Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

EXPANDING AND EVOLVING THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH THE
DEVELOPING SCENARIO

Nisha Gandhi, Raffles University

ABSTRACT

India is a developing country not only in terms of Economy but also in terms
of enhancing the lives of People. This can be seen with the help of the
Constitution of India which provide the fundamental right i.e., right to life to
every individual whether a citizen or not. This is one of the most important
right given to people which cannot be curtailed even in emergency situations.
This right has been described as "Heart of Fundamental Rights" by the
Supreme Court of India. It is a right which not only about the survival of
person but also entails being able to Live a complete life of dignity, meaning
and educations. The most beautiful essence of this Article is that it is not a
straight jacket rule instead it jeeps on evolving with the change in time.

This research paper highlights the developing meaning and scope of this right
enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 21.

Page: 1
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental Rights have powerfully described as the soul of our Constitution. These rights
have terrestrially acknowledged as essential to human presence and requisite for social
development. It ensures civil freedoms such that all Indians can guide their lives in peace and
harmony as citizens of India. They involve individual benefits, well-known to the most liberal
democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to
propagate any religion, protection of life and personal liberty and the Right to constitutional
remedies. These rights have defined under Part III of the Constitution and can practise
irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or sex.

Among all the rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution, Article 21 guarantees a
right which is the most important for the survival of the humankind. Article 21 states that "No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law." The primary aim of this fundamental Right is to serve as a protection to
counter infringement on a person's liberty or dignity. This assistance is accessible to
every "person" whether or not they are nationals of India, as ascertained in the case of The
Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs Chandrima Das & Ors1. It is one of the most crucial
fundamental rights, encompassing many distinct subsidiary rights budding out. It is not latent,
rather an evolving section of the legislation. It is compelling to observe ahead the literal
interpretation of this Article to furnish the current synopsis. Additionally, in light of judicial
activism, there is a need to interrelate this Article with other provisions, to experience it with a
more productive and progressive outlook, which is comprehensive of modern society.

HISTORY

The parliamentary memoir of Article 21 is that initially, Constituent Assembly had passed it as
Article 15 which provided that "No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty without the
due process of law."2 After that, the Drafting Committee recommended two improvements to
Article 15. First, the inclusion of the word "personal" before the word "liberty." Second,
replacement of the expression "without due process of law" with "except according to the
procedure established by law." The Drafting Committee passed the second amendment
because it believed that the word "due process " was exploited in the American legal system.

1
(2000) 2 SCC 465.
2
H.M., Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th edn. Vol. 2, (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd. 2010), p. 970.

Page: 2
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

Besides, it was the outcome of a discussion which the Constitutional Assembly Advisor, Sir
B.N. Rau had with Frankfurter J. of the United States of America Supreme Court, who
communicated that due process clause is undemocratic and oppressive to the judiciary because
it authorized judges to nullify the legislation passed by democratic majorities.

IMPORTANCE

Article 21 of the Constitution of India prevents the deprivation of rights except through
procedures established by law. It is the heart or bedrock of our Constitution. It is the purest
and reformist provision in our Constitution and is valid for every citizen of India as well as
foreign citizens. Either it is by the British Magna Carta (1215)which states that "No free man
shall be taken or imprisoned or deceased or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor
will the King pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of his peers or
the law of the land"3. Or from the Universal Declaration, 1948, Article 3 saying "Everyone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person"4 Or conferring to the Article 9 which provides
that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."5 Or by Article 2 of the
statement of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 which states that "Everyone's
Right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save
in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this
penalty is provided by law."6 Or only by The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under
Article 9 (1) of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 saying "Everyone has
the Right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or
detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law"7, All of these have acknowledged a human
being as a corporal entity and strived to safeguard him from the exploitation by rulers or State
by itself. However, It is only in India under Article 21 of the Constitution that has visualized
the human being in entirety and endeavoured for his complete well-being, prosperity, all-round
development, and freedom from suffering and, tried to protect his life and limb from any
outside aggression by State or its bureaus such as the Government Departments, administration,

3
Magna Carta, 1215.
4
Article 3, the Universal Declaration, 1948.
5
Article 9, the Universal Declaration, 1948.
6
Article 2, the statement of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
7
Article 9 (1), the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Page: 3
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

Legislature and local authorities using statutory powers. Article 21 is based upon and inspired
by the Indian values and has most commonly expressed in one of our mantras:

“Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, Sarve santu niraamayaah,

Sarve bhadraani pashyantu Maakaschit duhkha bhaag bhavet”,

Which means May all be happy, be free from disabilities! May all look to the welfare of others,
and none flag from sorrow.

