RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY | Article 21

This article made a comprehensive and detailed study on Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution including landmark Supreme Court judgements.

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

 

Article 21 of the Constitution Says that:

 

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

 

Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the executive, and not from legislative action. The State could interfere with the liberty of citizens if it could support its action by a valid law. But after the Maneka Gandhi’s decision Article 21 now protects the right to life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also.

 

A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with,

 

Firstly, there must be a law; and

 

Secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law, provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

 

The Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution also provided that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty, except according to procedure establish by law’. The 14^th Amendment imposes a similar limitation on the state authorities.

 

The right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution, is available to both ‘citizens’ as well as ‘non-citizens’.

 

2. MEANING OF LIFE:

 

The Supreme Court has given a broader and liberal interpretation to the term “LIFE” as used in Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

In Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 Justice Field spoke of Right to Life in the following words “By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world”.

 

Supporting this view, Justice Bhagwati, in Francis Coralie vs. U.T. of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, observed, that “We think right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and faculties for reading, writing and expression oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human being’s”.

 

The protection extends to all those limbs of body which the life is enjoyed.

 

Supporting this view, Justice Bhagwati, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, has held that “it is the fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the DPSP (Directive Principle of State Policy) and Particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must include protection of health and strength of workers, men and women and of the tender age of children”.

 

In Unni Krishnan vs State of A.P. (1993) the court has recognised right of education under the right to life, (with taking help from Article 41 and 45).

 

3. MEANING OF PERSONAL LIBERTY:

 

U.S. Constitution mentions the word “Liberty” and gives it a very wide meaning. It takes within it all the freedoms. But in our Constitution “liberty” has been qualified by the word “Personal”. Therefore, the meaning given to the term “Personal Liberty” in India narrower than the meaning given to term “Liberty” in US.

 

The Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, took the view that “Personal Liberty” is confined to freedom from “Detention” and “Physical Restraint”.

 

For the first time, meaning and scope of ‘personal liberty’ was taken up in Kharak Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1295. In this case, it was held, “Personal Liberty is not confined to freedom from restrain or freedom from confinement within the bounds of a prison” and held that Personal Liberty is used in the Article as a compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the ‘personal liberties’ of man other than those dealt with in Article 19(1).

 

Agreeing with the majority view, Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, said that – “The expression Personal Liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and its convers a variety of rights which go to constitute the Personal Liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19”. 

 

Satwant Singh vs. A.P.O. Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 1836. In this case it was held that, right to travel abroad is an aspect of Personal Liberty and therefore, no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure establish by law. In this case, one person was refused the issuance of passport, therefore, the refusal to issue passport resulted in the “denial of liberty”.

 

State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Pandurang, AIR 1966 SC 424, the court said that the right to Personal Liberty includes right to write a book and get it published and the denial of this right to detenue without the authority of law is deprivation of Personal Liberty.

 

In another significant case, Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and various other provisions of the Constitution. The Court recognized that privacy is intrinsic to personal liberty and essential for the enjoyment of other rights and freedoms.

 

4. MEANING OF LAW:

 

According to Article 21 of the, there should be law which provides for a procedure to deny life and Personal Liberty. This is simple requirement of the Article 21.

 

Ordinarily the word “Law” denotes an enacted law i.e., a law made by the legislature. For the purpose of the Article 21, law not only includes enacted law but also includes several other forms of law as well.

 

In A.K. Roy vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710. In this case question was whether ordinance is a law or not? Petitioner argued that executive has no authority to make law and only the legislature has been empowered to make laws. It was held that even an ordinance issued by executive authority is a law within the meaning of the term “Law” as used in Article 21.     

 

State of Nagaland vs. Ratan Singh, AIR 1967 SC 212, in this case it was held that ‘rules’ made for governance of “tribal areas” of Nagaland will fall within Article 21.

 

4.1. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW:

 

There must be law and it must establish the procedure and the procedure must be followed while taking away the Life and Personal Liberty.

 

Three things follow:

 

a)  The must be a law

b) The law should be valid

c) The procedure laid down by law should be strictly followed;

 

This was said in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras; these should be strictly followed; then only can the State violate or restrict Article 21.

