Author: Yashi Srivastava, BA.LLB. (Hons.), Semester -7th, S.S.Khanna Girl’s Degree College
Abstract
Since its origin, Article 21 of the constitution of India has undergone significant judicial interpretation. After being read restrictively at first, this principle has evolved over time to cover a broad spectrum of rights, becoming a general principle for essential human rights. The judiciary has interpreted Article 21 to encompass protection against arbitrary state actions as well as a number of socio-economic rights, including the right to privacy, health, education, the environment, and dignity, through seminal rulings. The evolution of Article 21 throughout time, including its progressive expansion and the contribution of judicial activism to the protection of more civil liberties. It also looks at the difficulties and ramifications of reading Article 21 as a living provision in the modern day, emphasizing how crucial it is to the development of the Indian human rights discourse.
Introduction
Article 21 of the Constitution provides protection of light and personal liberty. It state that no person shall be deprived of his life a personal liberty accepted according to procedure established by law. It is a fundamental right . If this right is violated a person can move to court and get the right enforced.
It was adopted from Japanese constitution. This article uses procedure established by law over due process of law. Thus both the substantive and procedural laws can be question.
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras
The petitioner was a communist leader who was detained under the preventive detention act 1950. He challenge the validity of his detention on the ground that it is violative of right to freedom of movement which is essential of personal liberty.
It was held at Liberty is qualified by the word personal which means that Liberty is related to person or body of the individual. The code given narrow interpretation and said that protection under article 21 is available only against are pretty execution and not against arbitrary legislative action.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
In this case the petitioner passport was seeds by the central government under the passports act. The act of authorised the government to do so if it was necessary in the interest of general public. Maneka Gandhi challenge her violation of personal liberty in the supreme court for the seizer of her passport.
The supreme court over rule the narrow interpretation of the word personal liberty which was held in AK Gopal in case and held that right to lies and personal liberty can be deprived if the procedure is just fair and reasonable.
Under article 21 the Supreme court of India has red many otherwise which are essential for human life.
Right to death
P. Rathinam v Union of India
In this case section 309 of IPC was challenged which criminalizes attempt to suicide. The supreme court said that the right to life includes right to die ,right not to live force the life and held section 309 of IPC as unconstitutional .
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
The supreme court over ruled the decision of P. Rathinam and help that in our constitution the waiver of fundamental right is not allowed so the l right to life cannot include right to die.
Aruna Ramachandra Shamburg v Union of India
In this case the victim was a staff nurse in the hospital who was attacked by a sweeper . He tied a dog chain around her neck and tried to rape her . After this she went into shock. After many years of vegetative state her friend filed a writ petition to stop feeding her and let her die peacefully.
The supreme court allowed passive euthanasia and not active euthanasia.
Right to privacy
Kharak Singh v state of UP
In this case the petition was charged with dacoity but was released as there was no evidence against him.
It was held that the expression life is not limited to merely restraints a confinement to person only . It is more than mere animal existence.
Govind Singh v. State of Punjab
In this case police used to visited the house of accused. The supreme court held that the domiciliary visit is a reasonable restriction if the conduct of the petitioner is such that it arose criminal nature. But the domiciliary visit in this case was held as invasion of right to privacy of the petitioner.
Mr. X v. Hospital Z
Mr. X was suffering from HIV . Only he and his doctor knew about this. When the doctor came to know about his engagement he told this to Ms.Y who was the fiance leading to the engagement being broken . Mr. x sued the doctor for the violation of right to privacy.
The supreme court held that when two fundamental right i.e., right to privacy and right to life are in conflict than the court should advance the right which promotes public morality or public interest.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v Union of India
The Supreme court has that the Aadhaar act is constitutional but the provisions that violated of right to privacy under article 21 should be struck down.
Right to environment
R.L.E.K. v State of Uttar Pradesh.
The court appointed a committee for the purpose of inspecting certain limestone queries where the excavation was having adverse impact on the environment. The supreme court said under the environmental protection act to stop the illegal mining.