As said by Justice Field in the glorified case "Munn v. Illinois" the word "life" is more than
mere animal existence and it embraces within itself not only the physical presence but also the
quality of life. The expression "personal liberty" not only means freedom from arrest,
detention and false or wrongful confinement but also covers those rights and privileges that are
essential to achieve happiness with liberty8.

According to Bhagwati, J., "Article 21 comprises a constitutional value of paramount

significance in a democratic society." And Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as "the
procedural Magna Carta, protective of life and liberty."

Article 21 epistolizes to the Magna Carta (1215), the Fifth Amendment to the American
Constitution, Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946 and Article 40(4) of the
Constitution of Eire, 1937. It applies to natural persons that mean it is accessible to every
person, citizen or alien. Thus, even an immigrant can claim this Right.

THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21

Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law." Therefore, Article 21 provides two primary
rights: (1) Right to Life. (2) Right to Personal Liberty. Even though it is one of the greatest
significant fundamental rights, as per other rights, this Right is not absolute and, apart from
safeguarding the fundamental human rights, Article 21 provides for the reasonable restrictions
on the same by way of procedure established by law, as to avoid the situations of ambiguity in
the society.

8
Munn v. Illinois (1877).

Page: 4
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

• RIGHT TO LIFE

Right to life is vital to our very survival without which we cannot exist as a human being and
encompasses all those perspectives of life, which go to conceive a man's life essential,
comprehensive, and worth living. It is the only Article in the Constitution that has undergone
the broadest permissible interpretations. It also includes the Right to shelter, growth, and
nourishment. It is so because, it is the bare necessity, least and primary requirements that are
indispensable and unavoidable for a person for the Right to life and other rights.

In Munn Vs. Illinois, Field J. observed that the term "life" as here used something more is meant
than mere animal existence.9

• RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

Liberty of a person is one of the most traditional notions to be preserved by national courts.
The English Magna Carta, 1215, gave that "no free man shall be taken or imprisoned, but... By
the law of the land."10

The SC of India has rebuffed the view that liberty expresses freedom from physical
circumscribe solely. It remarked that liberation comprises those right and opportunities that
have long perceived as being indispensable to the systematic pursuance of peace by free man.

Dicey says Personal liberty means an individual right not to be constrained to custody, arrest
or other bodily oppression in any manner without the acceptance of legal justification.

The case of A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 (Preventive Detention Act,
1950) has developed Article 21 a long way through a range of various authoritative declarations
by the Apex Court. In this case, the Court narrowed down the meaning and scope of "personal
liberty" and held that the term "personal liberty" meant only freedom of the physical body and
that Articles 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 have to treated separately.11

• THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

The Court construed the term procedure established by law, as "There need be law, and the
procedure should be followed". It indicates that article 21 is a guarantee against administrative

9
Ibid.
10
Supra note 3.
11
A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

Page: 5
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

action only and not against parliamentary bodies.

Article 21 comprises of the term “procedure established by law” and not "Due Process of
Law" because "Due process of law" is primarily a substantive due process. And Procedural due
process includes law and procedure both and means that both should be reasonable, i.e. should
be based upon the principles of natural justice. Due to ambiguity and indefiniteness of concept,
the phrase "Due process of law" has eliminated in India.

The most critical and productive aspect of Maneka Gandhi case12 is the reinterpretation of the
term "procedure established by law". According to it, the procedure must be reasonable,
rational and non-arbitrary. Justice Krishna Iyer said, "Procedure in article 21 means fair and
not formal procedure and the law is a reasonable law and not any enacted piece."13

• THE EXPANDING AMBIT OF ARTICLE 21

The ambit of Article 21 has extended over the years through judicial precedents. The expansion
of this Article is like a journey started with the case of A.K. Gopalan and is twisting its way,
back from the Maneka Gandhi case till today.

The Apex Court held A.K.Gopalan case (1950)14 that the contents and subject material of
Article 21 and 19 (1) (d) are not alike, and they progress on total principles. In this case, the
word deprivation was interpreted in a narrow sense, and it was held that the denial does not
restrict upon the Right to move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d). The SC held that
the expression 'procedure established by law' in the Constitution had embodied the British
concept rather than the American 'due process'.

