This Article is written by Kovid Tripathi & this article disscuss the concepts of Right to Life & Personal Liberty Under Article 21.
Introduction:
Article 21[1] enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution serves as a strong wall defending the fundamental rights of life and liberty. Article 21, which states unequivocally that no person may be deprived of their life or personal liberty other than by applying a legally established procedural framework, is the cornerstone of justice and equity. This section of the constitution is closely related to Articles 14 and 21. Natural justice is its cornerstone, as illustrated by court in rulings like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2].
The principles of Article 21 provide the groundwork for an equitable and just process. These principles are further reinforced by legal dicta such as “Nemo in properia causa judex, esse debet” and “Audi Alteram Partem” (hear the other side). In violation of a person’s right to life and personal liberty, this article imposes a negative injunction on the state, requiring it to follow the legal procedure. The material world and the right to a dignified life are among its safeguards
This interpretation demonstrates the judiciary’s readiness to modify constitutional interpretation in response to societal demands and provides a strong basis for defending individual rights under Indian law. In Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar[3] ,the Supreme Court correctly noted that constitutional and statutory interpretations change over time, emphasising the need for adaptation and capturing India’s dynamic character.
Understanding Article 21: We must consider Article 21’s three core rights—the right to life, the right to personal liberty, and the right to due process of law—in order to fully understand it. We attempt to comprehend how the courts interpret and protect these elements as we navigate the legal system.
1. What is Life under Article 21:
The fundamental moral precept known as the right to life holds that every person has an intrinsic right to life and should be protected from acts of state which harm the same. For both Indian citizens and non-citizens, this is an inalienable right. The most valuable, necessary, and fundamental natural right is life, which serves as the basis for all other rights and associated obligations[4].
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India[5], the Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s right to life could only be curtailed following established legal procedures. The court’s interpretation at the time focused on a word-for-word interpretation and was notably restrictive.
The Supreme Court then considered the intricate details of life’s quality and scope in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kharak Singh case[6]. According to the court, life is more than just existing as an animal. In essence, the court’s message was that the government must respect human life and endeavour to raise the standard of living for its citizens.
Although the right to life is essentially guaranteed by Article 21, the Supreme Court has given this fundamental freedom a broader interpretation. Many rights are covered by this expansion, including the ability to live in dignity, the right to health care, and the right to a means of subsistence. As a result, the court’s interpretations have created a wide framework that falls under the umbrella of the right to life and covers a variety of aspects of a person’s well-being[7].
2. What is Personal Liberty under Article 21:
According to the Black Law Dictionary, personal liberty is defined as “The right to freedom of a person to behave as they would like, though following the conduct code of society in which a person resides is important.”
In essence, this definition suggests that individuals are free to choose their own actions free from external influence. It does, however, emphasise how important it is to exercise this right responsibly and take social norms into consideration in order to ensure peaceful coexistence. Notwithstanding this inherent freedom, Article 21 ensures that any restrictions are legal and forbids any transgressions. It’s interesting to note that this restriction suggests that the state, and not private citizens, can be challenged for curtailment of this right[8].
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[9] was the case in which the Indian Supreme Court defined liberty narrowly. The court determined that the definition of “personal liberty” was limited to freedom from unlawful detention, false arrest, or incarceration.
However, in the subsequent Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case[10], Justice Iyer provided a more thorough perspective. His assertion that “a human person’s worth is determined by their personal liberty” was made, stressing the broad meaning of the term. The significance of the concept of liberty in the current context was highlighted by the court’s recognition that liberty includes everything necessary for an individual to live out their life to the fullest.
3. What is Due Process of Law:
A “procedure established by law” is specified by state or federal statutes. Over time, the judiciary has redefined opinions and set precedents, deepening its understanding of this phrase.
In A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India[11], the petitioner argued that preventive detention was illegal because it infringed upon his rights under Article 19(1)[12]. He argued that these restrictions were unreasonable, particularly since they interfered with his ability to move around freely following Article 21, which safeguards individual liberty[13]. However, the court-maintained Articles 19 and 21’s exclusivity.
The majority opinion emphasised that laws that are purposefully broken do not become ultra vires and those laws passed within the bounds of the Constitution do not violate any specific articles. The court opined that Article 21 protections are not superseded by the requirements of reasonableness found in laws or procedures. The “procedure established by law” was in effect applied in this case.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[14], This interpretation has changed significantly, as the court upheld the petitioner’s argument. It stated that Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution should be used to evaluate the legal system established by Article 21 and that it should be reasonable, just, and equitable. The court emphasised that stringent rules or regulations shouldn’t be applied when denying someone their right to life or liberty under Article 21. It was made clearer what was meant by “due process,” which calls for an unbiased, rational, and just legal system.
