Article 21: Meaning & Scope of

Protection of Life & Personal

Liberty
In India, the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty is a Fundamental Right
granted to citizens under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950. These
Fundamental Rights represent the foundational values cherished by the people
and are granted against actions of the state, meaning that no act of any state
authority can violate any such right of a citizen except according to the
procedure established by law.

Article 21 of this part states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”,
and this is known as the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Hence, this Article prohibits the encroachment upon a person’s right to life and
personal liberty against the state. The state here refers to all entities having
statutory authority, like the Government and Parliament at the Central and
State level, local authorities, etc. Thus, violation of the right by private
entities is not within its purview.

The terms ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ encompass a wide variety of rights of the
people, which are a result of the evolution in the interpretation of Article 21 by
the courts over the years. Here, we shall examine the various aspects of this
Fundamental Right; but before that, let’s have a look at the jurisprudential
evolution of this concept and the significance of one of the most famous
judgements related to it – Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

Personal Liberty: Meaning and Scope

The meaning of Personal Liberty of a citizen in India has evolved and its scope
has widened. Prior to the Maneka Gandhi case, it had a relatively narrower
scope, comprising only some liberties of a person.

Personal Liberty was first interpreted in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras in 1950, which is explained below.

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

Prevention Detention

Facts:

In this case, the Petitioner, a communist leader, was detained under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He claimed that such detention was illegal as it
infringed upon his freedom of movement granted in Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India and thus also violated his Personal Liberty as granted by
Article 21 since freedom of movement should be considered a part of a person’s
personal liberty.

Judgement:

The court stated that personal liberty meant liberty of the physical body and
thus did not include the rights given under Article 19(1). Hence, Personal liberty
was considered to include some rights like the right to sleep and eat, etc. while
the right to move freely was relatively minor and was not included in one’s
“personal” liberty.

The subsequent case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964) saw
an expansion in the meaning of Personal liberty, explained as follows.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964):
Personal Liberty Curtailed

Facts:

The petitioner, in this case, was accused of dacoity but was released due to a
lack of evidence against him. The Uttar Pradesh Police then began surveillance
over him which included domiciliary visits at night, periodical enquiries,
verification of movements and the like. The petitioner filed a writ petition
challenging the constitutional validity of this State action.

Judgement:

It was held that the right to personal liberty constitutes not only the right to be
free from restrictions placed on one’s movements but also to be free from
encroachments on one’s private life. Thus, personal liberty was considered to
include all the residual freedoms of a person not included in Article
19(1).

However, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) proved to be a landmark

case in the evolution of Personal Liberty, greatly widening the scope of this right
as granted by Article 21.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Right to

Travel

Facts:

The petitioner, in this case, was ordered by the Regional Passport Office, Delhi
to surrender her newly-made passport within 7 days due to the Central
Government’s decision to impound it “in public interest”, in accordance with
the Passport Act of 1967. Upon requesting a statement of the reasons for such
impounding, the Government replied that they could not furnish a copy of the
same “in the interest of the general public.” A writ petition was filed by the
petitioner challenging the Government’s decision of impounding and also of not
providing the reasons, as well as not allowing the petitioner to defend herself.

Judgement:

The Honourable Supreme Court held that the right to travel and go outside
the country must be included in the Right to Personal Liberty. It stated that
“personal liberty” given in Article 21 had the widest amplitude and covered a
variety of rights related to the personal liberty of a person. The scope of
personal liberty was, hence, greatly increased and it was held to include all the
rights granted under Article 21, as well as all other rights related to the
personal liberty of a person. Such a right could only be restricted by a
procedure established by law, which had to be “fair, just and reasonable, not
fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.”

Hence, the Court adjudged in the case that:

1. The Government action was not justified as there was no pressing

reason for the impounding of the petitioner’s passport and it was a
violation of her Fundamental Rights.
2. The principles of Natural Justice were violated as the petitioner was not
given the opportunity to be heard.

Since this landmark case, the courts have sought to give a wider meaning to
“personal liberty”. The principles of natural justice have also been emphasized
upon, as any procedure which restricts the liberty of a person must be fair, just
and reasonable.

Scope of Right to Life and Personal Liberty

We have had enough discussion on the expansion in the scope of Article 21.
What exactly constitutes this Right today? We shall hereafter examine the
various aspects of Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Right to live with human dignity

It is not enough to ensure that a person has a Right to Live. An essential
element of life is one’s dignity and respect; therefore, each person has been
guaranteed the right to live with dignity – which means having access to the
necessities of human life as well as having autonomy over one’s personal
decisions.

In Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014),

the protection of health and strength of workers and their access to just and
humane conditions of work were taken as essential conditions to live with
human dignity.

Occupational Health and Safety Association v.

Union of India (2014)

Facts:

In this case, a non-profit organisation filed a petition seeking guidelines for

occupational safety and health conditions in various industries, especially
thermal power plants. This was in view of the various skin diseases, lung
abnormalities, etc. suffered by their workers due to unhealthy working
conditions. It also called for compensation to victims of occupational health
disorders.

Judgement:
The court recognised the State’s duty to protect workers from dangerous or
unhygienic working conditions and remanded the matter to various High Courts
to check the issue of thermal power plants in their respective states.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018),
said that the Right to dignity means the right to “full personhood”, and
“includes the right to carry such functions and activities as would constitute the
meaningful expression of the human self.” In this case, a very important aspect
of human dignity was talked about – the control over one’s own intimate
relations.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)-

Homosexuality

Facts:

In this case, the petitioner NGO filed a Writ Petition challenging Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as it criminalised sexual acts between LGBT
persons, claiming that it was against the Fundamental Rights.

Judgement:

The court, applying the principle of human dignity, said that Section 377 was
violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution to the extent that it
criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18
years who are competent to consent) in private. Hence, sexual acts between
LGBT adults conducted with the free consent of the parties involved were
declared legal.

As can be observed, human dignity is not a straightjacket idea. Rather, it

involves all those rights and freedoms which enable a person to live life without
encroachment upon his or her self-respect, pride and safety.
Right to livelihood
To survive, a person requires access to financial and material resources to fulfill
his various needs. The law recognises that every person, whether man or
woman, has an equal right to livelihood so that he or she may acquire the
necessary resources like food, water, shelter, clothes and more. No person
deserves to live in poverty and squalor because of being deprived of the chance
to earn for himself.

An important case in this matter has been described below.

Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal

Corporation (1986)- Right to Livelihood

Facts:

The petitioners, in this case, were slum and pavement dwellers in the city of
Bombay. They filed a writ petition against an earlier decision of the State of
Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation to forcibly evict dwellers
and deport them, which led to the demolition of certain dwellings. They
challenged these actions on the grounds that evicting a person from his
pavement dwelling or slum meant depriving him of his right to livelihood, which
should be considered a part of his constitutional right to life.

Judgement:

The court concluded that though the slum and pavement dwellers were deprived
of their Right to Livelihood, the government was justified in evicting them as
they were making use of the public property for private purposes. However,
they should not be considered as trespassers as they occupied the filthy places
out of sheer helplessness. It was ordered that any evictions would take place
only after the approaching monsoon season and the persons who were
censused before 1976 would be entitled to resettlement.

While the case failed to bring successful resettlement to the dwellers and, in
fact, is sometimes cited as justification for eviction of people by the State, it did
play its part in establishing the Right to Livelihood as part of the Fundamental
Right to Life.

Right to privacy
Right to Privacy sounds like a very basic and obvious right to possess, but for a
long time, it was not recognised as a distinct right by the Government because
of not being mentioned explicitly by the drafters in the Constitution of India.
Over time, there has been a growing recognition of a person’s autonomy over
his or her personal body, mind and information which has been given due
emphasis by the courts in various judgements.

The Right to Privacy first saw mention in the following case.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)(Auto

Sankar case-Right to Privacy)

Facts:

In this case, a person convicted of murder wrote his autobiography, in which he

also disclosed his relationship with the prison officials, some of whom were his
partners in crime. His wife sent it for publishing to the Tamil magazine
‘Nakkheeran’, but the prison officials interfered in the publication. The editors of
the magazine filed a petition to restrain the government or the prison
authorities from stopping the publication of the autobiography.
Judgement:

The court held that it was the right of the criminal Auto Shankar to do whatever
he wanted with his private information. Thus, the magazine could not be
stopped from publishing what it called the “autobiography” of the criminal.

This case set the stage for future judgements regarding the Right to Privacy and
paved the path for it to be established as a part of the Fundamental Rights
granted under Part III of the Constitution.

Is Right to Privacy an absolute right?