Municipal council Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand
In this case Ratlam alleged that the municipality is not constructing proper drains resulting in stench and stink caused by the excretion by nearby slum-dwellers. It was held by Supreme Court that Right to life includes right to a environment and the residents have the right to exercise it against State. It acknowledged the effects on poor of deteriorating environment and compelled the municipality to build proper sanitation and drainage.
Right to live with human dignity
Occupational hazardous health and safety association v. Union of India
The Supreme court has held that the protection of health and strength of workers and their access to just and human condition of work are essential conditions to live with human dignity.
Right to choose partner
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Section 377 of IPC which criminalized unnatural offences was held unconstitutional. Supreme court held that the homosexual sexual intercourse between consenting adults does not amount to unnatural offences.
Right to self determination of gender
National legal service authority v Union of India
The supreme court recognizing the transgenders as third gender held that right to self determination of gender is a fundamental right.
Right to livelihood
Olga tellis v. Bombay municipal corporation
The Supreme court held that forceful eviction of slum dwellers should not take place. And the dwellers who were living there for many years should be rehabilitated as the right to livelihood was affected ,so they should not be considered as trespasser.
Right to sleep
Ramleela maidan v Home secretary , Union of India
In this case the police lathi charged on the sleeping protestors in the Ramleela maidan .
The Supreme court has held that every person has a right to sleep comfortably and freely.
Right to education
Mohini Jain v state of Karnataka
The supreme court interpreted article 21 liberally and held that right to education at all level is a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution.
Unnikrishanan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The supreme court opined that the necessity of the right to education as a fundamental right. Although, the court denied the opinion in the Mohini Jain case that right to education can be demanded at all levels. The court stated that one cannot avail the right to education provided by the constitution at all levels.
Right to shelter
Chameli Singh v state of UP
The supreme court recognized right to shelter as the part of article 21
Right to reproductive choice
Sucheta Srivastava v state of Chandigarh Administration
Female right to a printing choice is a part of part of Article 21.
Right against handcuffs
Premshankar v. Delhi Administration
Right against hand cupping is a fundamental right but it can be restored in the case of clear and present danger of escape.
Right against police torture
Kishore Singh v. state of Rajasthan
Supreme court in this case has held that the use of third degree torture by the police is violation of article 21.
Right against illegal detention
D.K.Basu v State of West Bengal
The supreme court in this case gave guidelines against illegal detention by the police. Several arrested persons were tortured and killed in the police custody.
Right to free legal aid
M.H.Hoskot v State of Maharashtra
The supreme court recognise the right to free legal aid in this case.
Right to speedy trial
Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar
The supreme court recognized the right to speedy trial under article 21 of the constitution.
Right to marriage
Lata Singh v . Union of India
The supreme court held that the person has the right to choose the partner of choice for marriage . The law does not prohibits inter caste marriage.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that consensually choosing life partners is a manifestation of the freedom of choice guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Shafin Jahan v. K.M. Asokan
The supreme Court stated that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental component of Article 21. This right cannot be curtailed except through a law that is just and reasonable.
.Article 21 and Emergency
A.D. M Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla
The Supreme court has that article 21 can be suspended during the time of emergency.
This lead to illegal detention of people during the time of emergency and huge public outcry .
To cater this issue 44th constitutional Amendment Act ,1978 was brought which amended Article 359 of the constitution . Now article 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during the times of emergency.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is Article 21 of the constitution of India?
Article 21 of the constitution of India provides for life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
What is the meaning of procedure established by law under Article 21?
Procedure established by law means that life or personal liberty can only be taken away according to the legal procedures that are enacted by a competent legislature. However, this procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Can Article 21 be suspended during emergency?
No Article 21 of the constitution of India cannot be suspended during emergency.
Conclusion
Article 21 of the constitution of India provides fundamental right,particularly the right to life and liberty. Over time, the Supreme Court has broadened its definition of “life” to include a dignified life rather than just survival. This has resulted in the inclusion of a diverse set of rights, including the right to privacy, clean air, and healthcare, making Article 21 one of the Constitution’s most dynamic and developing articles. Article 21 remains a fundamental guardian of individual freedoms in India, promoting the spirit of democracy and justice by assuring that the state cannot deprive someone of life or personal liberty except through legally established procedures.
