ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty in Article 21.One of the most significant rights that individuals have is this one, which is unabridgeable under any circumstances, including emergencies. According to the Supreme Court of India, this right is the “Heart and Soul of Fundamental Rights.” It is a right that encompasses living a full life with dignity, purpose, and education in addition to the basic need for survival. This research aims to examine judicial interpretations of the right to life and examine contemporary trends.
KEYWORDS
Article 21, Constitution of India, due process, procedure established by law, right to life and personal liberty.
INTRODUCTION
Fundamental rights have been eloquently described as the heart and spirit of our Constitution. These rights have been recognised as essential human existence and social progress. It safeguards civil liberties so that all Indians can live peaceful, harmonious lives as Indian citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees a right that is the most crucial for the existence of humanity among all the rights protected in Part III. According to Article 21, “No Person shall be deprived of his Life or Personal Liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by Law.” This Article has been referred to be the core of our Constitution and the most organic and forward-thinking clause in our living Constitution. Two rights are guaranteed under Article 21: the right to life and the right to personal liberty. Under this article, both rights are protected, unless and until the legal requirements are followed. Only when a person’s right to life and personal liberty is violated by the government, as described in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, this clause of the Indian Constitution applicable. Private individual rights violations do not fall under the scope of Article 21. When the state or any of its representatives divests someone of their personal freedom, such an action can only be justifiable if there is a law to justify such actions, and procedures established by the law have been thoroughly considered.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research paper is based on secondary sources and is of a descriptive and explanatory nature. The majority of the data is gathered from books, articles, and significant rulings relating to Article 21.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.Expanding and evolving the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the developing scenario by Nisha Gandhi
In this article, the author discusses the wider ambit of Article 21. The author referred Article 21 as the heart of our Constitution. The author also discusses British Magna Carta (1215)[1], Article 3 of UDHR, 1948, Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 9 (1) of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 to explain the importance of Article 21. The author also discusses the various rights, such as right to livelihood, right to sleep, right to privacy, right to health etc. The author explain the relevance of Article 21 to other fundamental right. The author explain the position of Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi case.[2]
V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India by M.P. Singh
In this book, the author explains the term of life and personal liberty with reference to the 5th and 14th Amendements of the US, the Francis Coralie case[3] and the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case[4]. In this book, the author also explains everything from procedure established by law to due process. In this book the author, also explains the “golden triangle” of the Indian Constitution. In this book the author, discusses the various rights that fall under the ambit of Article 21. The author also discusses the important judgements related to Article 21.
Article 21: Right to life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law.
Despite being written in a pejorative manner, Article 21 grants everyone the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty and has grown into an unending source of many other rights. These rights are given priority status among all other rights by our courts and are equally applicable to citizens and non – citizens alike.
Life
The most fundamental of all rights, the right to life, is also the most elusive to define. The right to life must be used broadly and not just as protection against the taking of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” according to the 5th and 4th Amendments of the US Constitution. Field J describes the right to life by saying the following:
The word “life” refers to human existence, not animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation includes every limb and faculty used to enjoy life. The provisions also forbid any other bodily organs that the soul uses to communicate with the outside world from being destroyed, such as the amputation of an arm or a leg, the removal of an eye, or the removal of any other body part.[5]
Personal liberty
In A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India[6], the court held that under Article 21, personal liberty means liberty of the physical body and includes various guarantees under Article 19. In this case, the court applies a narrow interpretation.
After that, in Maneka Gandhi’s case, the court held that personal liberty includes various aspect of right, some of which are mentioned in other fundamental rights and are further protected by Article 19. The court further held that the right to life and personal liberty is not confined to the liberty of the physical body but also includes the right to live with human dignity.
Law
In A.K. Gopalan’s case, the court held that under Article 21, law means only state made law and does not include the principle of natural justice.
After that, in Maneka Gandhi’s case, the court held that under Article 21, law includes the principle of natural justice and is not only state made law.
Procedure established by law
The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution lays down that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The meaning of “due” means just, fair, and reasonable.
Due process has two horizons: firstly, substantive due process, and secondly, procedural due process. Substantive due process means the substantive provisions of the law should be reasonable and not arbitrary. Procedural due process means there should be reasonable procedures. In A.K. Gopalan’s case, the court rejected this view and held that procedure established by law means procedure laid down by the legislature.
After that, Maneka Gandhi’s case court held that procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. This makes “procedure established by law” synonymous with the “due process” provision in the US Constitution.