 

Article 21 is a guarantee against executive action only and not a guarantee against legislative bodies. So, Article 21 provides no protection or immunity against a competent legislative action. This was the outcome of Gopalan’s judgement.

 

In Gopalan’s Case it was argued that the word ‘law’ in Art. 21 did not merely mean an enacted piece of law but it incorporated the principles of natural justice, and a law which deprived a person of hid personal liberty without complying with rules of natural justice could not be held to be valid under Art. 21. Rejecting the argument, the court held that the ‘law’ in Art. 21 must mean a law enacted by the Legislature and not the law in the abstract or general sense embodying the principles of natural justice as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Supreme Court has held that the word ‘law’ in Article 21 does not mean merely an enacted piece of law but must be just, fair and reasonable law, i.e., which embodies the principle of natural justice.

 

5. DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF ARTICLE 21

 

1. Right to live with human dignity

 

In Francis Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746) the Supreme Court observed the scope of the “right to life” enshrined in Article 21, the Supreme Court observed, the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, 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 commingling with fellow human beings.

 

Following the above case, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802) Justice Bhagwati observed,

It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity free from exploitation: This night to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42.

 

In A.K. Bindal Vs. Union of India, (AIR 2003 SC 2189), the Supreme Court observed that non-revision of pay scales does not amount to violation of Article 21, particularly where there is no material to show that salary paid currently is wholly inadequate to lead life with human dignity.

 

2. Sexual harassment of Women at Work Place

 

In Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1997 SC 3011), the Supreme Court had laid down some guidelines to be strictly observed by the Employers and other responsible persons in work places until suitable legislation were enacted. Each incident of sexual harassment of women at work place, the Court said “results in violation of fundamental right of Gender equality and the right to life and liberty”.

 

In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (AIR 1999 SC 625), the Supreme Court took a serious note of the incidents of sexual harassment of women at work places. Such an incident, the Court said, resulted in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty-the two most precious Fundamental Rights.

 

3. Right to Reputation

 

Reputation is an important part of one’s life. Recently in State of Bihar Vs. Lal Krishan Advani, (AIR 2003 SC 3357), two Member of Commission of Inquiry appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in Bhagalpur district on 24th October, 1989, made some remarks in their report, which impinged upon the regulation of the respondent as a public man, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and preserve one's reputation and one also had a right to protect it.

 

4. Right to livelihood

 

In Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (AIR 1986 SC 180), it was held that the “right to life” included the right to livelihood.

 

5. Right to Privacy:

 

In PUCL Vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568, telephone conversation, the Court ruled that telephone tapping would violate Article 21, unless it was permitted under the procedure established by the law.

 

In R. Rajagopal vs. State of T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 632, popularly known as “Auto Sankar Case” the Supreme Court has expressly held the “right to privacy” or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., commonly referred to as the Privacy Case, on August 24, 2017. This judgment established the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 

The verdict in the Privacy Case explicitly overruled previous judgments, including M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), which had held that the Right to Privacy was not a fundamental right. The court emphasized that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted in the context of evolving societal values and technological advancements.

 

6. Right to die

 

Right to life includes right to lead dignified life. Does it also confer a right not to live if person chooses to end his life (if his life becomes a burden or tragedy for him)?

 

P. Ratinam. Vs. Union of India 1994 SC 1844, in this case 2 judges bench ruled that right to life under Art. 21 also embodies within itself a right not to live a forced life to his detriment, disadvantage or dislike and that life in Art. 21 is right to live with human dignity and the same does not connote or indicate the continued tragedy or burden on his life.

 

In State of Maharashtra vs. Maruty Sripati Dubal, AIR 1997 SC 411, the Court held that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes Right to Die and consequently the Court struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

 

If there is an attempt to commit suicide it is a cry for help and hot for punishment. Court has taken radical view and but this view did not hold for long time. This Ratinam's case ruling was reviewed by full bench in Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 946.

