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
As a result, Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty for every person against the arbitrary deprivation of these rights by the State (In this context, the State includes the Indian Union and its various States). Article 21 applies to all individuals. This right is available to everyone, regardless of their citizenship status. Thus, a foreign national can invoke this right if they are present in India during any action or inaction. (However, they do not have the right to reside as a Citizen in India.)
Over the years, through judicial activism and innovation, Article 21 has evolved into a safeguard for citizens against the arbitrary denial of life and liberty by the State.
It is crucial to acknowledge that evolution possesses a long-standing history. In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950, the Supreme Court ruled that personal liberty pertains to the “liberty of the body,” which includes protection against arrest and unlawful detention. Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the term ‘law’ is limited to legislation enacted by the State. It was suggested that the degree of protection for guarantees, such as individual liberties or fundamental rights, is contingent upon the nature and intent of State actions, rather than the freedoms guaranteed to the individual.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962, the court adopted a more expansive view of personal liberty, asserting that it includes all rights outlined in Article 19(1). In this case, Chief Justice Sinha and the other Justices, with the exception of J Koka Subbarao, indicated that the regulations of the UP Police, which permitted surveillance powers such as domiciliary visits aimed at habitual offenders or individuals likely to engage in criminal activity, clearly violated Article 21. They argued that the right to life could only be restricted by ‘law’, and the executive regulations of the Uttar Pradesh Police did not fulfill the definition of ‘law’. The relevant sections of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations concerning ‘domiciliary visits’ were declared unconstitutional. This decision highlights the distinction between police regulations and laws passed 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.)
However, the Court refuted the idea that the Right to Privacy was a Fundamental right. The Court rejected the assertion that the psychological effects of the picketing limited freedom of movement as outlined in Article 19(1)(d), determining that those visiting the residence would not be aware of the picketing. The Judges were of the opinion that observing the “history-sheeters” did not hinder their movement and that any effect on privacy was negligible, given that the right to privacy was not recognized as a fundamental right.
Despite the opinions of other Judges, Justice K Subba Rao expressed his dissent, asserting that the infringement of the right to privacy obstructed an individual from expressing their innermost thoughts. He argued that the right to freedom of movement, protected by Article 19(1)(d), had been violated, as this right included not only the absence of physical barriers to movement but also the capacity to move freely without undue restrictions. He maintained that police surveillance curtailed this freedom of movement. Consequently, Justice Subba Rao concluded that the entire framework of regulations violated fundamental rights and was therefore unconstitutional.
Subsequently, various Supreme Court decisions have expanded the interpretation of this Article, recognizing that Article 21 implies that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to a healthy environment, the right to shelter, the right to privacy, among others. Consequently, personal liberty now includes the freedom to move freely both within and outside the country, the freedom to choose one’s residence, and the freedom to engage in any lawful occupation or profession, all of which are 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
However, as stated in Article 21, the State is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions on the rights safeguarded by this article in the interests of public order, national security, public health, or morality. Nevertheless, in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court established specific limitations on the application of these “reasonable restrictions” that could potentially deprive an individual of their rights.
Maneka Gandhi raised concerns regarding the validity of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967, which permitted the government to seize an individual’s passport in the interest of public welfare. It was contended that the right to travel internationally falls under the umbrella of ‘personal liberty,’ and given that the disputed section failed to outline any process for limiting her liberty, it infringed upon Article 21.
The Supreme Court asserted that reasonable restrictions must be fair, just, and consistent with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. They should not be arbitrary, oppressive, or irrational.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the right to life includes the freedom to travel both within and outside of India.
The Supreme Court concluded that the right to life and personal liberty as outlined in Article 21 extends beyond mere survival; it also encompasses the right to live with dignity.
