Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty ) – Constitutional Notes

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution- Prolawctor


“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ”

INTRODUCTION

The interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has gone through various changes over the years and it can be also said that Article 21 has gone through the most number of interpretations. The scope of Article 21 has been increasing with the inclusion of various rights in it, its interpretation has been done with the various changes in the society. From being called the heart of the constitution to the foundation of laws, it has been interpreted vastly in various judgements by our hon’ble courts.  Article 21 applies to all the natural persons i.e., citizens and non-citizens.

MEANING: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian constitution is mainly inspired by the american Constitution.

ARTICLE 21 MEANING
No person Includes Citizens and Non- Citizens 
Shall (not may) Compulsory
Deprived  disadvantaged
Life Explained in detail below
Personal liberty  Explained in detail below
Procedure established by law Explained in detail below

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 

 Article 21 mainly includes 3 keywords:

  1. LIFE
  2. PERSONAL LIBERTY
  3. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW 

LIFE

It includes various Human rights. Various Human rights are included under Life.

  1. RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY
    • CASE LAW: MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA
      The Supreme court in this case mentioned that the right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but it also includes the right to live with dignity. The same point was elaborated in the next case.
    • CASE LAW: FRANCIS CORALIE V UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI
      Right to live is more than physical survival. The court stated that, “The right to live is not confined to the protection of any faculty or limb through which life is enjoyed or the soul communicates with the outside world but it also includes the right to live with human dignity, and all that goes with it such as, the bare necessities of life – adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing ourselves in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with the fellow human beings. ”
  1. RIGHT TO DIE
    • CASE LAW: P. RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA
      Section 309 of IPC was declared unconstitutional and stated that Article 21 also includes Right to die. SC held that Right to life also includes the right to die. Same judgement was given in the case of the State of Maharashtra V Maruti Sripati Dubai.
    • CASE LAW: GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB
      The Supreme court held that under the Indian Constitution Waiver of Fundamental rights is not allowed. Under Article 21 Right to life is a fundamental right so it cannot be waived off. So, Right to life does not include the right not to live. 
  1. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
    • CASE LAW: MP SHARMA V SATISH CHANDRA -1954
      Right to privacy is not a part of Article 21 and is not a fundamental right.
    • CASE LAW: KHARAK SINGH V STATE OF UP
      Court held that Right to life does not mean mere animal existence. If there is any kind of unauthorized disturbance in the living will result in infringement of right to privacy. The expression “personal liberty” includes everything that constitutes personal liberty including article 19. 
    • CASE LAW: PUCL V UNION OF INDIA
      It is also known as Telephone Tapping case. Court in this case stated that Right to privacy is included under Right to life. Right to privacy cannot be infringed until there is any public emergency or safety. 
    • CASE LAW: PUTTASWAMY J. V UNION OF INDIA
      The SupremeThe Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and is enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this case the aadhar card scheme of the government was challenged. The court held that it was not mandatory for the citix=zens to obtain an aadhaar card.  
  1. RIGHT TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
    • CASE LAW: RLEK(RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA) V STATE OF UP- 1985
      Declaring the healthy environment a part of fundamental right under article 21 court ordered the closure of certain limestone quarries as  there were serious deficiencies regarding safety and hazards in them.
    •  OTHER CASE LAWS: MC MEHTA CASE ,T. DAMODAR RAO CASE etc. 
  1. RIGHT TO TRAVEL BOARD
    • CASE LAW: SATWANT SINGH V ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER, NEW DELHI- 1967
      The petitioner (Indian citizen) in this case had to travel abroad frequently for the purpose of business. The government ordered the petitioner to surrender his passport. This was challenged on the ground that right to travel is included under personal liberty in Article 21. The Supreme court accepted the contention  and the scope of article 21 was extended to include “Right to travel abroad” under the concept of personal liberty. 
  1. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
    • DK YADAV V JMA INDUSTRIES