 

In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband abetted & persuaded her daughter-in-law to commit suicide u/s 306 They raised argument-that when Sec. 309 in unconstitutional then the Sec. 306 is unconstitutional because it provides punishment for abetment of commission of suicide. This argument laid S.C to review the judgement of Ratinams, Sec. 309 is not unconstitutional and Sec. 306 is also constitutional and ruled further that Art. 21 is a provision guaranteed for protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination extinction of life can be read into protection of life further said that, right to life is natural right embodied in Art 21, but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore is incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life and so both are constitutional

 

In this case SC further distinguished between Euthanasia and an attempt to commit suicide. Euthanasia is a termination of life of person who is terminally ill or in persistent vegetative state (near to death). In such a case process of natural death had commenced and by Euthanasia we only reduce the period of suffering. This is not a cause of extinguishing life but acceleration of inclusion of natural death. Further said, it even include right of a dying man to die with dignity (when his life is ebbing) Euthanasia cannot be equated with right to die an unnatural death (right to commit suicide) curtailing natural span of life.

 

7. Right to medical care

 

Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039,

 

In this case, SC considered very important issue: In Medico Legal cases, Doctors usually refuse to give medical aid to victim, fill legal formalities are completed, SC referred to this issue and said that, preservation of life is of Permanent importance and it is the duty of the Doctors to preserve life, whether the concerned person be a criminal or an innocent person. Every Doctor whether in Govt. hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his service for the protection of life.

 

Paschim Beng Khet Majdoor Samiti Vs. State of W.B. AIR 1996 SC 2426

 

In this case, a mazdoor fell from running train and was injured severally. He went to govt hospital from where he was sent to another hospital and then he was compelled there to go to a private hospital. where he had to incur expenditure of Rs. 17,000/. Due to the careless attitude on part of Govt, hospital. he filed writ petition u/A 32 of constitution. The court said that one should not lake the plea of financial burden and state is duty-bound to provide adequate medical care/facilities to injured persons. In this case, he was paid Rs. 25,000 as compensation.

 

8. Right to Environment

 

Whole existence of humanity depends upon the environment, ecological balance and pollution free environment: they are the basis of the life. Environment is concern of whole society and it is related to welfare of people. All related environmental aspects are contained in DPSP This can be ensured as Fundamental Right by interpreting life in broader way.

 

Basic provisions- Art. 51A(g), Art. 48A, Art. 47.

 

Right to life includes right to quality life and dignity of life depends upon the quality of environment in which they are existing and good quality of life depends upon-basic ingredients of environment: Air. Water, Land/Soll. It is constitutional obligation to protect environment

 

 

For this purpose, SC has evolved “Public trust doctrine”. This is based on premise that certain natural resources like, Air, Sea, water are meant for genera) use and cannot be restricted to private ownership. These are gifts of nature and state is a trustee is duty bound to use them for the benefit of the society. So, under this doctrine, it is the duty of state to preserve and protect it for the benefit of common public.

 

It is duty of state under this obligation to maintain hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. There is constitutional obligation on government not only to ensure healthy environment but also to take adequate measures to promote and improve both man-made and natural environment.

 

Two principles have been evolved to ensure the protection of environment They have been evolved to mitigate the damage to environment.

 

a. Precautionary principle: It means that state government or concerned authorities must anticipate, prevent and counter causes of environmental degradation,

 

b. Precautionary principle: Polluter pays principle one who is engaged in a hazardous activity is liable to make good the loss suffered by other persons by such an activity. It not only includes payment of damage but also includes the cost incurred to restore the ecological balance. The Supreme Court while explaining the principle of polluter pays, said that under Art. 32, Supreme Court can award damages against those who disturb ecological balance. This is a mechanism 16 meet the cost of pollution.

 

Vellore Citizens Welfare Vs. Union of India. AIR 1996 SC 2721. In this case, the court said that there is special burden of proof in environmental cases, that the onus of proof is on the polluter to prove that his activity is environmentally safe.

 

Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC, held that enjoyment of pollution free environment is included in right to life under Art. 21 and a citizen has right to have recourse under Art. 32 for removal of pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.

 

MC Mehta Vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 734. In this case Supreme Court issued guidelines and directions for the protection of Taj Mahal from environmental degradation.

 

MC Mehta Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001(1) SC 1945, Supreme Court has directed that entire fleet of public transport buses to be run on C.N.G. and not on diesel.