But the Maneka Gandhi case reversed the Gopalan decision. Here, S.C. stated that Articles 19
and 21 are not watertight chambers. The notion of personal liberty under Article 21 has a broad
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 life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary.15

12
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
13
Ibid.
14
Supra note 11.
15
Supra note 12.

Page: 6
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

With the advent of time, Article 21 has been interpreted in such a liberal sense that now, it
includes certain more rights, which helps a person to live such as the Right to live with dignity,
right to sleep, right to die, and many more.

Some of those rights are:

• RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY

It is not sufficient to guarantee that a person has a Right to Live. An indispensable component
of life is one's honour and respect. Therefore, each person has ensured the right to live with
dignity – which implies having access to the requirements of human life as well as possessing
sovereignty over one's individual decisions.

In Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014), the assurance of
health and strength of workers and their access to just and benign circumstances of work were
taken as ideal conditions to live with human dignity.16

Moreover, as can be witnessed, human dignity is not a straightjacket approach. Instead, it

includes those rights and freedoms which permit a person to live life without infringement upon
his or her self-respect, dignity and safety. As per Article 21, every person, whether a male,
female or member of the LGBTQ category, has a right to live with dignity. Therefore, The
Court, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 implementing the belief of
personal satisfaction, declared that Section 377 of the IPC was contradictory to Articles 14, 15,
19, and 21 of the Constitution of India to the degree that it forbids consensual physical acts of
adults in private. Hence, sexual acts among LGBT adults administered with the free assent of
the parties included were certified legal.17

• RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

To sustain, a person needs access to monetary and material resources to satisfy his diverse
needs. The law acknowledges that every human, whether man or woman, has an equitable right
to livelihood so that he or she may obtain the necessary resources like food, shelter, water,
things and more. No person justifies living in hunger and misery because of being stripped of
the chance to gain for himself.

16
Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India, WP (civil) 79/2005 (Supreme Court of India).
17
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.

Page: 7
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

A crucial case in this matter is the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation (1986). In this case, the Court decided that though the slum and pavement
residents were deprived of their Right to Livelihood, the Government was acquitted in
expelling them as they were getting used of the public resources for personal goals. The Court
also held that they should not be regarded as trespassers as they conquered the nasty places out
of absolute helplessness. It was decreed that any ejections would take place only after the
impending monsoon season and the people who were censused before 1976 would be
empowered to resettlement.18 While the case deserted to bring flourishing resettlement to the
inhabitants, it did perform its role in securing the Right to Livelihood as a portion of the
Fundamental Right to Life.

• RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Right to Privacy appears like a necessary and reasonable right to own, but for a hard time, it
was not accepted as a well-defined right by the Government because of not being considered
explicitly by the drafters in the Constitution of India. Across time, there has been a developing
perception of a person's sovereignty over his or her body, intelligence and knowledge which
yielded due importance by the courts in several judgements. The Right to Privacy was first
sawed in the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), where a person convicted of
murder transcribed his autobiography, in which he also revealed his relationship with the prison
officials, some of whom were his companions in crime. His wife gave it for publishing to the
Tamil publication 'Nakkheeran', but the jail officials intervened in the magazine. The compilers
filed a petition to limit the Government or the prison officials from preventing the publication
of the autobiography. The Court avered that it was the freedom of the criminal Auto Shankar
to do anything he wanted with his individual information. Thus, the magazine could not be
hindered from publishing something it announced the "Autobiography" of the criminal.19

This case established the platform for future judgements concerning the Right to Privacy and
covered the way for it to be authorized as a part of the Fundamental Rights granted under Part
III of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,2017, where a
retired Karnataka High Court Justice brought a case before a nine-judge Constitutional bench,

18
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51.
19
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632.

Page: 8
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

questioning the Government's scheme of addressing the Aadhaar card (a consistent system of
biometrics-based identification card) for all residents. He alleged that it was a contravention of
the Right to Privacy. The evidence that there were no stringent data assurance laws in India
indicated that people's private information could be mistreated. The bench commonly held that
Right to Privacy was a part of one's Right to Life conferred by Article 21 and covered the Right
to keep private information secret. While it supported the constitutional legality of the Aadhaar
Card, it scratched down some terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.20

• RIGHT TO HEALTH AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

The Right to Life, of course, cannot be confirmed if every human is not given way to proper
health and medical support. It is the most fundamental need to live a complete life.