Since Gopalan’s decision, Article 21 has been dormant. Maneka Gandhi’s case gave it new life. Such a resurgence has had a significant impact on current constitutional law. The SC ruled that Article 21 is the procedural Magna Carta of life and liberty in PSR Sadhantham v. Arunachalam[7]. Recent years have seen the emergence of Article 21 as the American equivalent of “due process”. Article 21 received a wider interpretation from the Supreme Court.
Various aspects of Article 21
1.Right to privacy
The right to privacy is an important ingredient of Article 21. Every person has the right to protect the privacy of his or her personal life. Without his or her permission, no information on the aforementioned matters can be published, whether it is accurate or not. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.[8], the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy falls under the ambit of Article 21.
Privacy has both positive and negative aspects. In a negative sense, it prevents the state from encroaching on people’s rights to life and personal liberty. It imposes a positive duty on the state to take all reasonable steps to safeguard a person’s right to privacy.
2.Right to fair trial
The right to a fair trial is not expressly mentioned in any part of the Constitution, but it is a very essential aspect of Article 21. In Rattiram v. State of M.P[9], the court held that a fair trial is the heart and soul of criminal jurisprudence. So it is protected under Article 21. In P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P.[10] the Supreme Court held that the grant of the fairest opportunity to the accused is the object of a fair trial.
3.Right to free legal aid
In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra[11], the court held that under Article 21, an accused who cannot afford legal services due to poverty, indigence, or financial hardship has the right to free legal aid at the expense of the state. In addition, the trial court has a duty to inform an accused who cannot afford legal representation that he has the right to be represented by a lawyer at the expense of the state. Any conviction obtained as a consequence of such a trial is likely to be vitiated if the accused is not informed of his or her right to legal representation, and such a conviction is liable to be set aside.
4.Right to speedy trial
The right to a speedy trial is part of the right to life and personal liberty. A speedy and fair trial prevents miscarriage of justice. This right is also important in criminal jurisprudence. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[12], the SC held that the right to speedy trial falls under the ambit of Article 21. This right is not only applicable to the actual proceedings but also to police investigations. This right begins with arrest and continues through all stages.
5.Keeping under trial with convicts
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[13], the Supreme Court held that it is against Article 21 to keep convicts under trial. The court further held that no procedure can possibly be considered fair if it puts many people in jail without trial for an extended period of time.
6.Right against handcuffing
In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration[14], the court held that handcuffing is unjust, arbitrary, and immoral. When there is an obvious and immediate risk of escape, handcuffs should be used.
7.Police torture
Police torture is a violation of Part III of the Indian Constitution and against human rights. In Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan[15], the court held that the use of the third degree by police is against Article 21. “Torture” means not only physical torture but also mental and psychological torture.
8.Compensation
The right to claim compensation for the violation of Article 21 falls under the ambit of this article. In Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa[16], the Supreme Court awarded damages for custodial death, which is a violation of Article 21.
9.Quality of life
The quality of life falls under the ambit of Article 21. In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[17], the court held that quality of life, which includes the right to food, water, environment, medical care, etc., is essential for a civilised life. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[18], this right includes the right to livelihood as well.
10.Health
Health is an important element of life. In Parmanand Katra v. Union of India[19], Supreme Court held that all doctors are obliged to extend medical assistance to injured people immediately. The court further held that it is the first duty of doctors to preserve the life of human beings.
11.Prevention of sexual harassment
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[20], the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of working women in the workplace. The court further held that sexual harassement of a working woman at her workplace is against Articles 14, 15, and 21.
12.Release and rehabilitation of bonded labour
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the state to release and suitably rehabilitate the bonded labourers. The bonded labourers also have the right to live under Article 21.
13.Euthanasia
Whether the right to life includes the right to die, particularly the right to die, is a subject of much discussion. The news frequently covers the subject of euthanasia. The Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg are among the many nations that have legalised euthanasia.
The deliberate taking of a person’s life to stop their pain and suffering is known as euthanasia. It is referred to as “mercy killing”.
Different kinds of euthanasia
Passive euthanasia- This refers to the withdrawal of treatment for a terminally ill patient, i.e., the removal of a support system.
Active euthanasia- It is refers to the deliberate use of fatal drugs by a physician to end a patient’s life.
Voluntary euthanasia- Euthanasia is carried out under the circumstances of voluntary euthanasia with the patient’s consent.
Non voluntary euthanasia- In this case, a choice is made on the patient’s behalf when the patient is incapable of giving consent (in a coma or has serious brain damage).
Involuntary euthanasia- Euthanasia carried out against the patient’s will is regarded as murder in cases of involuntary euthanasia.
World position on euthanasia
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are both permitted in the Netherlands and Belgium.