Although Right to Privacy is one of the most essential rights of a person,

especially in a modern democracy, it is not an absolute and untouchable right.
There are certain situations where reasonable restrictions can be placed on this
right of a person for the greater good.

One such situation can be seen in the infamous case of Mr X v. Hospital Z.

Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998)

Facts:

The appellant, in this case, was found to be HIV(+) when his blood sample was
tested. This fact was disclosed by the Hospital to others without the appellant’s
express consent. Due to such disclosure, the appellant’s proposed marriage to
Ms. Y was called off and he was shunned by society.

The aggrieved person approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission claiming that there was a breach of confidentiality on the part of
the Hospital, but his complaint was dismissed. The appellant then approached
the Supreme Court contending that the Duty of Care of the medical
professionals as well as his Right to Privacy were violated.
Judgement:

The court held that the appellant’s Right to Privacy was superseded by Ms. Y’s
right to know such a material fact about the person she was about to marry, as
it was bound to affect her life as well. It was further held that a medical
professional’s duty to maintain confidentiality could be breached in cases where
public interest was at stake.

Telephone-Tapping: An invasion of Right to Privacy

In today’s digital world, Right to Privacy has acquired a new meaning. In a

world where your finger controls everything you put out for everyone to see,
can you imagine your personal information being secretly spied on by someone?

In the 90s, telephone-tapping of private conversations by the State became a

much-talked-about issue in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
of India (1997). Let us take a look at the facts of the case.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

(1997)

Facts:

In this case the petitioner, a voluntary organisation, challenged the

constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which
empowered the Central or State government or its authorised officer to
intercept and record messages in case of public emergency or in public interest.
This came in the wake of the report on telephone-tapping of politicians which
showed that many interceptions were not backed by proper authorizations and
in many cases, no proper records or logs of the same were maintained.

Judgement:
The court held that interception can be made only by specific top government
officials, only when it is necessary, and it should not exceed a total of six
months. The copies of such intercepted messages should be destroyed as soon
as they are no longer useful. Recognizing a person’s Right to Privacy, it ordered
the formation of a Review Committee to check that such interception was not in
contravention of Section 5(2) and if it was, the messages shall be destroyed
immediately.

Right to Privacy and Aadhaar Card

One of the most important judgements related to Right to Privacy came in the
case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2015). This case
established Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right granted to the citizens by
the Constitution.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

(2015)

Facts:

The case was brought by a retired Karnataka High Court Justice before a nine-
judge Constitutional bench, challenging the government’s scheme of making the
Aadhaar card (a uniform system of biometrics-based identity card) for all
citizens. He claimed that it was a violation of the Right to Privacy, and the fact
that there were no strict data protection laws in India meant that people’s
personal information could be misused. The Attorney General argued that the
Constitution did not guarantee a separate Right to Privacy.

Judgement:

The bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy was a part of one’s Right to
Life granted by Article 21 and included the right to keep personal information
private. While it upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Card, it struck
down certain provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and
Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Right to Health and Medical Assistance

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)

Facts:

In this case, a scooterist faced an accident upon crashing with a car but upon
being brought to a hospital, he was refused treatment and directed to another
hospital 20 km away due to the non-occurrence of legal and police formalities. A
writ petition was filed in public interest to make it an obligation for doctors to
provide medical assistance immediately and not have to wait for completion of
formalities.

Judgement:

It was recognised that Article 21 renders paramount importance to the

preservation of human life. Thus, it is the obligation of all medical professionals
to give immediate health assistance to all patients, without being put under any
legal impediment. It was decided that no medical professional shall be harassed
for any investigation and he or she would not be asked to testify in court unless
necessary and absolutely relevant.

Thus, this case freed the medical professionals of any legal restrictions and
thereby made it an obligation and duty for them to provide immediate
assistance to patients to uphold the Right to Life.

Right to sleep
All of us love sleeping, right? But many are not aware that the Right to Sleep is
a distinct part of one’s Fundamental Rights, which protects against any actions
of the State leading to the unlawful deprivation of a person’s sleep.

Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012) was the case
which led to the establishment of this Right.

Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and

Ors. (2012)

Facts:

In this case, a Yoga training camp was to be held in Ramlila Maidan during
June, 2011 but on 4th June it turned into a hunger strike against black money
and corruption led by Baba Ramdev. The protests took place all day and at
12:30 at night, when all the protestors were sleeping, a large number of CRPF,
Delhi Police force and Rapid Action Force personnel reached the venue to bring
the sadhu out. A scuffle ensued between the personnel and the sadhu’s
supporters which ended in throwing teargas shells on the people.