Yet, sometimes doctors and medical organizations wait to assist the feeble persons due to
anxiety of lengthy formalities and complexities, particularly in medico-legal cases in the case
of Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), it was admitted that Article 21 provides
paramount significance to the protection of human life. Thus, it is the responsibility of all
medical professionals to give urgent health aid to all patients, without being placed under any
statutory impediment. It was also determined that no medicinal professional should be attacked
for any examination, and he or she would not be required to prove in Court unless required and
unconditionally necessary.21

Thus, this case discharged the medical professionals of any judicial restrictions and thereby
made it a responsibility and duty for them to provide urgent assistance to patients to support
the Right to Life.22

• RIGHT TO SLEEP

All of us love sleeping, but many are not conscious that the Right to Sleep is a different part of
one's Fundamental Rights, which guards against the actions of the State reaching to the
wrongful divestment of a person's sleep. Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and
Ors. (2012) was the case which managed to the substantiation of this Right. In this case, a Yoga

20
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
21
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 SCR (3) 997.
22
Ibid.

Page: 9
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

practice camp was to be accommodated in Ramlila Maidan during June 2011, but on 4th June
it transformed into a hunger strike fronting black money and corruption started by Baba
Ramdev. The demonstrations took place all day and at 12:30 at night, when all the protestors
were sleeping, a large fraction of CRPF, Delhi Police force and Rapid Action Force personnel
approached the venue to take the sadhu out. A fight ensued between the group and the sadhu's
followers which desisted in throwing teargas bullets on the people.

The Court upheld that sleep is an indispensable part of a healthful life and a requirement for
the maintenance of individual peace. Thus, it avered that every person is authorized to sleep as
conveniently and freely as he breathes. If any person's sleep is interrupted without any rational
justification, it amounts to cruelty and is a violation of his human rights. Therefore, making the
sleeping persons leave and causing violence at the location was held as illegal, since there was
no unlawful activity taking place there.23

• RIGHT TO DIE

The Right to Life bestows upon the person the right to live a full life and dictates that the State
cannot intervene in this Right besides through procedure established by law. But what if a
person wishes to end his own life? Can he intervene in his Right to Life?

Section 309 of the IPC forbids attempt to suicide, with the condemned person meeting up to
one year of imprisonment, or a fine, or both.24

Section 306, criminalizes abetment to suicide, i.e., the assistance given by a person in the
process of the commitment of suicide by another.25

But in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), Managing Article 21 as well as the
principles of natural justice in remembrance, the two-judge bench ordered that Right to Life
also covered the Right not to live a restricted life. Accordingly, Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code was held void.26

But, the Court then reversed its position in the succeeding case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. the State
of Punjab (1996), where, it was regarded that Section 309 of the IPC was constitutional and

23
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors, (2012)5SCC1.
24
Section 309, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
25
Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
26
P. Rathinam v. Union of India, 1994 SCC (3) 394.

Page: 10
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

that Section 306, criminalizing abetment to suicide, was Constitutional as well. The Court
decided that suicide being an abnormal termination of life, it was against the concept of Right
to Life.27

Euthanasia

The term euthanasia originates from two Greek words – eu indicating 'good'
and thantos predicting 'death'. Thus, it means 'good death'. It is the method of ending the life
of a person experiencing a severe disease but still breathing, therefore experiencing great
suffering and sorrow. It supports him, or her go by a mild, painless death preferably, by an
action or omission upon his or her body. It is, therefore, also known as "mercy killing" or
"supported self-destruction".

There may be two sorts of euthanasia- active and passive.

1. Active Euthanasia means doing something to a sufferer to end his or her life, with their
consent, for, e.g. giving an injection.
2. Passive Euthanasia means eliminating medical services to end the patient's life. In other
words, it indicates not performing something to a patient, which if completed, would have
preserved his or her life.
In the case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, the Court mentioned that euthanasia could
be addressed lawful only by legislation. The logic behind this was to prevent illegal actions by
ill-intentioned people.28

The landmark case in this matter, though, was Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of
India (2018), which created passive euthanasia legal. In this case, A five-judge Constitution
bench decreed that Right to Life also holds a person's Right to Die with dignity, and therefore
allowed passive euthanasia, i.e. the will of sufferers to withdraw medical assistance in case of
sliding into an immutable state of coma.29

Hence, currently, active euthanasia is prohibited in India, just as in most distinct countries. On
the opposite hand, passive euthanasia is permitted in our country, subjected to several strict
guidelines.

27
Smt. Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (2) 648.
28
Ibid.
29
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005.

