ABSTRACT
- Article 21. Protection of Life And Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Among the six fundamental rights, the Right to life is the main part of a fundamental right in the indian constitution. THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights.
KEYWORDS
- Article 21 provides two rights:
- Right to life
- Right to personal liberty
- The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that the Constitution guarantees.
- Right to privacy
- Right to go abroad
- Right to shelter
- Right against solitary confinement
- Right to social justice and economic empowerment
- Right against handcuffing
- Right against custodial death
- Right against delayed execution
- Doctors’ assistance
- Right against public hanging
- Protection of cultural heritage
- Right to pollution-free water and air
- Right of every child to a full development
- Right to health and medical aid
- Right to education
- Protection of under-trials
INTRODUCTION
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative words, the word No has been used about the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. It means that this fundamental right has been provided against the state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal liberty or deprivation of life of another person. Such violation would not fall under the parameters set for Article 21. In such a case the remedy for aggrieved persons would be either under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law. But, where an act of private individuals supported by the state.
- The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only. State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
- Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be under Article 226 or general law.
- The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning. The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The descriptive and secondary quantitative data-based analysis is conducted to understand Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a right to Constitutional Remedy. The data collected is mostly from sources of various books, journals, articles, annual reports published by the government, and websites of different governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations.
REVIEW
The judicial intervention has ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widening by several landmark judgments. In 2002, through the 86th Amendment Act, Article 21A was incorporated. It made the right to primary education part of the right to freedom, stating that the state would provide free and compulsory education to children from six to fourteen years of age. Six years after an amendment was made in the Indian Constitution, the Union Cabinet cleared the Right to Education Bill in 2008.
The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark ruling in 1994. The court repealed section 309 of the Indian penal code, under which people attempting suicide could face prosecution and prison terms of up to one year). In 1996, another Supreme Court ruling nullified the earlier one. But with the passage of the Mental Healthcare Bill 2017, attempted suicide has been decriminalised. “Personal liberty” includes all the freedoms which are not included in Article 19. The right to travel abroad is also covered under “personal liberty” in Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. Discussing this relationship, it was observed that: “6. The law, must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that Article21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing the procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” and there is. consequently, no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by article 21, such law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that article. This proposition can no longer be disputed after the decisions in the R.C. Cooper case, Shambhu Nath Sarkar case, and Haradhan Sahacase Now, if a law depriving a person of “personal liberty” and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation,ex-hypothesi it must also be liable to be tested concerning Article 14. “
A FEW IMPORTANT CASES CONCERNED WITH ARTICLE 21:
- Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case[1] (1978): This case overturned the Gopalam case judgment. Here, the SC said that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under the law for the deprivation of the life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary. Read the Maneka Gandhi case in detail in the linked article.
- Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi[2] (1981): In this case, the court held that any procedure for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must be reasonable, fair, and just and not arbitrary, whimsical, or fanciful.
- Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation[3] (1985): This case reiterated the stand taken earlier that any procedure that would deprive a person’s fundamental rights should conform to the norms of fair play and justice.
- Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[4] (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life.
- AK Gopalan Case[5] (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution, has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process.
SUGGESTIONS
No one can be arrested without being told the grounds for his arrest. If arrested, the person has the right to defend himself through a lawyer of his choice. Also, an arrested citizen has to be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. The rights of a person arrested under ordinary circumstances are not available to an enemy alien. They are also not available to persons under any law providing for preventive detention. Under preventive detention, the government can imprison a person for a maximum of three months. It means that if the government feels that a person being at liberty can be a threat to the law and order or the unity and integrity of the nation, it can detain or arrest that person to prevent him from doing this possible harm. After three months, such a case is to be brought before an advisory board for review, unless specific legislation by Parliament regarding preventive detention does not necessitate scrutiny by such an advisory board. The rights of a person arrested under ordinary circumstances are laid down in the right to life and personal liberty.
CONCLUSION
The Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which in turn cites specific provisions in which these rights are applied and enforced Protection concerning a conviction for offenses is guaranteed under the right to life and personal liberty. no one can be awarded punishment that is more than what the law of the land prescribes at the time of the commission of the crime. This legal axiom is based on the principle that no criminal law can be made retrospective, that is, for an act to become an offense, the essential condition is that it should have been an offense legally at the time of committing it. Moreover, no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Compulsion in this article refers to what in law is called duress (injury, beating, or unlawful imprisonment to make a person do something that he may not want to do). safeguard against self-incrimination this article is known as the principle of double jeopardy, that is, no person can be convicted twice for the same offense, No citizen can be denied his life and liberty except by due process of law. This means that a person’s life and personal liberty can be disputed only if that person has committed a crime. However, the right to life does not include the right to die and hence, suicide or any attempt thereof is deemed an offense attempted suicide being interpreted as a crime has seen many debates.
JANGALA CHARLESS BABU
Dr.B.R.AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW,
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY-VISAKHAPATNAM
Email:charlessbabu.j@gmail.com
Contact:9640000575.
[1] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
[2] 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
[3] 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
[4] 1993 AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594
[5] AIR 1950 SC 27.