Trends in Article 21 Interpretation
Through landmark decisions, the respected Supreme Court has expanded the application of Article 21 to uphold social justice and conform to contemporary societal norms. Here, we look at specific interpretations of Article 21 that highlight the rights of the people.
1. Right to Livelihood
According to the Supreme Court, one aspect of the right to life is the right to a Livelihood. A person’s right to life and personal liberty are directly violated when their means of subsistence are taken away. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[15], The court emphasised how closely the rights to a living wage and a dignified life are related. This acknowledgement recognises that leading a dignified life requires being able to support oneself and one’s family through a livelihood[16].
2. Right to Live in a Pollution-Free Environment
The broad interpretation of Article 21 includes the right to live in a healthy environment. In the Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta vs Union of India)[17], The court found that one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 is the right to live in a clean environment. This supports the widely held belief that an individual’s standard of living is a component of their right to life. The right to a healthy environment is one of the most important features of Article 21, as pollution in all its forms endangers people’s health and general well-being.
3. Right to Live with Human Dignity
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to life involves more than just survival when it ruled in the Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi[18] case. The court stated that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity. The importance of maintaining someone’s dignity in all areas of life is emphasized in this reading. It is thought that the development of one’s personality, sense of self, and overall well-being depends on upholding one’s human dignity. The court’s decision emphasizes the link between the right to life and the essential principle of human dignity.
4. Right to Privacy
The right to privacy has been extensively integrated under Article 21. In the K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Others v. Union of India[19] case, the court recognized privacy as a necessary condition for the meaningful exercise of personal freedom. It encompasses the autonomy to handle personal data, make choices on one’s own, and protect one’s area from unauthorized access. The inclusion of the right to privacy in Article 21 demonstrates the court’s determination to adapt constitutional interpretation to meet the challenges posed by evolving social norms and technological advancements.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary is dynamic, as seen by the way the interpretation of Article 21 has evolved. The rights to livelihood, human dignity, and privacy have been added to the list of rights enshrined in Article 21, along with the rights to life, personal liberty, and environmental purity. The aforementioned additions adhere to legal precepts, namely “Audi Alteram Partem” and “Nemo in properia causa judex, esse debet,” which ensure an equitable and fair legal system and generally improve the living standards of the general public.
The judiciary is adopting the interpretation of the Constitution to address contemporary problems and safeguard individual rights. Article 21, which was first restricted to procedural safeguards, has grown into a comprehensive concept that considers many facets of an individual’s well-being. The judiciary’s dedication to preserving the core values of the constitution justice, equity, and the preservation of individual dignity is demonstrated by this development.
REFERENCES
Constitution of India 1950, art. 21. ↑
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621. ↑
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1. ↑
Nisha Gandhi,’ Expanding and Evolving the Ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the Developing Scenario’ (2022) 2(4) IJIRL <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EXPANDING-AND-EVOLVING-THE-AMBIT-OF-ARTICLE-21-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-WITH-THE-DEVELOPING-SCENARIO.pdf> accessed 7 July 2024. ↑
A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 88. ↑
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kharak Singh, 1964 SCR (1) 332. ↑
Dr. Sakuntala Gouda, ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty under the Perspective of Indian Constitution: An Analysis of Judicial Activism’ ↑
Utkarsh Yadav, ‘Article 21 : A Comprehensive Journey of Right to Life and Personal Liberty’ (2021) 1(2) IJLLR <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ARTICLE-21-A-COMPREHENSIVE-JOURNEY-OF-RIGHT-TO-LIFE-AND-PERSONAL-LIBERTY.pdf> accessed 6 Jan 2024. ↑
A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 88. ↑
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621. ↑
A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 88. ↑
Constitution of India 1950, art. 19(1)(a). ↑
A.H. Hawaldar, ‘Evolution of Due Process in India’ (2014) Bharati Law Review <http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/C6> accessed 6 Jan 2024. ↑
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621. ↑
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180. ↑
Neeru Chopra, ‘Expanding Horizon of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Role of Judiciary’ (2021) 8(5) JETIR <https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2105737.pdf> accessed 8 Jan 2024. ↑
M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086. ↑
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 SCR (2) 516. ↑
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161. ↑