      Right to life under article 21 also includes Right to livelihood. A worker cannot be terminated from his job without giving him reasonable opportunities of hearing. Any procedure which is depriving a person from livelihood should be right, just and fair i.e. should meet the challenge of article 14.   
    • PRAGATI VARGHESE V CYRIL GEORGE VARGHESE- 1997
      Court in this case struck down Section 10 of the Indian divorce act,1869 on the basis that it violated fundamental rights of a christian woman guaranteed under articles 21,15 and 14 of the constitution of India. . A wife cannot be compelled to live with her husband if she does not want to live with him.
  1. RIGHT TO HEALTH AND MEDICAL ASSISTANT
    • CASE LAW: PARMANAND KATARA V UNION OF INDIA-1989
      Court observed and held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (Government or private) to extend the medical aid to the injured immr=ediwately to preserve life without waiting for fulfilling legal formalities. This concept was also covered under article 21 of the indian constitution.
  1. RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
    • CASE LAW: HUSSAINARA KHATOON V HOME SEC, STATE OF BIHAR-1979
      A writ of habeas corpus was filed by a number of undertrial prisoners who were in jails in Bihar waiting for their trials. SC in this case held that right to speedy trial- a fundamental right is implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty ensured under article 21 of the constitution of India. 
  1. RIGHT AGAINST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
    • CASE LAW: SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION-1978
      The issue raised in this case was whether, ‘solitary confinement‘ (imposed on prisoners with a death sentence) was violative of Articles 14, 19,20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The challenge was done through a petition by the 2 prisoners of Tihar central jail. The Supreme court held that section 30 of the Prisons act provided no powers to the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement. Further the court stated that this would offend article 21 as the prisoners also have the liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share company with vo-prisoners. This if not curtailed would be violative of article 21 unless curtailment has the backing of law. 
  1. PUBLIC HANGING
    • CASE LAW: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF INDIA V LACHMA DEVI-1986
      The court held that, “the execution of a death sentence by public hanging is barbaric and violative of art 21 of the constitution. It is true that the crime of which the accused have been found to be guilty is barbaric, but a barbaric crime does not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty such as Public hanging. “ 
  1. RIGHT TO SHELTER
    • CASE LAW: CHAMELI SINGH V STATE OF UP- 1996
      Court held that the right to shelter is enshrined under Art 21.Right to live is secured when a person is assured of all the facilities to benefit himself. Right to shelter does not merely mean a roof over the head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being.
  1. RIGHT TO SLEEP 
    • CASE LAW: RAMLILA MAIDAN V HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA-2012
      Justice B. S. Chauhan held that, “sleep is a necessity and not a luxury. The act done appeared to have been done in an unlawful manner that violated the basic human rights of the crowd to have a sound sleep which is also a constitutional freedom acknowledged under article 21 of the indian constitution.”
  1. RIGHT TO EDUCATION-ARTICLE 21A
    • CASE LAW: MOHINI JAIN V STATE OF KARNATAKA
      This case is also known as “Capitation fees case”. The court in this case held that the right to education is a fundamental right which cannot be denied to  a citizen by charging higher fees called the capitation fees.
  1. RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID
    • CASE LAW: M.H.HOSKOT V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
      The court in this case focused on the decision in the  MAneka Gandhi case and stated that free legal aid is the state’s duty and not government’s charity. The right to free legal aid is a fundamental right enshrined under article 2 of the indian constitution. 
  1. RIGHT AGAINST HANDCUFFING
    • CASE LAW: PREM SHANKAR V DELHI ADMINISTRATION-1980
      Validity of some clauses of PUNJAB police rules were challenged in the court of law as violations of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. Court in this case held that, “Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore, unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent of fair procedure an objective monitoring, to inflict ‘irons’ is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to article 21….” 
  1. PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WORKING WOMEN
    • CASE LAW: VISHAKA V STATE OF RAJASTHAN-1997
      In this case supreme Court laid down various guidelines to be followed to prevent sexual harassment of a women at workplace and also suggested to enact a legislation for the same. The court held that the employer has a duty and responsibility (public or private)  to prevent sexual harassment of working woman. 

Note:- There are various other rights under this article as the scope and interpretation of the article has become wider with every judgement.