It was also established that the right to travel internationally, as outlined in Article 21, necessitates adherence to the principles of natural justice when exercising the power to confiscate a passport under the Passport Act. Justice BHAGWATI remarked: The principle of reasonableness, both in legal terms and philosophical context, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness that consistently influences Article 14, asserting that actions must be ‘right and just and fair’ rather than arbitrary, whimsical, or oppressive; if this principle is not upheld, it would lack valid procedural standing, and the requirements of Article 21 would not be satisfied. As a result, the Order to seize Maneka Gandhi’s Passport was overturned.
Sunil Batra etc. vs Delhi Admin
In the Supreme Court case of Sunil Batra etc vs Delhi Administration and others in 1978, it was established that the “right to life” includes safeguarding an individual’s tradition, culture, heritage, and all elements that contribute to the meaningfulness of a person’s life. This right encompasses the ability to live in peace, to sleep soundly, and to enjoy rest and well-being. Furthermore, it includes the right to maintain good health in order to fully utilize the potential of the human body in its best state.
Habeas Corpus Petition case, 1976
In the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, 1976, a Habeas Corpus petition was filed during the Emergency period of 1975-77. The Supreme Court determined that Article 21 served as the sole protector of the right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, considering that the authority to seek recourse in any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by the presidential order under Article 359, the detenu would not possess the standing to submit a writ petition challenging the legitimacy of his detention.
44th Amendment act, 1978
Nevertheless, in order to counter the Supreme Court’s decision in the previously mentioned case, the Janata Government enacted the 44th Amendment Act in 1978. This amendment altered Article 359 to clarify that the protection of Fundamental Rights as enshrined in Article 21 would remain intact and could not be suspended by a Presidential Order, even in the event of an Emergency declaration.
Additionally, the amendment aimed to ensure that citizens’ rights would be safeguarded regardless of the circumstances surrounding a state of Emergency.
Right against Illegal Detention
In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1980, the petitioner was detained by the police, and his family was not informed of his whereabouts for five days. In reaction to the police’s overreach and illegal detention of an individual, the Supreme Court formulated guidelines regarding the arrest of a person during an investigation.
A person who is detained and in custody has the right, upon request, to have a friend, family member, or another individual informed, to the greatest extent possible, about his arrest and the place of his detention.
Upon arrival at the police station, the police officer will inform the arrested individual of this right. A record must be made in the log regarding who was notified of the arrest.
Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal
In the case of M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, [1978], the Supreme Court acknowledged that free legal aid is vital for ensuring a fair procedure. The Court articulated that the two essential elements of the right to appeal are: firstly, the prompt provision of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner, enabling him to file an appeal, and secondly, the availability of free legal services for prisoners who are financially disadvantaged or unable to secure legal assistance. The right to free legal aid is a governmental obligation and a fundamental aspect of Article 21, which ensures fairness and reasonableness; it should not be regarded as an act of government generosity.
In simpler terms, a defendant, especially when confronted with a charge for a crime that may result in imprisonment, is entitled to legal representation if he is unable to afford an attorney. The defense counsel for the accused must be provided with sufficient time and resources to adequately prepare their defense. Any infringement of these rights to a fair trial would invalidate both the trial and the conviction.
Right to good reputation
In the case of Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee of Inquiry & Anr, the Supreme Court declared in 1989 that a “good reputation is a part of personal security and is protected by the Constitution, akin to the rights to life, liberty, and property.” The court affirmed that the right to maintain a private reputation has significant historical foundations and is vital for human society. Therefore, a good reputation is encompassed within the Right to Life as outlined in the Fundamental Rights.
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator
In the matter of Francis Coralie Mullin versus The Administrator, Union of India 1981, the Supreme Court observed 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, recognized as the significant Banks Nationalization case, also examined the Fundamental Rights of Citizens, even though the Supreme Court supported the Central Government’s takeover of 14 Banks.
The Court ruled that the Supreme Court was not required to reject a shareholder’s claim regarding the enforcement of fundamental rights if, at the same time, the rights of the company were also violated. This decision recognized the Company as a legal entity.
