Article 21
Article 21 Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that, “No individual shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” This Article is among the key Fundamental Rights provided by the Constitution to Indian Citizens.
Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Consequently, Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the safeguarding of life and personal liberty for every individual against the arbitrary loss of personal liberty and life by the State (In this context, State encompasses the Indian Union and different States). Article 21 pertains to all individuals. The right is accessible to all individuals, whether citizens or non-citizens. Therefore, a foreigner can exercise this right if they find themselves in India during any act or failure to act. (Nevertheless, he shall not possess the right to reside as a Citizen in India.)
Throughout the years, due to judicial activism and innovation, Article 21 has developed into a protective tool for citizens against the unpredictable denial of life and freedom by the State.
It is important to recognize that evolution has an extensive history. In A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950, the Supreme Court determined that personal liberty refers to the “liberty of the body,” encompassing freedom from arrest and wrongful detention. The Supreme Court also stated that the term ‘law’ refers exclusively to law made by the State. It was indicated that the level of protection for guarantees, like individual liberties or fundamental rights, relies on the nature and purpose of State actions rather than the freedoms assured to the individual.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962, the court embraced a broader interpretation of personal liberty, stating it encompasses all rights provided under Article 19(1). In this instance, Chief Justice Sinha and the other Justices (with the exception of J Koka Subbarao) stated that the UP Police regulations (which allowed for surveillance powers, including domiciliary visits targeting habitual offenders or individuals who might become criminals) clearly breached Article 21, as the right to life could solely be limited by ‘law’; and the executive regulations of the Uttar Pradesh Police did not meet the criteria of ‘law’. They deemed the pertinent provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations regarding ‘domiciliary visits’ unconstitutional. This ruling emphasizes that Police regulations are not the same as Laws enacted by the legislature
(I am happy to tell you that I have another website named: Hindu Religion its cultural heritage which have articles on Sanatana Dharma, Hindu culture, Veda Suktas, Devi devata stuti path, Vedas, etc. Make a visit to this website also and read the articles and express your opinion.)
Nevertheless, the Court rejected the notion that the Right to Privacy constituted a Fundamental right. The Court dismissed the claim that the psychological impact of the picketing restricted freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), concluding that the individuals visiting the house would remain unaware of the picketing. The Judges believed that monitoring the “history-sheeters” did not impede their movement and that any impact on privacy was inconsequential since the right to privacy was not considered a fundamental right.
Regardless of other Judges’ views, Justice K Subba Rao voiced his disagreement and believed that violating the right to privacy hindered an individual from sharing their deepest thoughts. He contended that the right to freedom of movement, safeguarded by Article 19(1)(d), had been infringed since this right encompassed not only freedom from physical barriers to movement but also the ability to move freely, without excessive limitations. He believed that police surveillance limited this freedom of movement. Justice Subba Rao thus determined that the entire set of regulations infringed upon fundamental rights and was unconstitutional.
Subsequently, several Supreme Court rulings have broadened the interpretation of this Article by understanding Article 21 to mean that the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to a healthy environment, the right to shelter, the right to privacy, and so forth. In this manner, personal liberty now encompasses the freedom to move freely within and outside the country, the freedom to select one’s residence, and the freedom to pursue any lawful occupation or profession, which are all fundamental rights.
(Watch my Videos on River Saraswati, सरस्वती नदी, Birth place of Hanuman, Location of Brahmavarta, ब्रह्मावर्त and of course truth about Aryanism, आर्याजाती वाद in my YouTube Channel. )
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Nonetheless, according to Article 21 itself, the State can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights protected under Article 21 for the sake of public order, national security, public health, or morality. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India imposed certain limitations on the enforcement of “reasonable restrictions” that can strip an individual of their rights
Maneka Gandhi questioned the legitimacy of Sec 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967, which authorized the government to confiscate an individual’s passport for the sake of public interest. It was argued that the right to travel abroad is included in the right to “personal liberty,” and since the contested section did not establish any procedure to restrict her liberty, it violated Article 21.
The Supreme Court stated that reasonable restrictions should be equitable, just, and align with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. It mustnot be random,tyrannical, or illogical. The Court additionallystated that the right to life encompasses the right to moveboth within and outside India.