Judgement

The court acknowledged that sleep is an essential part of a healthy life and a
necessity for the maintenance of individual peace. Thus, it held that every
person is entitled to sleep as comfortably and freely as he breathes. If any
person’s sleep is disturbed without any reasonable justification, it amounts to
torture and is a violation of his human rights. Therefore, making the sleeping
persons flee and causing mayhem at the location was held as unlawful, since
there was no illegal activity taking place there.

Arrest and detention of a judgement-debtor

The first question that comes to mind is, who is a judgement-debtor?

A judgement-debtor refers to a person against whom a judgement has been

made ordering him to pay a sum of money i.e. damages, which remains
unsatisfied. Thus, he is a debtor of those damages with respect to the
judgement passed.

Now, if the judgement-debtor continues to fail to pay the money, what is the
recourse?

Jolly George Varghese and Anr. v. Bank of Cochin

(1980)

Facts:

In this case, a court warrant was made for the arrest and detention of two
judgement-debtors as they had not paid the money due to the Bank. Their
property was also encroached upon for the purpose of selling it and obtaining
the money. All this was done without ascertaining that the judgement-debtors
had the means to pay but had intentionally evaded it, i.e. had committed an act
of bad-faith. Hence, an appeal was filed by the two.

Judgement:

The court declared that it was necessary to ascertain whether an act of bad
faith had been committed, and only then the judgement-debtors should be
arrested and detained.

Thus, the court, keeping in mind the life and personal liberty of the judgement-
debtor, narrowed down the circumstances in which he can be arrested.
Therefore, if a judgement-debtor fails to pay the money, he can be arrested –
provided that he deliberately avoided paying it even while possessing the means
to do so.

Bonded labour system

Having to work in a bonded labour system is one of the most obvious violations
of one’s Right to Life to Personal Liberty. Treated as slaves, the bonded
labourers face working conditions full of destitution and misery and are often
greatly exploited.

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act was passed in 1976 as a step
towards ending this system, but it isn’t always abided by completely. It is in
times like these that the court has to step in and ensure that the labourers can
enjoy their Fundamental Rights.

To truly achieve personal liberty, the labourer must not only be freed but also
rehabilitated in order to establish an independent life. This was reiterated in the
following case.

Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (1984)

Facts:

In this case, a writ petition was filed in the matter of 135 bonded labourers
working in stone quarries in Faridabad, who had been released as per an earlier
court order and returned to their home villages in Madhya Pradesh with the
promise of rehabilitation. However, even six months down the line, they had not
been rehabilitated and, in fact, were living on the verge of starvation. Because
of this, many wanted to go back to bonded labour rather than starve.

Judgement:
The court emphasized upon the need for proper rehabilitation of the labourers
to uphold their Right to Life and Personal Liberty granted by Article 21, and
ordered the State government to undertake appropriate measures for the same.

Right to die

P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)- Right to Die

Facts:

In this case, two petitions were filed challenging Section 309 of the IPC on the
grounds that it stood in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgement:

Keeping Article 21 as well as the principles of natural justice in mind, the two-
judge bench ruled that Right to Life also included the right to not live a forced
life. Therefore, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was declared void.

However, the court then changed its position in the subsequent case of Smt.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996).

Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

Facts:

In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under
Section 306 of the IPC due to abetment to the suicide of Kulwant Kaur.
Subsequently, the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 was
challenged.
Judgement:

Here, the judgement given in the previously-mentioned case was overruled and
it was held that Section 309 of the IPC was not unconstitutional and that
Section 306, criminalising abetment to suicide, was Constitutional. The court
concluded that suicide being an unnatural termination of life, it was against the
concept of Right to Life.

Euthanasia

The term euthanasia comes from two Greek words – eu meaning ‘good’
and thantos meaning ‘death’. Thus, it essentially means ‘good death’. It is the
practice of ending the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease but
still breathing, thus undergoing great agony and distress. It helps him or her go
through a gentle and painless death instead, by either an act or omission upon
his or her body. It is, thus, also known as “mercy killing” or “assisted suicide”.

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

1. Active Euthanasia involves doing something to a patient to end

his or her life, with their consent. For eg. giving an injection.
2. Passive Euthanasia involves withdrawing medical services with
the intention to end the patient’s life. In other words, it means not
doing something to a patient, which if done would have saved his or
her life. For eg. stop feeding the patient.

In Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the court observed that euthanasia could
be made lawful only by legislation. The reasoning behind this was to prevent
unscrupulous actions by ill-intentioned people.

The landmark case in this matter, however, was Common Cause (A

Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), which made passive
euthanasia lawful.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of
India (2018)

Facts:

In this case, an NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court to
legalize living will and passive euthanasia. It contended that a person’s right to
life included the right to have a dignified death as well, but modern technology
enabled the unnecessary prolonging of an incurable patient’s life, only causing
pain and suffering to him and his family. Thus, living will by the patient could
authorize the family and the hospital to end his agony.

Judgement:

A five-judge Constitution bench ruled that Right to Life also includes a person’s
Right to Die with dignity, and thus allowed passive euthanasia i.e. the will of
patients to withdraw medical support in case of slipping into an irreversible
state of coma.

Thus, currently, active euthanasia is illegal in India, just as in most other

countries. On the other hand, passive euthanasia is legal in our country,
subject to certain strict guidelines.

Right to a Healthy Environment

Nature has showered us with its gifts since the beginning of time, and these
gifts and resources act as the backbone of human existence. A clean, healthy
and harmonious environment is one of the necessities for the true enjoyment of
life, and thus, it comes as no surprise that our right to live in a pollution-free
environment is included in the expansive Right to Life.
The rapid growth of technology beginning with the Industrial Revolution and
growing over the centuries has, however, not helped the environment at all.
The establishment of more and more industries and a rise in the demand for
products manufactured by them has increased the waste churned out by them.
Where does all this waste go? Unfortunately, it ends up in the land, water, and
air.

Several court judgements have led to the establishment of our right to a

healthy environment and the measures to curb the pollution of the Earth.

Right to get pollution-free water and air

Without clean drinking water, we can’t last half a week, and without air, we
can’t even last half an hour. It is very important to have access to pollution-free
water and air for a sound mind and body.

The case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) emphasized this right as a
part of Article 21.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Facts:

In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against two iron and steel
companies alleging that they were polluting the nearby river Bokaro by dumping
waste into it. The petitioner pointed fingers at the State Pollution Control Board
for failing to prevent this and offered to collect the waste and sludge himself.

Judgement:

The court confirmed that the Fundamental Right to Life includes the right to
enjoy pollution-free water and air, and if anything endangers the quality of
water and air then a citizen can file a petition in court.
However, this particular PIL was dismissed on the grounds that it had been filed
in personal interest for the petitioner’s own gains, and that it lacked any basis
as the State Pollution Control Board had taken appropriate measures to control
pollution.

Protection of Ecology and Environmental Pollution

Nature needs to be protected not just for our own eating, drinking and
breathing, but also to preserve the entire ecosystem which maintains the
ecological balance on Earth.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of

U.P. (1985) or the Dehradun Valley Litigation

Facts:

In this case, an NGO filed a petition against the limestone quarries in the
Dehradun-Mussoorie area, alleging that their work was unauthorised and was
leading to ecological imbalance in the surroundings due to the landslides
caused.

Judgement:

The court only allowed a few mines to remain open while all the others, which
were causing harm, were shut down. The Valley was declared as an ecologically
sensitive area and measures were taken for its restoration. Most importantly,
this case led to the enactment of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India (1987) or the

Shriram Food and Fertilizer Case
Facts:

In this case, the chemical plant Shriram Food and Fertilizer Ltd. in Delhi
suffered a major leakage of the deadly oleum gas in October 1986 and faced
another minor leakage two days later. This incident affected almost two lakh
people in the near radius.

Judgement:

The court held the industry liable for its negligence and ordered it to pay Rs 20
lakh as compensation to the victims. It also ordered the establishment of an
Expert Committee to overlook the operation of the industry. It was directed for
all workers to be properly trained, and for loudspeakers to be installed in the
premises to warn people in case of any leakage.

Thus, this proved to be a landmark case in environmental legislation as it

established the principle of absolute liability, which involves holding the industry
dealing in hazardous substances absolutely liable for all damages caused by its
faulty operations.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of

India and Ors. (2011)

Facts:

In this case, Heavy chemical industry plants were being operated in the Udaipur
district of Rajasthan, producing dangerous chemicals like oleum and the “H”
acid. The petition was filed to prevent and remedy the pollution caused by
them.

