The Gamut of Article 21: A Brief

The author Ria Menon is a second-year B.A. LL.B. student from Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College under the Pune University.

INTRODUCTION

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

It is a pivotal fundamental right, around which other individual rights revolve. Since the Article contains the most basic rights, fundamental to human beings, these rights are guaranteed not only to Indian citizens but also to any other person residing in the Indian Territory for time being; unlike most other Indian laws.

In earlier times, the manner of interpretation of Article 21 by the Judiciary was traditionally narrow in nature. The judges restricted themselves to a literal interpretation of the phrase: “procedure established by law.” This phrase, as explicated in the A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India judgment[1], meant that the state could interfere with an individual’s right/s through a procedure laid down for the appropriate enactment of a law, irrespective of the fair and just nature of such a law. Before the Maneka Gandhi judgement, Article 21 included the “right to life and personal liberty” in its strictest sense.

But over time, in the judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2], we saw a remarkable change in judicial interpretation, activism, and creativity with regards to Article 21. The constitutional bench of seven judges, unprecedentedly laid down that the procedure established by law, which deprives a person of their right/s, must be “right, just, fair and reasonable.” This landmark judgment brought us one step closer to “due process of law;” a legal requirement that not only necessitates for the law to be duly enacted by the legislature through a proper procedure, but also for it to be fair and non-arbitrary. And this judgement was the dawning for all the future judgements that added to the expansion of the scope of the Article.

EXTENDED VIEW OF ARTICLE 21 IN POST-MANEKA GANDHI ERA:

With progressive judgements, the Article has come to include all the following rights within its reach:

Right to life

“Life” does not imply the mere act of breathing or unending drudgery through life. The right to life extends to the right to lead a dignified life. It is inclusive of all the aspects that make human life meaningful and provide an optimum environment for personal growth. Hence, in addition to your right to live, you are also entitled to all those fundamentals that help you lead a decent life. This includes all the basic amenities such as nutrition; shelter; a clean environment; full development of a child; protection of cultural heritage; the ability to freely express oneself in different forms; the right to social security and protection of family; and the right to reputation.

Right to privacy

Privacy in the rawest sense means being free from public attention and having the ability to decide for oneself. The Supreme Court, in a minority judgement in R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[3], pronounced that right to privacy means the “right to be left alone;” and that it is an intricate part of personal liberty. In addition to physical security, the right to privacy also protects one’s spiritual self, including feelings and intellect.

The right includes- protection from telephone tapping; disclosure of dreadful diseases; women’s rights to make reproductive choices; the right to private medical tests and medical confidentiality; and the right to go abroad.

Right to livelihood

It is impossible to live a life without earning the means of living, i.e., livelihood. Deprivation of livelihood would indirectly deprive one of one’s life, as was rightly upheld in the famous “Pavement Dwellers Case” (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation)[4].

Any individual deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation and get it declared void.

Right against sexual harassment at workplace and right against rape

Sexual harassment violates the basic human right of life. In this context, the Apex Court, in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[5], observed that “the meaning and content of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse.”

In the famous Vishakha guidelines, the Court laid down that the employers or persons in charge of the workplaces are responsible to take steps for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace by ensuring an appropriate, non-hostile working condition for women. The guidelines also empower the victim to seek a transfer, either of the perpetrator or themselves.

Right to a speedy trial

The Supreme Court in, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar[6], said that detention of under-trial prisoners for a period longer than their potential conviction sentences violated Article 21. A speedy trial ensures timely delivery of a sentence so that the accused does not have to undergo more punishment than what they deserve.

Hence, any accused can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, if they are denied the right to a speedy trial, for the enforcement of the same.

Right to free legal aid

A fair trial means that every accused gets a chance to prove their innocence, and defend the allegations raised against them. The State is under obligation to provide a prisoner with free legal aid in a case where the person is unable to secure legal assistance when such a service is called for. Any breach of safeguards of a fair trial would lead to invalidation of the trial and subsequent conviction.

Free legal aid is one of the two ingredients of the right to appeal, as pronounced in M.H. Hoskot v. the State of Maharashtra[7], by the Apex Court. The other one is to serve a copy of the judgment pronounced to the prisoner in time so that the person is enabled to file an appeal if they wish to.

Right to health and medical care

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India[8], the Apex Court stated, “Once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored.” This law applies particularly to emergency cases where hospitals deny to start treatment on the patient before all the legalities are duly abided by.

This right places all doctors under a professional obligation to provide medical aid to a patient, criminal or innocent, and to preserve the life of the patient even if the legal formalities have not been completed.

Right to clean environment

A clean and healthy environment sans diseases and infections is a right conferred to us under Article 21. Keeping the environment clean helps preserve biodiversity and ecosystems, upon which the human race is highly dependent. A clean environment assists us in leading a healthy lifestyle and pushes us towards maximum flourishment.

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar[9], the Court held a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for ensuring pollution-free water and air maintainable. This right also includes the right against noise pollution.

Prisoner’s Rights

Yes, the prisoners have committed some crimes, but that does not mean that their human rights should be stripped off. They already serve their respective punishments, and topping that with depriving them of basic rights is equivalent to double jeopardy. Prisoners also have the right to approach the judiciary, if they feel that they have been denied their fundamental rights.

Some of the rights included are- right to bail; right against handcuffing; right against solitary confinement; right against custodial violence; right against public hanging; right against delayed execution; right to write a book; and rights against bar fetters.

Right to choose a life partner

It is extremely essential that you choose a life partner of your liking if you wish to lead a happy married life. The consent of the family, community or even clan should not be deemed necessary for marriage between two adults.

In, Shakti Vahini v. Union of India[10], the Apex Court pronounced a judgement: including the right to choose a life partner under Article 21. Any person who feels that they’re being forced into a marriage that they are not willing to be a part of can find refuge under this right guaranteed under Article 21. This right also helps in taking action against honour killings.

CONCLUSION

The makers of our Constitution desired for it to be a flexible document, adaptable in nature, instead of acting as a rigid framework. The Supreme Court has acted momentously in interpreting and upholding the rights of individuals under Article 21. No one could have ever thought that so many inalienable rights could find shelter and nourishment under the canopy of Article 21. And as we evolve as a society, new concepts of a dignified life would keep emerging from time to time, consequentially adding to the horizon of Article 21.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

[1] AIR 1950 SC 27

[2] AIR 1978 SC 597

[3] 1995 AIR 264

[4] (1985) 3 SCC 5

[5] AIR 1997 SC 3011

[6] (1980) 1 SCC 81

[7] AIR 1978 SC 1548

[8] AIR 1989 SC 2039

[9] 1991 AIR 420

[10] AIR 2018 SC 1601