PERSONAL LIBERTY

Two Important cases:

AK GOPALAN V STATE OF MADRAS-1950
In this case, A.K. Gopalan (a communist leader) was detained by the police under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the act on the ground that it violated the fundamental rights given under Art 19 (Right to freedom of movement) and Art 21 (Right to personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Contentions of the petitioner: personal liberty includes the freedom of movement and the restrictions under the  preventive detention act should be reasonable  according to the provisions of Art 19(5)

Personal liberty was interpreted very narrowly in this case. All the contentions of the petitioner were rejected by the supreme court. Court stated that Personal Liberty can only be infringed by two ways. Firstly by physical restraint and secondly in case of coercion. Natural justice is not covered under art 21 and the term “law” under the article refers to the state made law. 

MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA-1978 (NEW DIMENSION TO THE PERSONAL LIBERTY)
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was seized by the government under the passport act – section 10(3)(c). It Was challenged in the Supreme  court of India on the ground that it was infringement of personal Liberty. SC in this case overruled the decision in the case of AK GOPALAN V STATE OF MADRAS and gave a wider scope to article 21.  Bhagwati, J. in the case observed that, “the expression Personal Liberty in article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”

Test of reasonability has to be passed by any law or procedure which means that restriction should be just, fair and reasonable and such law or procedure must be according to the natural justice principle. This case also discussed the concept of right to live with human dignity. 

PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

It provided protection against the arbitrary executive actions of the executive. A person could challenge actions of the executive which were not just, fair and reasonable but there was no protection against the arbitrary legislative actions of the government till 1978. In 1978 came the case of Maneka Gandhi case which elaborated the scope of Art 21. This case stated that  “Due process of Law” and “Procedure established by law” are both included Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21

OLD VIEW PRESENT VIEW
AK GOPALAN CASE – Supreme court held that Article 19 of the indian constitution has no application to the laws depriving a person of his life and personal liberty under article 21. Court further clarified that both the articles have different subjects. So the majority in this case decided that “As long as a law of preventive detention satisfies the requirements of Art. 22 there is no need to meet the requirements mentioned under art 19.“ MANEKA GANDHI CASE- The case overruled the decisions of the AK GOPALAN CASE and held that the requirements under art 19 must be fulfilled by art 21. The court in this case observed that: “the law must therefore now be settled that art 21 does not exclude art 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred under art 21,such a law insofar as it abridges  or take away any fundamental right under article 19 would have to meet the challenges of that article. Thus a law depriving a person of personal liberty has not only to stand the test of art 21 but it must stand the test of art 19 and art 14 of the indian constitution.”  

ARTICLE 21 AND EMERGENCY

Under Article 359 of the Indian Constitution , the President has the power to suspend article 21. Till today article 21 has been suspended 3 times in the years- 1962, 1971 and 1976. 

  • CASE LAW: ADM JABALPUR V SHIVAKANT SHUKALA
    The case is also known as habeas corpus case. SC held that during emergency Article 21 can be suspended. 
  • 44th AMENDMENT
    This amendment changed art 359 of the constitution which now states that Article 21 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.

References

  • Article 21 Constitution of India
  • Constitutional Law of India, JN Pandey
  • MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
  • FRANCIS CORALIE V UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI :1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
  • P. RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA: 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394
  • State of Maharashtra V Maruti Sripati Dubai:1987 (1) BomCR 499, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589
  • GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB :1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
  • MP SHARMA V SATISH CHANDRA -1954: 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077
  • KHARAK SINGH V STATE OF UP: 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
  • PUCL V UNION OF INDIA : AIR 1997 SC 568, 
  • PUTTASWAMY J. V UNION OF INDIA: AIR 2015 SC 3081
  • RLEK V STATE OF UP: 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
  • MC MEHTA CASE: 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819
  • T. DAMODAR RAO CASE: AIR 1987 AP 171
  • SATWANT SINGH V ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER, NEW DELHI:1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
  • DK YADAV V JMA INDUSTRIES:1993 SCR (3) 930, 1993 SCC (3) 259
  • PRAGATI VARGHESE V CYRIL GEORGE VARGHESE:AIR 1997 Bom 349
  • PARMANAND KATARA V UNION OF INDIA:1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997
  • HUSSAINARA KHATOON V HOME SEC, STATE OF BIHAR:1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
  • SUNIL BATRA VDELHI ADMINISTRATION: 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
  • CHAMELI SINGH V STATE OF UP- 1996
  • AK GOPALAN V STATE OF MADRAS: 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
  • ADM JABALPUR V SHIVAKANT SHUKALA:1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!