 

Murli S. Deora Vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40, the Apex Court, realising the gravity of the situation and considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, issued direction to the governments to ensure prohibiting smoking in public place.

 

9. Right to Education:

 

The term life has been given widest interpretation by the Supreme Court. Life does not mean mere animal existence, it means leading life with human dignity and for this, one should be educated, if not, he is like an animal. It includes education because education promotes good and dignified life.

 

Mehini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858. In this case, with a view to eliminate the practice for charging capitation fee, Karnataka legisture passed an act to regulate admission in private Medical Colleges and Government fixed Rs. 2000 as Juition fee for candidates admitted against Government seats but other students were required to pay Rs 25,000 per annum and students from outside India were required to pay Rs. 60,000/-as fee. There were three categories as far as charging of fee was concerned. This was challenged on ground of violation of Art 14. Issue whether education can be denied on ground of economic criteria?

 

The Court said, that constitution does not expressly guarantee the right to education but it is already within Art 21 along with the DPSP contained in Articles 30(a), 41 & 45. The court said that, it is clear from these provisions that constitution makers wanted state to provide education to citizens, because life without education is no life. This was the basic reason behind to give such a decision. Without making right to education under Art 41 a reality, fundamental right will remain beyond the reach of majority of people in this country: who are literate. Thus, court ruled that night to education flows directly from Art. 21 and state is under constitutional mandate to provide education at institutional level for the benefit of citizen.

 

Whether unaided private educational institutions can charge amount for commercialisation of education Capitation fee is nothing but price for securing education and it amounts to commercialisation of education. Charging capitation fee amounts to discrimination on class basis and leads to violation of Art. 14, because poor meritorious students denied admission, such a treatment is unreasonable, unjust, and unfavourable. The bench declared that charging capitation fee wholly is arbitrary and against Art. 14. Taking an absolutist view of state obligation, the court said, that every citizen has right to education and state is under obligation to establish educational institution to enable the citizen to enjoy these rights.

 

 

Unni Krishnan Vs. State of A.P. 1993(1) SCC 645, 732. Whether private educational institution can charge capitation fee at the time of admission or not? this case had a different view - with respect to Mohini Jain's Case, with respect to the real scope of this right, the court said that it is not absolute right and the court has limited the obligation of the state to provide education.

 

The Court held - Every citizen (child) in this country has a right to free education until he/she completes the age of 14 years. Thereafter, the state's obligation to provide education is subject to limitation of economic capacity and the development of the country.

 

The Court also suggested how state can perform their duty imposed by S.C. The obligation created by Articles 41, 45 & 46 can be discharged by the state either by establishing institution of its own or orderly recognizing or granting affiliation to other private educational constitutions.

 

The private educational institutions are necessary in this country but commercialisation of education shall not be permitted. The Court further said that charging of capitation fee is bad but unaided educational institution can charge higher fee, but there will be a limit to it.

 

Article 21A:

 

The 86th amendment Act, 2002, added Art. 21A to the constitution which made an implicit right to education an explicit right, but it says similar thing as said by the court earlier that state shall provide education up to 14 years, as such state may determine by law.

 

Article 21A provides: The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law, determine Article 21A added by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002 makes education from 6 to 14 years old, fundamental right, within the meaning of Part Ill of the Constitution

 

Article 21A may be read with new substituted Article 45 and new clause (k) inserted in Article 51A by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002.

 

6. CONCLUSION

 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not merely a legal provision but an embodiment of the core values that shape a just and compassionate society. It underscores the significance of every individual's life and liberty and reaffirms their right to live with dignity and freedom. The judiciary's progressive interpretation of Article 21 has ensured that it remains relevant and adaptive to the changing needs of society while upholding the constitutional spirit.

 

By safeguarding the right to life and personal liberty, Article 21 stands as a beacon of hope, empowering citizens to seek justice and equality in the face of adversity. It reflects the aspirations of the Constitution's framers to create a society where every individual can thrive and enjoy the benefits of democratic governance. As India continues to evolve, Article 21 will remain an enduring pillar of its democratic structure, protecting the essence of life and liberty for generations to come.