Judgement:
The court condemned the pollution caused by the industrial company Hindustan
Agro Chemicals Ltd. and imposed a heavy fine of almost Rs. 38 crores for
remedying the environment damages caused.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India

and Ors. (1996)

Facts:

In this case, large-scale pollution was being caused to River Palar in Tamil Nadu
due to the discharge of untreated waste by the nearby industries into it.
Moreover, over 35,000 hectares of agricultural land had become unfit for
cultivation. A Public Interest Litigation was filed against the same.

Judgement:

The court admitted that on one hand, the industries were contributors to the
development and a source of employment to thousands of people but on the
other, they were the cause of environmental degradation. Therefore, it imposed
a fine of Rs. 10,000 on them and emphasized the setting-up of a Green Bench
in court to deal with environmental cases in a speedy manner.

Mining in Aravalli hills range banned

The court has emphasized the need to protect the Aravalli hills, one of the few
non-concrete areas left in the National Capital Region. Mining activities being
undertaken here were banned in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
and Ors. (2004).

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2004)

Facts:
The petition, in this case, was raised against mining activities 5 km away from
the Delhi-Haryana border and the Aravalli hills area, which was causing
environmental pollution due to the blasting operations involved.

Judgement:

The court held that the Aravalli hill range had to be protected at any cost and so
prohibited any mining activities in the area. It appointed a Monitoring
Committee to oversee the restoration of the environment quality.

Freedom from noise pollution: Another component of Article 21

In this fast-paced, chaotic urban world, the noise has become a major deterrent
to a peaceful and healthy lifestyle. The huge public loudspeakers, noisy
firecrackers, and even the incessant honks of vehicles on the road have become
a source of great annoyance and also of serious health hazards.

In the Re: Noise Pollution case (2005), the court addressed the issue of noise
pollution and moved a step towards controlling it.

Re: Noise Pollution case (2005)

Facts:

In this case, a petition was filed against the use of loudspeakers in religious
congregations, political rallies, social occasions, etc. and the use of firecrackers
which created a lot of noise pollution and disturbance. This was in the wake of a
thirteen-year-old rape victim’s cries for help going unheard due to the blasting
of music on loudspeakers in the locality.

Judgement:
The court acknowledged the grave adverse effects of loud noise and gave
certain directions to prevent the same-

1. Prohibition of bursting noisy firecrackers at night.

2. Fixation of cap on the noise levels of loudspeakers.
3. Prohibition of honking vehicles in residential areas at night.
4. Spreading awareness about the hazardous effects of noise pollution.
5. Directing the state to confiscate loudspeakers operating beyond
permitted noise limits.

The environmental-pollution situation probably stands on a better legal platform

than it did a couple of decades ago, but there is still a very long way to go in its
implementation if we want to save the Earth in the face of alarming climate
change statistics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prisoner’s Rights and Article 21

Fundamental Rights form the basis of human existence and are not denied to
anyone except under special circumstances. A person convicted of a crime too,
therefore, is not deprived of his Fundamental Rights. Restrictions are usually
placed on a criminal’s movement, the practice of the profession, etc. but the
Right to Life and Personal Liberty is one right that is not snatched from him,
except through procedure established by law (for eg. a death sentence).

What constitutes the Right to Life and Personal Liberty of a convict? We shall
examine that below.

Right to free legal aid

Article 39A of the Constitution provides that the State must secure a proper
legal system based on the equal opportunity by offering free legal services to
people (in the form of lawyers to represent them in a trial), in order to ensure
that no one is denied justice due to his economic weakness. This is in
consonance with Article 14 which provides equal protection before the law
and Article 22(1) which states that every arrested person must get the chance
to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Hence, this right helps to ensure one of the most essential elements of justice –
that it is made accessible to all.

Right to a speedy trial

Right to speedy trial means that the accused should be put under trial as soon
as possible to ascertain whether they are guilty or not. It safeguards against the
accused being put into prison for a long time with no foreseeable date in the
near future to face trial. It is available to the accused at all stages including
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal etc. This right is based on the principle which
says that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

This right was discussed by the court in detail in the following case.

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary,

State of Bihar (1979)- Right to Speedy Trial for
Under trials

Facts:

In this case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by a number of
undertrial prisoners who were in jail in Bihar for years, awaiting their trial.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that though the right to a speedy trial is not specifically
listed as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, it is implicit in the
broad scope of Article 21. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and
hence, no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial could be
“reasonable, fair or just.” Thus, the Bihar Government was ordered to start the
trials of the prisoners as soon as possible.