Page: 11
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

• RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

The rapid extension of technology originating with the Industrial Revolution and increasing
over the centuries has not helped the environment at all. The substantiation of more and more
industries and growth in the demand for goods manufactured by them has increased the garbage
churned out by them. It finishes up in the land, water, and air.

Numerous court judgements have directed to demonstrate the Right to a healthy environment
and the steps to curb the pollution of the Earth.

Right to get pollution-free water and air

Without fresh drinking water, we can't remain half a week, and without air, we can't even stay
for half an hour. It is essential to have access to pollution-free water and air for a healthy brain
and body.

The case of Subhash Kumar v. the State of Bihar, 1991 highlighted this Right as a part of Article
21. In this case, the Court approved that the Fundamental Right to Life encompasses the Right
to have pollution-free water and air, and if anything threatens the quality of water and air then,
a person can file a petition in Court.30

Yet, this particular PIL was rejected because it had been filed in individual interest for the
petitioner's profits and that it lacked any evidence as the State Pollution Control Board had
taken proper measures to control pollution.31

Protection of Ecology and Environmental Pollution

Nature requires to be preserved not only for our eating, drinking and breathing but also to
protect the complete ecosystem which maintains the ecological stability on Earth.

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. the State of U.P. (1985) or the
Dehradun Valley Litigation, the Court only granted a few mines to continue, while all the
others, which were generating harm, were closed down. The Valley was announced as an

30
Subhash Kumar v. the State of Bihar, 1991 SCR (1) 5.
31
Ibid.

Page: 12
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

ecologically delicate area, and steps were taken for its recovery. Most importantly, this case
headed to the enactment of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.32

Furthermore, in the case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India (1987) (the Shriram Food
and Fertilizer Case), the Court avered the industry accountable for its negligence and directed
it to pay Rs 20 lakh as damages to the victims. It also decreed the demonstration of an Expert
Committee to inspect the performance of the industry. It was ordered for workers to be
accurately tutored, and loudspeakers to be fixed in the premises to alert people in situation of
leakage.33

Thus, this showed to be a landmark case in environmental legislation, as it settled the principle
of absolute liability, which includes holding the industry trading in hazardous materials
absolutely liable for all injuries generated by its wrong operations.

Freedom from noise pollution

In this fast-paced, turbulent urban world, the noise has grown a significant obstacle to a
peaceful and wholesome lifestyle. The massive public speakers, noisy fireworks, and even the
constant noises of vehicles on the road have grown a source of considerable annoyance and
also of severe health risks.

In the Re: Noise Pollution case, 2005, the Court discussed the issue of noise pollution and
moved a step towards controlling it. The Court recognized the grave unfavourable effects of
loud noise and gave specific directions to prevent the same-

1. Prohibition of cracking noisy firecrackers at night.

2. Obsession of cap on the noise levels of loudspeakers.
3. Refusal of honking vehicles in household areas at night.
4. Spreading information about the hazardous effects of noise pollution.
5. Commanding the State to seize loudspeakers operating, exceeding permitted noise limits.34

PRISONER'S RIGHTS AND ARTICLE 21

Fundamental Rights constitute the foundation of human existence and are not refused to anyone

32
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1985 SCR (3) 169.
33
M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
34
Re: Noise Pollution case, (2005) 5 SCC 733.

Page: 13
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

except under specific conditions. A person sentenced to a crime too, consequently, is not
stripped of his Fundamental Rights. Restraints are usually put on a criminal's action, the
practice of the profession, and more. But, the Right under Article 21 is one claim that is not
seized from him, except by procedure established by law (for, e.g. a death sentence).

• RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID

Article 39A of the Constitution gives that the State must acquire a proper legal system based
on the fair opportunity by proposing free legal assistance to people, to assure that no one is
denied justice because of his financial weakness. It is per Article 14, which grants equal
protection before the law and Article 22(1) which asserts that every arrested person must get
the opportunity to be served by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Hence, this Right serves to ensure one of the most fundamental components of justice – that it
is made available to all.

• RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

Right to speedy trial indicates that the accused should be placed under trial as soon as
practicable to determine whether he is guilty or not. It safeguards the accused against being put
into jail for a long time, with no foreseeable time shortly to front trial. It is accessible to the
accused at all steps including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and more. This Right is based
on the belief that "justice delayed is justice denied."