It was recognized that should the Supreme Court affirm the rights of shareholders, it would thereby suggest that the Court was upholding the rights of the company in which the shareholder holds interest, indicating that fundamental rights were being protected for an individual who is not a citizen. Nevertheless, the Court clearly stated that while the enforcement of the shareholder’s fundamental rights might require the protection of the company’s rights, this would not hinder the Supreme Court from defending the rights of citizens. Consequently, this ruling has granted a company the status of a legal entity or person, complete with its own fundamental rights.
Right to Livelihood
In the 1986 case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, often known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case,” a five-judge bench of the Court underscored that the ‘right to livelihood’ is derived from the ‘right to life,’ as no individual can exist without the means to sustain themselves, which is, in essence, 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.”
Furthermore, the court indicated: “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 ruled that removing pavement dwellers without providing alternative options would violate their right to life and personal freedom.
Right to shelter
In the matter of Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame 1990, the Court determined 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 the case of Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reviewed and concluded that the right to shelter constitutes a fundamental right granted to all citizens. This right was integrated into Article 21 of the Constitution of India to elevate the importance of the right to life. The Court observed 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 definition of privacy as per the dictionary is as follows:“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 considers the right to privacy to be a ‘penumbral right’ as outlined in the Constitution, which is vital to the fundamental right to life and liberty.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2018 (commonly referred to as the AADHAR case), the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The court concluded that privacy is an essential aspect of personal freedom and dignity, forming a vital part of the broader constitutional structure.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act with a 4:1 majority. Ignoring privacy concerns, it observed that the State can impose limitations on the right to privacy if such limitations are proportional to a legitimate State objective. The Court concluded that the equitable and transparent distribution of benefits and services to marginalized individuals constitutes a valid aim, affirming that the Act does not violate the fundamental right to privacy. Furthermore, it indicated that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent Aadhaar from facilitating extensive State surveillance. While the Court upheld the Act in its entirety, it struck down certain provisions, including mandatory bank-linking and metadata collection, as unconstitutional. A review petition regarding this Judgment was dismissed in 2021.
PUCL v. Union of India, Telephone tapping case
In the case of People’s Union For Civil Liberties vs Union Of India & Anr 2005, the Supreme Court observed 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 further determined that it is not possible to protect the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19 and 21 without a just and fair process for the exercise of authority as stipulated in Section 5(2) of the Act. As a result, the court instituted procedural safeguards that must be adhered to prior to implementing telephone tapping as specified in Section 5(2) of the Act.
The court has additionally determined that telephone conversations constitute a significant aspect of an individual’s private life.
The right to privacy undoubtedly encompasses telephone conversations occurring within the confines of one’s home or office.
Consequently, telephone tapping would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is authorized by a procedure established by law.
This procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable.
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra
In the case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the telephone conversations of an innocent citizen are protected by the Courts against wrongful or excessive interference through tapping. However, this protection does not extend to shield guilty citizens from the efforts of law enforcement to enforce the law and prevent the corruption of public officials.
In India, the practice of telephone tapping is permitted under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act of 1885. This section delineates the conditions and justifications for which a telephone tapping order can be granted; however, it fails to provide any specific procedure for the issuance of such an order.
R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N 1994
In the matter of R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court examined the citizens’ right to privacy in the following manner:
“(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 case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975, the Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the right to privacy. In this particular case, the court was examining the constitutional validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which required police oversight of habitual offenders, encompassing home visits and surveillance of the individuals involved. The Supreme Court chose not to annul these invasive provisions, asserting 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 acknowledged a limited fundamental right to privacy, which is based on Articles 19(a), (d), and 21. In the current case, Justice Mathew observed, “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” as stated in Article 21 encompasses the right to live with dignity in an environment that is free from health hazards and infections, thereby ensuring well-being and the maintenance of hygiene.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1988, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries that were polluting water sources.
In the 1997 case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directives aimed at protecting the Taj Mahal from environmental degradation.
In the case of Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors in 1996, the Court acknowledged the environmental challenges posed by tanneries that were contaminating water bodies, including rivers, canals, groundwater, and agricultural land. The Court provided various directives to mitigate the pollution.