Abstract
Article 21 is one of the essential fundamental rights that are specified in the Constitution of India. The protection of the lives and individual liberties of Indian citizens is covered by Article 21. The study’s goal is to give a general overview of how interpretation by the judiciary has expanded the scope of Article 21. The research paper explains in detail how Article 21 came to be what it is today, including the incorporation of numerous rights under terms like “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21. The study paper also covers the development of a new idea known as judicial activism by the court under Article 21 and its significance with the aid of landmark decisions. The article focuses on the evolution of Article 21’s meaning from the AK Gopalan case to the Maneka Gandhi case, and the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Keywords
Right to life and personal liberty, the procedure established by law, judiciary, and judicial activism.
Introduction
Fundamental rights are regarded as basic human rights. And, the right to life is essential among them. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is a fundamental right, mentions this basic right. In Part III of the Constitution, Articles 14 to 35 refer to fundamental rights. In a court of law, fundamental rights are justifiable. So, the state is subject to these fundamental rights. The US Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights, is where we got the idea of fundamental rights. Our constitution originally set forth seven essential rights, but eventually reduced this number to six. The right to the protection of life and personal freedom, which is listed in Article 21 of the Constitution, is one such crucial fundamental right. This article ensures that no one is deprived of their life or personal liberty, until and unless a legal process wants to have done so. Three crucial terms are found in Article 21: life, personal liberty, and legal procedure. Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, which provides fundamental rights, was unanimously approved by those who drafted it. In addition to guaranteeing fundamental civil rights, these rights also provide minorities with particular protections, outlawing discrimination based on things like religion, colour, caste, place of birth and sex, and defending personal freedom and cultural rights. The rights were drafted by the members of the constituent assembly to protect both Indian citizens and foreigners who are residents of India. Article 21 is one such essential right that is accessible to both Indian citizens and foreigners.
It is believed that Article 21 is the Magna Carta of Rights. By definition, it only includes the right to life and the right to personal liberty but impliedly, it includes many rights. Article 21 covers various fundamental rights, human rights and even the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are included in it. The law should be dynamic. With the change in society, the law should also change. If Article 21 is interpreted as mentioned in the Constitution there will be a violation of many rights. It will look like just mentioning the rights without genuinely protecting them.
We know the concept of the doctrine of separation of powers is followed in India, due to which the responsibility of interpreting the law and ensuring justice for aggrieved people is in the hands of the judiciary. Additionally, these fundamental rights are enforceable against the State in a court of law. Here the “State” means the Government of India and the Indian Parliament, the State Government and state’s legislatures, in the case of the states, and all local and other authorities within the territory of India[1]. Also, the State includes not just the legislature, but also the executive. This shows the judiciary controlling the actions of the other two organs if their actions infringe on the fundamental rights of people in India.
The research paper analyzes when the conflict between the basic fundamental right of citizens provided under Article 21 and arbitrary laws made by the legislature arose. The question comes as to whether the judiciary should interpret the law as it is explicitly or whether the implied basic principles should be considered. After the commencement of the Indian constitution, the issue of the meaning of the words ‘life’, ‘personal liberty’, and ‘procedure established by law’ arose in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[2]. The paper analyzes the journey of Article 21 from Gopalan 1950 to Maneka Gandhi[3]and, using judicial interpretation and the development of a new idea known as judicial activism, this research paper is intended to explain the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as the reason behind the question ‘why these three articles are referred to as the “golden triangle” of the Constitution of India’.
Research Methodology
This paper is a doctrinal kind that mostly relies on books and articles and web sources. The paper is of descriptive and explanatory nature and the research is based on secondary sources for the deep analysis of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and landmark judgments related to Article 21.
Review of literature
Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India by Pooja P. Vardhan
In this article, the author discusses constitutional provisions involving the protection of the environment. The author mainly discusses maintaining a healthy environment and how the environment places an important role in an individual’s “life”, which is a fundamental right under Article 21. The author also discusses other Articles 14 and 19 of part 3 that have been used for environmental protection and the evolution of the liberal interpretation of Article 21 after the Maneka Gandhi case.
Judicial Interpretation on “Right to Life and personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by Dr. Bhavana Sharma
In this article, the author discusses the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the concept of the ‘procedure established by law’ and the requirements to be fulfilled for a prudential law that is fair and reasonable. The author also discusses the liberal interpretation of Article 21 by the Indian judiciary with changes in time.
ARTICLE 21: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is known as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’. Article 21 covers basic human rights, due to which it is important. Article 21 talks about two basic fundamental rights which are the ‘Right to Life’ and the ‘Right to Personal Liberty’. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in cases where such deprivation is caused following the procedure established by law[4]. It is known that law should be dynamic but not static and Article 21 is the best example of it. It is not just about the codification of law but the way of interpreting it also should be liberal and suitable to current society. It is considered that Article 21 was a nominal right which was just written without proper implementation before the Maneka Gandhi case. Here we will see Article 21 interpretation by classifying it as before Maneka Gandhi and after Maneka Gandhi.