The Court presented this Right in detail in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), where the Supreme Court upheld that though the Right to a
speedy trial is not explicitly listed as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, it is
inherent in the broad scope of Article 21.35

Speedy trial is the core of criminal justice and hence, no procedure which does not guarantee a
moderately speedy trial could be "reasonable, fair or just." Thus, the Bihar Government was
directed to start the trials of the detainees as soon as practicable.

• RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

A fair trial is a trial described by the total neutrality and impartiality of judges throughout the

35
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 SCR (3) 532.

Page: 14
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

hearings. Every person experiencing a trial should be provided with a fair chance, to secure the
application of fundamental components of human rights and proper execution of justice. It sets
part of International Law as well, provided under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

• CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A DEATH SENTENCE

The death sentence is a type of sentence granted to criminals who have perpetrated the grossest
or grave offences.

The constitutional legality of a death sentence has been much contested and debated, with many
contending that it is inhumane, that it infringes the Fundamental and Human Rights, or that the
'eye for an eye' philosophy behind it performs no purpose in law and justice.

In the benchmark case of Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab (1980), the Court confirmed the
constitutional validity of the death penalty declaring that it did not infringe Articles 14, 19 and
21, but reemphasized that it could solely be awarded in the "rarest of rare" cases, and not as a
replacement for life imprisonment.36

Thus, while capital punishment is a very severe punishment, it is essential in the grossest and
most severe cases like the murder of numerous persons, a brutal rape, and more, to accurately
administer justice and act as a hindrance in society. The Supreme Court has confirmed its
constitutional validity. Yet, a high burden must be put on the judge to appropriately consider
and be satisfied with the granting of a death sentence.

• PUBLIC HANGING

Public hanging indicates the killing of a convict by hanging in a public place where the
members of the general community are authorized to attend willingly. While today they are
marked with a general objection, public executions used to be more common earlier as they
served as a substantial obstacle for others, explicating the power of the State to apportion with
destructive elements of the community.

In India, convicts hold a Right against Public Hanging as a component of their Fundamental
Right to Life, because of the wild nature of such execution. It was established in the case

36
Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.

Page: 15
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

of Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi and Ors. (1985), where the bench convicted
public hanging as being illegal and gravely violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore
eliminating that command of the High Court.37

Therefore, while a death sentence continues a method of punishment in the most severe crimes,
it need not be exercised to the scope of a public hanging to humiliate the convict more and
make turmoil in the community.

TRIAL OF RAPE CASES

Rape is one of the most horrific wrongs of all, and one of the few offences for which no cause
was given can be deemed justified by any person. Unfortunately, it is also a crime that scares
to never expire in our country, with India remaining the most unsafe country for women as per
a report of Thomson Reuters Foundation in 2018. Government data states that over 90 rape
cases are listed in the country every day – but the original number is presumably much higher.

Rape has survived a grossly under-reported offence, which can be connected to the psychical
stress and terror of ostracization by society in the remembrances of victims and their relatives,
and also to the long-drawn, uncomfortable and often distressing trial procedure. Over time,
attempts have been performed by the courts to facilitate dispersion of more comfortable, faster
and more comprehensive justice to victims of rape.

It was in the cold rape case of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of
India (1995) that the Court devised down parameters to aid the victims of rape in the trial
process. The Court identified the errors in the system where accusations are not appropriately
managed, and victims are often embarrassed by the police and suffer severe psychological
stress. The parameters laid down include-

1. Provision of legal description to victims from the minute they arrive at the police station for
the accusation, and the duty of the police to familiarise them of this Right.
2. Maintenance of anonymity of the victims as far as required.
3. Demonstration of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to grant compensation to victims
even before conviction of offender takes place.38
PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WORKING WOMEN

37
Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi and Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1601 Of 1985.
38
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (1) 14.

Page: 16
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

In this patriarchal society, women are frequently treated as sexual things meant for the
enjoyment of men, and it leads to undesired sexual advances towards them.

Women's security outside their houses has been one of the causes why even in the urban areas
in contemporary times, there is a scarcity of women in the workspace. For a woman, the Right
to Life involves the Right not to suffer any sexual harassment while they go out to get a living
and accomplish their professional goals – thereby empowering them to practice their freedom
of practising any profession, occupation or trade.

