Art - 21 Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Introduction:

The framers of Indian constitution were deeply influenced by the

international document i.e Universal Declaration of Human Right [UDHR]
1948 which had a great impact on the drafting of Indian constitution. The
Article 9 of UDHR provides for ‘protection of life and personal liberty’ of
every person. As India was signatory to the declaration, the constituent
Assembly adopted the similar provision as a fundamental right therein. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the UDHR may not be a legally binding
instrument but it show how Indian understood the nature of Human Rights at
the time when Constitution was adopted. Article 21 is the celebrity provision of
the Indian Constitution and occupies a unique place as a fundamental right. It
guarantees right to life and personal liberty to citizens and aliens and is
enforceable against state.

Indian Constitutional Law:

According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India
have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is
not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to
adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. If a law made by
Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires.
This check notwithstanding, the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be
an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for governance.
The judicial interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and judicial
activism on the part of the Supreme Court of India. It examines the reasons for
judicial creativity and justifies the role played by the Supreme Court of the
India in protection the fundamental rights of the citizens, when the legislative
and executive failed in performing their duties. To some extent, judicial
activism on the part of judiciary derives from underlying weakness and failure
on the part of the other machineries of the state to perform their duties. Right to
life and personal liberty is the most cherished and pivotal fundamental human
rights around which other rights of the individual revolve and, therefore, the
study assumes great significance. The study of right to life is indeed a study of
the Supreme Court as a guardian of fundamental human rights. The
Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III, which are
guaranteed by the constitution. One of these rights is provided under Article 21
which reads as follows:
Article 21- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law”.
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word
“No” has been used in relation to the word deprived. The object of the
fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal
liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law.
It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against state
only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal
liberty or deprivation of life of other person, such violation would not fall under
the parameters set for the Article 21. In such a case the remedy for aggrieved
person would be either under Article 226 of the constitution or under general
law. But, where an act of private individual supported by the state infringes the
personal liberty or life of another person, the act will certainly come under the
ambit of Article 21. The person does include citizens as well as non-citizens.
Article 21 of the Constitution is available to both Citizens and Non-Citizens
According to the tenor of the language used in Art. 21, it will be available not
only to every citizen of this country, but also to be a “person” who may not be a
citizen of the country. Thus, even those who are not citizens of this country and
come here merely as tourists or in any other capacity will be entitled to the
protection of their lives in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. They
also have a right to “Life” in this country Chairman, Railway Board v
Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 998.

The Traditional Approach of the Supreme Court:

It is hard to appreciate fully the extent of development of right to life

without an overview of the traditional approach. In A. K. Gopalan v Union of
India AIR 1950 SC 27 the traditional interpretation of Article 21 of the
Constitution was that a procedure established by law can deprive a person of
his right to life. Thus, the earliest understanding of this provision was a narrow
and procedural one. The state had to demonstrate the interference with the
individual’s right to life is accorded with the procedure laid down by properly
enacted law. It didn’t matter whether the law was just & fair. Moreover, in
Gopalan’s case the Court declined to infuse the guarantee of due process of law,
contained in Article 21, with substantive content, holding that as long as the
preventive detention statutes had been duly enacted in accordance with the
procedures of article 22, the requirements of due process were satisfied.
The interpretationas made by the Court was nothing more than the
freedom from arrest and detention, from false imprisonment or wrongful
confinement of the physical body. Thus, “personal liberty” said to mean only
liberty relating to person or body of individual and in this sense it was the
antithesis of physical restraint or coercion. In course of time, the traditional and
narrow approach of the Supreme Court in interpreting Article 21 has been
changed. In Maneka Gandhi’s case, one can find the dramatic change of
attitude by the Court in interpreting Article 21 in a manner so as to impliedly
include ‘due process of law’ into the contents of Article 21.

Interpretation of Article 21- Post Maneka Gandhi’s Case:

 The decision of Constitutional Bench of Seven judges (overruling
Gopalan’s case) in Maneka Gandhi’s case[ Maneka Gandhi v Union of
India AIR 1978 SC 597] became the starting point, the springboard, for a
spectacular evolution of the law relating to judicial intervention in
(individual) human rights cases. Thus, the principle laid down by the Supreme
Court in this case is that the procedure established by law for depriving a
person of his right to life must be right, just, fair and reasonable.
The new interpretation of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi’s case has
ushered a new era of expansion of the horizons of right to life and personal
liberty. The wide dimension given to this right now covers various aspects
which the founding fathers of the Constitution might or might not have
visualized. The expression “procedure established by law” the U. S.
Constitution5th Constitution Amendment is USA- “ No person shall be
deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Even
though the word ‘due” is not specifically provided under Art.21 but the
Supreme Court in its various judgments interpreted it in a wider and dynamic
manner.

Extended view of Article 21:

The Supreme Court gave extended dimension to Article 21 in the post
Maneka Gandhi era.
Some of the landmark decisions are mentioned below:
Article 21 includes Right to Education:
Right to education is considered as third eye of man without which no one
can lead good, decent and dignified life. Earlier right to education was a part of
directive principles of state policy . however as per the changing needs of
society Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State Of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC
1858 and Unni Krishna v. State of Anddhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178.
rule that right to education is fundamental right because it directly flows from
right to life.Earlier the courts interpreted Right to Education under Art.21 but in
the year 2002 by constitutional Amendment, Art.21A[86th Amendment 2002]
was inserted in the constitution and right to education was expressly made as a
fundamental right.