While physician-assisted suicide is permitted in Germany, euthanasia is not.
In Aruna Shanbaugh v. Union of India[21], the Supreme Court held that only passive euthanasia is allowed in certain cases.
14.Adultery
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India[22], the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional. The court further held that this section violates women’s right to dignity. Adultery is the only ground for divorce.
15.Nonpayment of minimum wages
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[23], the Supreme Court held that nonpayment of minimum wages is against Article 21.
16.Reproductive choices
In Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Aministration[24], the Supreme Court held that the decision to produce a child or not falls under the ambit of the right to life and personal liberty.
17.Marriage
In Indra Sharma v. K.V. Sharma[25], the SC held that marriage is a civil right of a person and that the right to marry falls under the ambit of Article 21.
18.Right to sleep
Sleep isimportant for a healthy life. In Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.[26], the court held that every person has a right to a decent place to reside and a right to a good night’s sleep. Sleep is the best medicine for waking problems, and a labourer’s sleep is pleasant, as has been noted many times. Peace is brought about by sleeping. Lack of sleep results in an inability to concentrate, irritation, and decreased productivity. It is important to remember that stillness calms the soul, enlivens the body, and stimulates the mind. Nobody has the right to interfere with another person’s ability to get a good night’s sleep, live in peace, or think without interruption.
19.Self-determination of gender
The self-determination of gender is a person’s personal choice; nobody has the right to interfere with another’s choice. In National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India[27], the Supreme Court held that self-determination of gender is a part of the right to life and personal liberty, so it falls under the ambit of Article 21.
20.Homo-sexual act
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[28], applying the principle of human dignity, the court determined that Section 377 of the IPC violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it criminalised consenting sexual activities of adults (i.e., anyone over the age of 18 years). As a result, it was deemed legal for LGBT individuals to engage in sexual activity with each other with their own consent.
21.Child right
It is crucial to protect childhood because it is a highly precious and important time for all children worldwide. The opportunity to grow, be protected, and have control over their own lives are all rights that apply to children. As kids get closer to becoming self-sufficient adults, it is important to look after, nurture, and inspire them. Usually, the adults in their homes are the ones who provides this care. However, the State has a duty to identify a substitute that is in the best interest of the kids when the same people are unable to meet a child’s needs[29]. In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India[30], the Supreme Court held that sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of children is against Article 21. In Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages[31], SC issued directions for the implementation of provisions of the Act that protect children’s interests.
22.Right to education
In Unni Krishana, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[32] , the court upheld the basic right of every child to free and compulsory primary education up to the age of 14 years stated in Article 45 prior to this amendment in 2002. Article 21-A was added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002 to ensure the right to education.
SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted Article 21 to include the right to privacy, health, access to food, a fair trial, and other factors that contribute to a life of dignity. The diverse viewpoints on a person’s life are now being more widely acknowledged, which helps to raise their quality of life. As the core of human rights, this right has been defined. A number of injustices and social wrongs have been addressed through the application of the judiciary’s broad interpretation of Article 21. Many new ideas that are today recognised as distinct rights of an individual were born from Article 21.
Name: Richa
College: Patna Law College, Patna University
[1] Magna Carta, 1215.
[2] AIR 1978 SC 59.
[3] AIR 1981 SC 746.
[4] AIR 1984 SC 802.
[5] 13 M.P. SINGH, V.N.SHUKLA’s CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 210 (2017).
[6] AIR 1950 SC 27.
[7] AIR 1980 SC 856.
[8] AIR 2017 SC 4161.
[9] AIR 2012 SC 1485.
[10] AIR 2012 SCC 56.
[11] AIR 1978 SC 1548.
[12] AIR 1979 SC 1360.
[13] AIR 1980 SC 1579.
[14] AIR 1980 SC 1535.
[15] AIR 1981 SC 625.
[16] AIR 1993 SC 1960.
[17] (1996) 2 SCC 549.
[18] AIR 1986 SC 180.
[19] AIR 1989 SC 2039.
[20] AIR 1997 SC 3011.
[21] AIR 2011 SC 1290.
[22] (2019) 3 SCC 39.
[23] AIR 1982 SC 1473.
[24] AIR 2010 SC 235.
[25] (2013) 15 SCC 755.
[26] AIR 2001 MP 220.
[27] AIR 2014 SC 1863.
[28] (2019) 3 SCC 39.
[29] SAVE THE CHILDREN, https://www.savethechildren.in/blog/child-protection/importance-child-right/( last visited Jun. 10,2023).
[30] AIR 2011 SC 3361.
[31] (2014) 2 SCC 180.
[32] AIR 1993 SC 2178.