Accordingly, various provisions have been directed by the Court and executed by the
Government to counter sexual harassment of women, which can be essentially credited in the
landmark case of Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, where the Court explained
sexual harassment and laid down some rules for the deterrence of sexual harassment in the
workplace, which involve (but are not confined to) the following-

1. Responsibility of employers and responsible people to counter sexual harassment.

2. Duty of employers to accommodate a safe and suitable working environment for women.
3. Demonstration of a complaint committee (headed by a woman) and a grievance mechanism
to redress grievances.
4. Rules for disciplinary actions to be exercised against misconduct.
5. Spread of consciousness regarding the rights of working women.39
• EVE-TEASING

Undesired remarks and approaches towards women don't just stand at private professional or
domestic settings. Regrettably, they also happen in public places like railroads, metros, and
even roads, and this is known as Eve-teasing. The case of Dy. Inspector-General of Police and
Anr. v. S. Samuthiram (2012), led to the establishment of guidelines to deter and penalize eve-
teasing. The guidelines laid down by the Court involve (but are not confined to) the following-

1. All governments to guarantee the appearance of plain-clothed female police officers in

public areas.
2. Investment of CCTV cameras in imperative locations.

39
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

Page: 17
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

3. Orders to persons in-charge of public organizations and public service transportations to

promptly report any acts of eve-teasing to the police, omission of which would direct to
adverse consequences.
4. Endowment of Women Helpline in all states and union territories.40
• RIGHT TO EDUCATION: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21A

Life outwardly education persists to be a mere animal survival, as it is education that expands
the extents of a person's mind, making him competent of not only gaining a livelihood but also
of attaining happiness and honour and making a record for himself in the world.

The Right to Education in India was enumerated under Article 21A of the Constitution of India
by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth) Amendment Act, 2002. This Article grants free and
mandatory education to all children of the age group ranging between six to fourteen years (6–
14) as a part of their Fundamental Right.

In the particular case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992), the High
Court held that it was illegal to impose capitation fee from students under any conditions.
Moreover, it confirmed that education was what guaranteed life of dignity and happiness to a
person and not modifying the Right to education specified under Article 41 of Part IV of the
Constitution into a Fundamental Right would beat its purpose and also keep all current
Fundamental Rights beyond the reach of the uneducated. Thus, it claimed that the Right to
Education is a part of the Fundamental Rights.41

Moreover, in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of A.P. and Ors, it was
avered that every citizen of India has a Fundamental Right to Education. No human can be
stripped of his education by the State. This Right encompasses free education until the person
achieves the age of 14 years and following, it will depend on his or her financial capability as
well as one of the State.42

• RIGHT TO INTERNET

Access to the Internet has grown to be an essential requirement for the students as the
information has graced more available to them. In the case of Faheema Shirin R.K. vs State of

40
Dy. Inspector-General of Police and Anr. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598.
41
Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1992 SCR (3) 658.
42
Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of A.P. and Ors, 1993 SCR (1) 594.

Page: 18
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

Kerala and others, the Hon'ble High Court affirmed that Right to access the internet is a
component of Right to privacy as well as Right to education under Article 21 and Article 21A
of the Constitution of India. Internet Access not only improves the possibilities of students to
acquire knowledge but also enhances the quality of education.43

Moreover, In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and Ors., the Apex Court recognized that
freedom under Article 19 (1)(g) over the means of internet experiences Constitutional
safeguard under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). However, the restriction of such
fundamental rights should be according to Article 19(2) and (6), including the proportionality
test. Internet is an inescapable tool for business and commerce and represents an essential role
in conducting e-commerce business as it provides a virtual stage to a businessman which is
more affordable.44

• EMERGENCY AND ARTICLE 21

Emergency refers to a condition where the officials in the State need urgent action to administer
with severe conditions including internal resistance, external hostility or commercial
bankruptcy. In India, an Emergency can be any of the three types-

1. National Emergency

2. Failure of Constitutional Machinery in a state (also known as President's rule)

3. Financial Emergency

In a condition of Emergency, the sovereignty of the people may be provisionally rejected, with
the rationalizing that the State requires to prevent destruction and efficiently cope with the
problematic situation. Article 359 of the Constitution of India authorizes the President to
dissolve the Fundamental Rights of the people invested in Part III for a definite period.
However, this is not without exclusions.

Article 21, imparting the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, is one of the barely two rights that
can not be refused by the officials even in circumstance of an Emergency. It says that no person
is denied of his life or personal liberty except by a procedure established by law, and the

43
Faheema Shirin RK vs. State of Kerala and others, AIR2020Ker35.
44
Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India and Ors., (2020)1MLJ574.

Page: 19
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

procedure mentioned above must not be arbitrary or unreasonable (as recognized in the Maneka
Gandhi case).