- Before Maneka Gandhi
AK GOPALAN CASE, 1950
After the Constitution took effect, it was the first case. In this case, the legitimacy of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which was passed to detain suspects before committing a crime, and the definition of the word “procedure” as defined by law in Article 21 were at issue. Whether the procedure needs to be rational and fair. The petitioner, AK Gopalan, argued before the Indian Supreme Court that
- The term “law” encompasses more than just laws that have been passed into existence. Therefore, legislation that attempts to take away someone’s life or personal freedom is invalid unless the process it specifies adheres to the fundamentals of natural justice.
- The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 should be reasonable, and Article 19 should be used to determine whether it is reasonable or not.
- The legal method for expressing opinions is comparable to the American idea of procedural due process, which states that the courts will examine whether the law satisfies the given conditions of a reasonable procedure.
All of the above contentions were dismissed, and the Court held that the phrase “procedure established by law” only refers to a method established by enactment, which is to say enacted law. Given their ambiguity and uncertainty, the natural justice principles may not necessarily need to be followed. Articles 21, 22, and 19 have no connection to one another. The statute that was passed did not pass the Article 19 reasonability requirement. When one article is followed, additional articles should not come into the picture as they are mutually exclusive.
Principles laid down and followed in Gopalan’s case
- The expression procedure established by Indian legislation is distinct from procedural due process in the United States.
- The phrase “law” solely refers to state-made law, which is legislation passed by parliament.
- According to the Supreme Court of India, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is not violated by the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. Citizens whose freedom is curtailed by legislation are not covered by Article 19, which safeguards citizens’ rights to freedom, and the issue of whether Article 19(1) should be enforced does not arise.
- The law depriving personal liberty has to confirm Articles 21 and 22, but not Article 19.
- The expression ‘law’ in the provision of Article 21 should not be read within the meaning of ‘principles of natural justice’ because such principles are vague and indefinite.
- The procedure established by law need not be just, fair, and reasonable.
Till Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the guidelines made by Gopalan were followed. But, in some cases, a change is brought up. In the bank nationalization case commonly known as RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970)[5] contrary to Gopalan guidelines that there is no link between Articles 19, 21 and 22. In the Gopalan case, the object of the law was enacted rather than the effect but, in RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the effect of the law was considered rather than its object.
- MANEKA GANDHI CASE, 1978
Due to this case, the application of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was broadened. Both the “Maneka Gandhi case” and the “personal liberty case” are well-known names for it. It is a significant instance of how Article 21 should be interpreted. It was the situation that gave rise to the idea of the golden triangle.
Brief facts of the present case are:
Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner, received a passport in accordance with the Passport Act, 1967. The local passport office gave her the order to turn in her passport on July 2nd, 1977. Invoking the Supreme Court’s writ authority, the petitioner claimed that the state’s action of seizing her passport is a blatant violation of her right to travel, which is a right to personal liberty protected by Article 21.
INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 21, 19, AND 14 AFTER MANEKA GANDHI
The landmark Maneka Gandhi case broadened the application of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Before the said case, the right to life and personal liberty was only guaranteed to the executive branch of the government, not the legislative. The relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 has been determined. The law that outlines the procedures to follow for denying someone their right to personal liberty must also adhere to the requirements of Article 14 to be valid. Not only must the legal process be just, fair, and reasonable; according to Articles 14 and 19, but the law itself must also be reasonable for Article 21 to make sense.
The concept called the golden triangle developed where if any one article in articles 14, 19, and 21, the three violates. They are not mutually exclusive but interlinked.
After Maneka Gandhi, the scope of the terms life and personal liberty expanded.
Life
The UN case Munn v. Illinois is used to interpret the term “life” in Article 21. Life was a concept that encompassed more than just animal existence. The Supreme Court took into account this line in many decisions. Article 21’s protection of the right to life includes both the physical and qualitative aspects of life.
Personal liberty
Personal liberty is more than only physical liberty, such as being free from bodily restraint or captivity. Numerous rights are included in Article 21’s statement of personal liberty. The most comprehensive article, Article 21, protects a wide range of rights, some of which are specified in other fundamental rights and receive further protection under Article 19.
Distinguishing between ‘procedure established by law’ and ‘due process of law’
- In accordance with established legal procedure, a law passed by the legislature is regarded as binding. Whereas, in America, a law created by judges is upheld.
- The law’s procedure need not be fair and reasonable. Whereas, under due process of law, the law must be fair and reasonable.
- The law’s procedure need not follow the principles of natural justice. Whereas they must be followed in due process of law.
Law
In the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution, the word “law” refers to an enacted law, which includes legislatively enacted laws as well as notifications, bye-laws, orders, and regulations.