Right to fair trial

A fair trial is a trial characterised by the complete impartiality and fairness of

judges during the hearings. What use is the trial for the accused if the people
making the decisions are inherently biased towards them?

Every person undergoing a trial should be given a fair chance, so as to ensure

the application of fundamental elements of human rights and proper
administration of justice. It forms part of International Law as well, given
under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The qualitative difference between a speedy trial and fair trial

Speedy trial and fair trial are alienable elements of the judicial process and
must go hand-in-hand for the best-possible administration of natural justice.
Every party to a case has the right to get a reasonably quick dispersion of
justice as well as fair treatment and decision by the court.

However, there does exist a qualitative difference between these two elements.
Seen at face-value, we can say that the principle of fair trial holds dearer value
in the judicial process, as its denial would mean a direct snatching of the
person’s right to be properly examined before being declared guilty. Justice
must not only be done but also clearly appear to be done, and hence, the
principle of fair trial must be followed at all times.

Constitutionality of a death sentence

The death sentence is a type of punishment awarded to criminals who have
committed the grossest or serious offences. Oxford Dictionary defines it as the
“legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.” But, does
that mean that the State can take the life of a person as per its will? Doesn’t
that completely nullify the person’s Right to Life?

The constitutional validity of a death sentence has been much discussed and
debated, with many arguing that it is inhumane, that it violates the
Fundamental and Human Rights, or that the ‘eye for an eye’ ideology behind it
achieves no purpose in law and justice.

Take a look at this landmark case.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Facts:

In this case, Bachan Singh was convicted of the murders of three people and
sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, which was confirmed by the High
Court. Bachan Singh appealed whether the facts of the case fell in the category
of “special reasons” to warrant the death penalty.

Judgement:

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty saying that it
did not violate Articles 14, 19 and 21, but reiterated that it could only be
awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases, and not as a substitute for life
imprisonment.

Thus, while capital punishment is a very harsh punishment, it is essential in the

grossest and most serious cases like the murder of several persons, a brutal
rape, etc. to properly administer justice and act as a deterrent in society. Its
constitutional validity has been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, a high
burden must be placed on the judge to duly consider and be satisfied with the
awarding of a death sentence.

Police atrocities and custodial death

Police officers sometimes unfairly arrest individuals, beat and torture the
prisoners, and commit various other crimes. One example of such a situation
was seen in Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Odisha and
Ors. (1993).

Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of

Odisha and Ors. (1993)

Facts:

In this case, the 22-year-old son of the petitioner was taken into police custody.
The next day, his dead body was found on the railway tracks. The death was
unnatural as the body was found with multiple injuries. The petitioner alleged
custodial death.

Judgement:

The court confirmed the allegation and awarded compensation to the petitioner.
It directed the state to ascertain the responsibility of the officials involved in the
death and take appropriate actions against them. It upheld the Right to Life of
accused under trials and persons in custody and the fact that no police official
can deprive someone of their life and liberty without a lawful procedure.

Trial of rape cases

Rape is one of the most horrific crimes of all, and one of the few crimes for
which no reason given can be considered justified by any member of society.
Unfortunately, it is also a crime that threatens to never die in our country, with
India being the most dangerous country for women according to a Thomson
Reuters Foundation report in 2018. Government data says that over 90
rape cases are reported in the country every day – but the actual number is
probably much higher.

Rape has remained a grossly under-reported crime, which can be attributed to

the psychological stress and fear of ostracisation by society in the minds of
victims and their families, and also to the long-drawn, painful and often
unsatisfactory trial procedure. Over time, efforts have been made by the courts
to enable dispersion of easier, quicker and greater justice to victims of rape.

It was in the brutal rape case of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v.
Union of India (1995), that the court laid down parameters to assist the victims
of rape in the trial process.

Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union

of India (1995)

Facts:

In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against the rape of six women
travelling in a train from Ranchi to Delhi, by seven army personnel.

Judgement:

The Court recognised the defects in the system where complaints are not
handled properly and victims are often humiliated by the police and suffer grave
psychological stress. The parameters laid down include-
 1. Provision of legal representation to the victims from the moment they
arrive at the police station for the complaint, and the duty of the police
to inform them of this right.
2. Maintenance of anonymity of the victims as far as necessary.
3. Establishment of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to award
compensation to victims even before conviction of offender takes place.

