform, and grassroots empowerment. Only then can the right to life, in all its dimensions, become a substantive and universally accessible reality for every citizen in the evolving landscape of Indian democracy.
FAQS
What does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protect?
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, ensuring that no person shall be deprived of these except according to the procedure established by law. This fundamental right applies to both citizens and non-citizens.
What new rights have been included under Article 21 through judicial interpretation?
Key rights recognized under Article 21 include:
Right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985)
Right to a clean environment (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991)
Right to education (before Article 21A; Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992)
Right to privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
Right to die with dignity (Common Cause v. Union of India, 2018)
Right to digital access (recognized in 2025, Amar Jain v. Union of India)
Who can claim protection under Article 21?
All persons—citizens and foreigners—can claim Article 21’s protection against arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty by the State.
Can Article 21 be enforced against private individuals?
Article 21 is enforceable against the State and its agencies, not private individuals. However, remedies against private violations may be sought under other legal provisions or through writs under Article 226