AFTER MANEKA GANDHI: EXTENDED VIEW OF ARTICLE 21
The entire perspective of Article 21 has changed as a result of the Maneka Gandhi case’s interpretation of the provision. Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not define the right to life as including breathing or animal existence. This ensures the right to a life of dignity. Later judiciary took the responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals, and a new concept called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced removing the old tradition of locus standi. This process of the judiciary taking responsibility for people’s rights in the country is called judicial activism. Judicial activism comes when the legislature and executive are not fulfilling their duties. Under the concept of judicial activism concepts like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Lok Adalats, and free legal aid services were introduced. Through judicial activism and liberal interpretation of the judiciary, many implied rights are recognized under the ambit of Article 21. Some of the rights recognized include
- Right to live with human dignity
- Right to a decent environment including pollution-free water, air, and protection against hazardous industries.
- Right to livelihood
- Right to privacy
- Right to shelter
- Right to health
- Right to free education for children up to the age of 14
- Right to free legal aid
- Right against solitary confinement
- Right to speedy trial
- Right against handcuffing
- Right against inhuman treatment
- Right against delayed execution
- Right to travel abroad
- Right against bonded labour
- Right against custodial death, and harassment
- Right to emergency medical aid
- Right to a fair trial
- Right of a prisoner to have basic necessaries of life
- Right against sexual harassment in the workplace
- Right to sleep
- Right to freedom from noise pollution
- Right to reputation
EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The concept of judicial activism was first developed in America. Later this was brought to India by two prominent judges, Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer. They are thought to have been the first Indian legal activists. Judicial activism is when judges act in accordance with the law to the fullest extent possible. These kinds of judgments are based on the opinion of judges but not on the law. From judicial activism, the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced. PIL checked the old process of locus standi where the person approaching the court must have suffered some loss or damage from an act. The other person cannot represent on behalf of the suffered. PIL refers to litigation filed by a person to protect the public interest by representing those persons who are not able to approach court because of poverty, illiteracy, etc.
One such PIL is People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. UOI (1982). In PUDR v. UOI[6], which is popularly known as the Asiad case. Fundamental rights for every Indian person. According to the locus standi rule, only the wealthy can afford justice; the destitute cannot. Through a letter addressed to Justice Bhagwati, who treated it as a PIL, the Petitioners highlighted the terrible situation of labourers who were forced or threatened to work in dangerous environments. In this case, the court held that the ‘Right to minimum wage’ is an implied right under the Right to life as mentioned under Article 21.
In the Pavement Dwellers case, Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others (1985)[7]. It was decided that using excessive force to evict pavement dwellers without giving them a chance to defend themselves is unconstitutional. Therefore, the legal process for denying someone their fundamental right must uphold natural justice principles. The respondent’s actions are a blatant breach of their right to subsistence, which is a right protected by Article 21’s word “life.”
The case of Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)[8]is another important decision that has paved the way for judicial activism. There was no sexual harassment statute in India before Vishaka’s decision. It has been determined that Article 21 protects the right against sexual harassment at work. The right of a woman to a dignified existence is violated by sexual harassment. It serves as a precedent for workplace sexual harassment.
In the case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)[9], a journalist’s letter to the Supreme Court outlining the physical abuse meted out to female inmates in the jail was submitted. The court acknowledged the issue, considered the letter as a formal petition, and gave the concerned state agencies the necessary instructions.
The Court treated a letter submitted by a prisoner as a petition in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980)[10]. The letter implied that the senior warden had brutally attacked another prisoner and caused them agony. The court declared that the technicalities could not prevent it from defending the person’s civil liberties. There have been certain cases where the judicial activism mechanism has gone too far. The judiciary has been held accountable by the Indian parliament or accused of interfering and going beyond its constitutional authority.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)[11] was the first case of public interest litigation in environmental law. It is also known as the Shriram food fertilizers case. It was the case regarding the leakage of poisonous Oleum gas from Shriram food fertilizers which caused severe health injury to several advocates. In this case, the Court decided that the ‘Right to a pollution-free environment’ is a fundamental right under Article 21.
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
The role of the judiciary in protecting people’s rights is praiseworthy but due to more involvement of the judiciary in protecting the people, dominance is being created. India is a country following the doctrine of separation of powers where the power is distributed between three organs which are the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
The executive’s job is to put laws into effect after they have been passed by the legislature, which is its function. Finally, it is up to the judiciary to apply the law and render fair judgments. Coordination between the three organizations is necessary. If this doesn’t work, anarchy and the modern-day dominance of one organization result. The situation of the rule of judges was produced by the judiciary’s influence over legislative and executive actions through judicial activism and judicial review. This is completely at odds with democratic norms. In a democracy, the will of the majority should be respected, whether directly or indirectly, but neither the people nor their representatives play any part in this decision-making process. There is a prominent saying of judges that the judiciary should know its boundaries. Due to the extreme involvement of the judiciary, a bar on its activities is made by judicial restraint.
Name: Syed Sulthana
University: Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 12.
[2] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 598.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[5] R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.
[6] People’s Union For Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India (1982) AIR 1473.
[7] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors (1985) SSC (3) 545.
[8] Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 30311.
[9] Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 1983 AIR 378.
[10] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579.
[11] MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.