Prevention of sexual harassment of working women

When we think of a good life, it probably includes living with respect in the
community without any unfavourable actions taken by others against you.
However, in this patriarchal society, women are often treated as sexual objects
meant for the pleasure of men, and it leads to unwanted sexual advances
towards them.

Women’s safety outside their homes has been one of the reasons why even in
the urban areas in modern times, there is a dearth of women in the workspace.
For a woman, the Right to Life includes the right to not face any sexual
harassment while they go out to earn a living and achieve their professional
goals – thereby enabling them to exercise their right of practising any
profession, occupation or trade.

Keeping this issue in mind, various provisions have been ordered by the Court
and implemented by the Government to prevent sexual harassment of women,
which can be mainly credited to the following landmark case.

Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

(1997)- Right against Sexual Harassment

Facts:
In this case, a writ petition was filed to prevent the hazards to the safety of
working women in the wake of an alleged gang rape of a social activist in a
Rajasthani village. It contended that sexual harassment faced by women in the
workplace was in violation of the Fundamental Rights granted in Articles 14, 15
and 21.

Judgement:

The court defined sexual harassment and laid down certain guidelines for
prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace, which include (but are not
limited to) the following-

1. Duty of employers and responsible people to prevent sexual

harassment.
2. Duty of employers to provide a safe and appropriate working
environment for women.
3. Establishment of a complaint committee (headed by a woman) and a
complaint mechanism to redress grievances.
4. Rules for disciplinary actions to be taken against misconduct.
5. Spread of awareness regarding the rights of working women.

Eve-teasing

Unwanted remarks and advances towards women don’t just stop at closed
professional or domestic settings. Unfortunately, they also occur in public places
like trains, metros, and even streets, and this is known as Eve-teasing.

Dy. Inspector-General of Police and Anr. v. S.

Samuthiram (2012)

Facts:
In this case, a police personnel eve-teased and misbehaved with a woman who
was waiting with her husband at a bus station in Tamil Nadu.

Judgement:

The guidelines laid down by the court include (but are not limited to) the
following-

1. All governments to ensure the presence of plain-clothed female police

officers in public places.
2. Installation of CCTV cameras in strategic locations.
3. Orders to persons in-charge of public institutions and public service
vehicles to immediately report any acts of eve-teasing to the police,
failure of which would lead to adverse consequences.
4. Establishment of Women Helpline in all states and union territories.

While noteworthy guidelines have been formulated by the court for both, sexual
harassment and eve-teasing, the fact that these horrid practices still prevail
questions the quality of their enforcement. One gets no points for observing
that women’s safety is still a gigantic problem in our country, and it is the
responsibility of law and order to buckle up and ensure that the unequally-
placed half of the population gets the right environment to live and flourish,
which has been long overdue.

Emergency and Article 21

Emergency refers to a situation where immediate action is required by the
authorities in the State to deal with dangerous conditions involving internal
rebellion, external aggression or financial bankruptcy. In India, an Emergency
can be any of these three types-

1. National Emergency
2. Failure of Constitutional Machinery in a state (hence, President’s rule)
 3. Financial Emergency

In a situation of Emergency, the liberties of the people may be temporarily

suspended, with the reasoning that the State needs to prevent mayhem and
effectively cope with the dangerous situation. Article 359 of the Indian
Constitution empowers the President to suspend the Fundamental Rights of the
people given in Part III for a specific period of time.

The fact that Article 21 cannot be suspended ensures that people are not
exploited during times of stress and danger and that they still possess their
basic and cherished human rights.

This provision of non-suspension of Article 21 was brought about by the 44th

Amendment to the Constitution in 1978, which amended Article 359 to
exclude Articles 20 and 21 from its scope.

Right to Education: A Fundamental Right under

Article 21A

Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

(1992)
Dclared that Right to Education is a part of the Fundamental Rights.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of A.P.

and Ors.: Article 21(a)
It was held that every Indian citizen has a Fundamental Right to Education. No
person can be deprived of his or her education by the State. This right includes
free education until the person attains 14 years of age and thereafter, it will
depend on his or her personal economic capacity as well as that of the State.

It is clear that the recognition of Right to Education as a Fundamental Right was

mainly brought about by the above-mentioned cases, which ultimately led to
the Eighty-Sixth Amendment.