The fact that Article 21 cannot be waived ensures that people are not exploited during periods
of stress and risk and that they still hold their fundamental and cherished human rights.

The 44th Amendment instituted this provision of non-suspension of Article 21 to the

Constitution in 1978, which improved Article 359 not to eliminate Articles 20 and 21 from its
scope.

THE RELEVANCE OF ARTICLE 21 WITH OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

As we have discussed above, that Article 21 is the only Fundamental right which has
interpreted so widely. With the developing time, as the Article is interpreting in the broader
scope, courts are also establishing the interrelations between Article 21 and other fundamental
rights. One such relation is between articles 14, 19 and 21. They're a triangle because they
require to be read together; the triangle is golden because they're vital to the protection of
freedoms and prevention of government capriciousness and arbitrariness.

The article 14 of the Constitution speaks about equality before the law; it's a negative concept
which asserts that people in comparable situations should be treated alike, in both opportunities
& responsibilities imposed whereas, the idea of 'equal protection of the laws' needs the State to
give specialized treatment to persons in diverse situations to stabilize equality among all. It is
positive.

Therefore, the necessary analogy to this would be that "equals would be treated equally, whilst
unequal would have to be treated unequally."

Article 19 stretches from freedom of peaceful association to freedom of speech and expression,
to practice of trade and profession to the residence, occupation, and more.

Article 21 sermons about the right to life and personal liberty, 'Life' in Article 21 does not mean
mere animal existence. It has a much broader meaning which covers the right to live with
human dignity, right to health, right to livelihood, and more. It is only reasonable and fair for
the State to impose some rights and regulations if it comes to human life. It refers to everyone
who challenges this Article and its scope. These rights are considered as the basic laws for the
smooth working of life for citizens of our country. The golden triangle grants full protection to

Page: 20
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

people from any infringement upon their rights from society and others as well. This view has
been interpreted in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court
upheld that Articles 19(1) and 21 are not commonly particular as the Right to Life and Personal
Liberty comprises a broad category of rights, some of which have been given supplementary
protection under Article 19(1). Article 19 and 21 go hand-in-hand, and the procedure
established by law limiting these rights should withstand the examination of other provisions
of the Constitution as well – including Article 14. Thus, a law infringing upon one's liberty
must not only pass the test of Article 21 but the test prescribed under Article 14 and Article 19
of the Constitution as well. These three rights are, hence, interconnected and administer
safeguards against unreasonable actions of the Government. They are meant to be viewed
together and construed per each other. All three of them award fundamental human rights and
liberties to the citizens, and their extensive collective influence has provided them with the
name "Golden Triangle" in jurisprudence.

Another such relation has been made between Article 20, 21 and 22.45

Article 20 talks about the protection of the citizens against conviction for offences. Part II of
the Article 21 talks about the procedure established by law for limiting the rights granted by
the Article, which must be reasonable, fair and unarbitrary. And Article 22 talks about the rights
of an arrested person. Therefore, any law limiting the rights granted under article 21 needs to
pass the test given not only under Article 21 but as per Article 20 and 22 as well and vice versa.
It has been established in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs Union Territory of Delhi
(1981), where the Court held that Article 21 demands that no one shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty but by the procedure established by law and this procedure must be unbiased,
fair and impartial and not arbitrary, capricious or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has
consequently now to pass the test not only for Article 22 but also of Article 21 as well. If the
constitutional legality of any such law is questioned, the Court would have to determine
whether the procedure placed down by such law for stripping a person of his liberty is
reasonable, fair and equitable.46

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty holds a broad ambit which is only developing over time.

45
Supra note 12.
46
Francis Coralie Mullin vs Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 SCR (2) 516.

Page: 21
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume II Issue IV | ISSN: 2583-0538

There has been growing recognition about the various perspectives of a person's life, which he
is authorized to control and would, thus, promote improvement in the quality of life. This Right
has defined as the "heart and soul" of our Constitution by the Apex Court and unquestionably
proves to be so – serving the fundamental requirements of human life. But these intended rights
developing under the extent and ambit of Article 21 is often taken up to Court for adjudication
as it is expressly not granted under the Constitution. Hence, in reality, there is no guarantee
spelt out in our Constitution for citizens to secure their claim as a subject of the right to lead a
life with Opportunity and Honour. Article 21 needs to be expanded further to guarantee all
wisdom reemphasized from time to time in the basic structure of our Constitution settled in
its's Preamble.

Page: 22