The Supreme Court determined that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 encompassesmorethanjustbasicsurvival;italso includes the right to live with dignity
It was also determined that since the right to travel internationally is covered by Art 21, the principles of natural justice need to be observed when exercising the authority to confiscate a passport under the Passport Act. BHAGWATI, J., noted: The principle of reasonableness, both legally and philosophically, is a crucial aspect of equality or non-arbitrariness that permeates Article 14 like a constant presence, asserting that it must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, whimsical, or oppressive; failing this, it would lack valid procedural standing and the criteria of Article 21 would remain unmet. Consequently, the Order seizing Maneka Gandhi’s Passport was rejected.
Sunil Batra etc. vs Delhi Admin
In the Supreme Court case of Sunil Batra etc vs Delhi Administration and ors 1978, it was determined that the “right to life” encompasses the protection of an individual’s tradition, culture, heritage, and everything that provides significance to a person’s existence. It encompasses the right to live peacefully, to sleep peacefully, and the right to rest and well-being. It also encompasses the right to live healthily to fully experience all the capabilities of the human body in optimal condition.
Habeas Corpus Petition case, 1976
In the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, 1976, a Habeas Corpus petition lodged during the Emergency period of 1975-77, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 was the exclusive guardian of the right to life and personal liberty. Thus, if the authority to approach any court for enforcing that right, which was halted by the presidential order under Article 359, is taken into account, the detenu would lack standing to file a writ petition contesting the validity of his detention.
44th Amendment act, 1978
However, subsequently, to override the Supreme Court ruling in the aforementioned case, the Janata Government introduced the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which modified Article 359 to state that the remedy for upholding the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 21 would not be suspended under a Presidential Order even during the proclamation of Emergency.
Right against Illegal Detention
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1980, the petitioner was held by the Police, and his location was not revealed to his family for five days. In response to the police’s excessive actions and unlawful detention of an individual, the Supreme Court established guidelines pertaining to the arrest of a person amid the investigation.
A detained individual who is in custody has the right, if he requests, to have a friend, family member, or another person notified, as muchas is feasible, about his arrest and the location of his detention.
The arrested individual will be informedof this right by the police officer upon arrival at the police station. An entry must be recorded in the diary regarding who was notified of the arrest.
Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal
In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, [1978], the Supreme Court recognized free legal aid as essential to a fair procedure, explaining that “the two crucial components of the right to appeal are; first, timely delivery of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner to allow him to file an appeal, and second, the provision of free legal services to a prisoner who is impoverished or otherwise unable to obtain legal help.” The entitlement to free legal assistance is a responsibility of the government and an inherent component of Article 21 in guaranteeing fairness and reasonableness; it should not be described as government benevolence.
In other terms, a defendant, particularly when facing a charge for an offense that carries imprisonment, has the right to receive legal assistance if he cannot afford an attorney. The defense attorney for the accused should have ample time and resources to prepare their defense. Violation of these protections of a fair trial would nullify the trial and conviction
Right to good reputation
In Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee of Inquiry & Anr, the Supreme Court in 1989 stated that “good reputation constitutes a component of personal security and is safeguarded by the Constitution, just as the right to life, liberty, and property is.” The court confirmed that the right to enjoy a private reputation has deep historical roots and is essential for human society. Thus, a good reputation is included in the Right to Life provided by Fundamental Rights.
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator
In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union of India 1981, the Apex Court noted that: “The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
The case of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970, knownas the notable Banks Nationalization case, also addressed the Fundamental rights of Citizens, despite the Supreme Court endorsing the Central Government’s acquisition of 14 Banks.
The Court decided that the Supreme Court was not obligated to dismiss the enforcement claim of a shareholder’s fundamental rights if, during the violation of those rights, the rights of the company were also infringed. This ruling acknowledged the Company as a legal person.