Article 21 includes Right to Privacy:

For the first time, the issue was raised in harak Singh v State of
Tamil Nadu AIR1963,SC1295, Justice Subba Rao in his minority judgment
said that the right to privacy flows from the expression personal liberty. This
minority judgment paved path for the further development In R. Rajgopal
v.State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264the Supreme Court observed that right
to privacy is nothing but ‘right to be let alone and it is implicit in right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of Indian Constitution.
.
Article 21 includes Right to Livelihood:
Right to livelihood is borne out of right to life as no person can live
without the means of living that is livelihood. If right to livelihood is not
treated as part and parcel of right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person
of his right life would be deprived him of his means of livelihood. Deprivation
of livelihood would not only denude the life of his effective content and
meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.The Supreme Court in
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation . (1985) 3 SCC 5 held that the
concept of “right to life and personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution includes the “right to live with dignity” which in turn includes
right to livelihood.

Article 21 includes Right to speedy trial:

 Speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and
personal liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and any accused who is
denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to approach the Court for the purpose
of enforcing such right. The Supreme Court held in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar . (1980) 1 SCC 81 that speedy trial is a
fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty
enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and any accused who is denied this
right of speedy trial is entitled to approach Supreme Court under Art. 32 for the
purpose of enforcing such right and the Supreme Court in discharge of its
constitutional obligation has the power to give necessary directions to the State.

Imposing Capital Punishment is not violation of Article 21:

The validity of death sentence has been raised in various cases before
Supreme Court. In Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh . AIR 1973 SC
947Supreme Court held that freedom to live could not be denied by a law
unless it is reasonable & in public interest. However in Bachan Singh v. State
of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898it was held that, the death penalty is an alternative
punishment of murder in section 302 of I.P.C. Hence it is not unreasonable & is
in public Interest. It should be imposed only in “rarest of rare Cases.”
Delay in executing dealth sentence is a violation of Article 21:
In Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1983 SC 261 the Supreme
Court evolved another principle that prolonged delay (2 years) in executing
death sentence would be unjust, unfair & unreasonable & therefore violative of
Art 21 of the Constitution. In such a case, the accused has a right to get the
death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. In Triveniben v State of
Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 1335 the Supreme Court ruled that no fixed period of
delay in necessary to make the death sentence non – executable.

Article 21 includes Right to free legal aid:

 In M.H Hoskot v State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548 the Supreme
Court has invoked Art. 39A and held that state under Article 21 should provide
free legal aid to a prisoner who is indigent and or otherwise disabled from
securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service.
Article 21 includes Right to Health and Medical Care:
Art. 21 as well as Directive principles of State policy [ Art. 46 and 47
of Indian Constitution] obligates State to preserve the life of person. In a
landmark decision of Parmanand Katara v Union Of India AIR 1989 SC
2039 the Supreme Court held that in medico legal cases preservation of life is
of paramount importance therefore it is the primary duty of doctor to give
immediate aid to the victims either he is a criminal or innocent person and
shall not wait for the completion of legal formalities. Similarly in Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v State of West Bengal. AIR 1996 SC 2426 the
Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victims aggrieved by the services
provided by the government hospitals.
Article 21 not includes right to die:
Right to life under Article 21 does not include right to die Human life is
precious one. The Supreme Court has shown radical change in its view. In Gian
Kaur v. State of Punjab . AIR 1996 SC 2426 while deciding the validity of
Sec.309 of I.P.C, the Court overruled the earlier view which was taken in P.
Rathinam’s case [P Rathinam v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844] and held
that “right to life” does not include “right to die” and the “extinction of life” is
not included in “protection of life” thus provision penalizing attempt to commit
suicide is not violative to Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 includes Rights against torture, inhuman or degrading

treatment:
 Article 21 guarantees Freedom form Police Atrocities The Supreme Court
has shown its great concern in cases of maltreatment of prisoners. As far as
mode of punishment is concerned in Prem Shankar v Delhi Administration
AIR 1980 SC 1535 the Supreme Court held that handcuffing is a prima
facie is inhuman in nature therefore it must be the last refuge as there are other
ways for ensuring security. Similarly in D.K Basu v State of West Bengal AIR
1997 SC 610. the Supreme Court held that any form of torture or cruel inhuman
or degrading treatment during the investigation, interrogation or otherwise is
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Sheela Barse v State of
Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378 the Supreme Court has given directions to
prison authorities to ensure rights of women against torture and maltreatment in
police lockup.

Article 21 includes Right to claim Compensation:

The Supreme Court of India has also shown its dynamic and activist role in
compensatory jurisprudence. For the first time in Nilabati Behera v State of
Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960 the Supreme Court held right to compensation as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Earlier it was the
discretion of the Court wherein it has awarded compensation to the victim
Khatri v State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928, In Rudal Shah v State of Bihar
AIR 1983 SC 1086 the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 35000/- to the petitioner
who was kept in jail for 14 years despite of his acquittal order. Recently in
Chairman, Railway Board v Chandrima Das AIR 2000 SC 998 the employees
of the Railway Board had gang raped a Bangladeshi Women for which the
Central Government was directed to award compensation under Article 21 of
the constitution.

Conclusion:
 The most respected public institution in India is the Supreme Court,
respected by the elite and the illiterate alike. If the Court has come increasingly
effective in its role as the final arbiter of justice, it is because of the confidence
the common man has placed in it. The Court has no army at its command. It
does not hold any purse strings. Its strength lies largely in the command it has
over the hearts and minds of the public and the manner in which it can
influence and mould public opinion.

As stated above in several cases, the Supreme Court of India played a

significant role while interpreting Article 21 of the constitution. In this way the
Supreme Court has expanded the liabilities, duties and responsibilities of the
State and its authorities thorough its interpretative and activist judicial process.
It is quite possible that in course of time, the Court may possibly be able to
imply some more rights for the people in interpreting Article 21 of the
Constitution because the concept of dignified life guaranteed by Article 21
seems to be inexhaustible in range and scope.