It was acknowledged that if the Supreme Court were to uphold the shareholder’s rights, it would consequently indicate that the Court was enforcing the rights of the company of which he was a shareholder, implying that fundamental rights were being upheld for a non-citizen. However, the Court explicitly mentioned that although enforcing the fundamental rights of the shareholder may necessitate enforcing the rights of the company, it would not prevent the Supreme Court from safeguarding the rights of the citizens. Therefore, through this ruling, a Company has attained the status of a legal entity/person with its own fundamental rights
Right to Livelihood
In the 1986 case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, commonly referred to as the “Pavement Dwellers Case” a five-judge bench of the Court emphasized that that ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood. “That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.”
The court additionally stated: “The State may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.” The Supreme Court determined that evicting pavement dwellers without offering alternative solutions would infringe upon their right to life and personal liberty.
Right to shelter
In the case of Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame 1990 the Court held that: “The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need for an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. ..“For the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home, particularly for people in India, can even be a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.”
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P
In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court examined and determined that the right to shelter is a fundamental right afforded to all citizens, and this right was incorporated into Article 21 of the Constitution of India to enhance the significance of the right to life. The Court noted that: “Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is, however, where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, and other civic amenities like roads, etc., so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but the right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable one to live and develop as a human being.”
Right to Privacy
The dictionary definition of privacy states the following: “right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned.”
The Supreme Court views the right to privacy as a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, essential to the fundamental right to life and liberty.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2018 (AADHAR case), the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right safeguarded by Article 21. The court determined that privacy is a crucial element of individual freedom and respect and is fundamental to the overall constitutional framework.
However, the Court confirmed the Aadhaar Act’s constitutionality by a 4:1 majority. Disregarding privacy issues, the Court noted that the State may limit the right to privacy if the limitation is proportional to a valid State objective. The Court determined that the fair and clear allocation of benefits and services to disadvantaged individuals is a valid goal, concluding that the Act did not infringe upon the essential right to privacy. Additionally, it stated that there are sufficient protections implemented to stop Aadhaar from enabling widespread State surveillance. Although it maintained the Act in its entirety, the Court invalidated specific clauses such as mandatory bank-linking and metadata collection for being unconstitutional. A review petition concerning the aforementioned Judgment was rejected in 2021
PUCL v. Union of India, Telephone tapping case
In the matter of People’s Union For Civil Liberties vs Union Of India & Anr 2005, the Supreme Court noted that: “We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy; Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”.
The Supreme Court additionally ruled that without a just and fair process for managing the exercise of authority under Section 5(2) of the Act, safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19 and 21 is not feasible. Consequently, the court established procedural protections to be followed before resorting to telephone tapping as outlined in Section 5(2) of the Act
The court has further ruled that Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.”
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra
In thecaseof R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973, the Supreme Court determined that an innocent citizen’stelephone conversation issafeguarded by the Courts from wrongful or excessive interference through tapping. Nevertheless, the safeguarddoes not serve to shield the guilty citizen from the endeavors of law enforcement to uphold the law and deter the corruption of public officials.
In India, telephone tapping is allowed under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The Section specifies the conditions and reasons under whicha telephone tapping order may be issued, yet it does not outline any procedure for issuing the order
R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N 1994
In the case of R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court addressed the citizens’ right to privacy as follows:
“(1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent – whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others.
We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offense should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicized in press/media.”
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In the matter of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975, the Supreme Court conducted a detailed assessment of the right to privacy. In this instance, the court was assessing the constitutional legitimacy of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which mandated police monitoring of habitual offenders, including home visits and surveillance of the suspects. The Supreme Court refrained from invalidating these intrusive provisions, stating that:
“It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to surveillance.”
The court recognized a restricted fundamental right to privacy as derived from Articles 19(a), (d), and 21. Justice Mathew noted in the present case, “The right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them that one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute…..assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest.”
Right to Clean Environment
The “Right to Life” asper Article 21 signifies a dignifiedexistence in a suitable environment devoidof health risks and infections to ensure well-being, hygiene preservation, and so on.
In the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1988, the Supreme Court mandated the shutdown of tanneries that were contaminating water.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1997, the Supreme Court provided multiple guidelines and instructions aimed at safeguarding the Taj Mahal from environmental harm.
In Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors 1996, the Court recognized the environmental issues caused by tanneries polluting water resources, including rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. The Court provided various instructions to reduce the pollution