Rights Within the Ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Introduction to Article 21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stands as one of the most significant provisions in the fundamental rights chapter. It ensures the protection of life and personal liberty to all individuals within the territory of India. The article reads:

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

This seemingly simple provision has evolved through extensive judicial interpretation to encompass a wide range of rights, making it a cornerstone of the protection of human rights in India.

The Evolution of Article 21

When the Constitution was originally enacted in 1950, the understanding of Article 21 was somewhat limited. The scope of personal liberty and life protection was restricted primarily to physical existence and the right to be free from arbitrary detention. However, over time, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, expanded the scope of this article by interpreting it more broadly, making it a dynamic tool for safeguarding fundamental human rights.

Initially, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that the protection under Article 21 could be restricted by any law that follows the procedure established by law, but this interpretation was criticized for being too narrow. The landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case marked a turning point by broadening the interpretation of Article 21. In this case, the Court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must not only be fair and just but also reasonable.

Scope of Rights Under Article 21

1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The right to life and personal liberty is the core right under Article 21. Initially, it was interpreted as the right to live with human dignity, but later judgments expanded this to include various facets that contribute to a dignified life.

• Right to Live with Dignity: The Supreme Court, in various rulings, has consistently emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity. This was most notably elaborated in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), where the Court stated that the right to life includes the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to adequate living conditions.
  
  
• Right to Clean Environment: In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court ruled that the right to life includes the right to a pollution-free environment, as the environment directly affects the health and life of individuals. Similarly, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court expanded this to include the protection of the environment as a fundamental right under Article 21.

2. Right to Health and Medical Care

The right to life under Article 21 has been extended to include the right to health. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state is obligated to provide health services and take steps to ensure that people do not suffer from lack of medical care.

• Right to Health: The Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) held that the state is duty-bound to provide adequate medical facilities to citizens, and failure to do so violates the right to life. Access to essential medical care, especially in emergencies, has been recognized as a fundamental right.
  
  
• Right to Free and Adequate Healthcare: In State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997), the Court ruled that the state must provide necessary medical treatment at government hospitals for poor citizens, and refusal to do so constitutes a violation of the right to life.

3. Right to Education

The right to education is another extension of the right to life, which was first recognized in the Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to education is implicitly included under the right to life, which ensures that a person can live with dignity only when they are educated.

• Free and Compulsory Education: The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (2009) made it obligatory for the state to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14, which is in line with Article 21’s broader interpretation.
  
  
• Quality Education: In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), the Court held that education should not only be accessible but also of reasonable quality to ensure that individuals can lead a dignified life.

4. Right to Privacy

A major milestone in the interpretation of Article 21 came with the right to privacy being recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). This case fundamentally redefined the scope of personal liberty under Article 21.

• Invasion of Privacy: The Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right protected by Article 21, and any encroachment on the privacy of an individual, including the state’s surveillance, must be justified as being reasonable and necessary in a democratic society.

5. Right to Fair Trial and Legal Aid

The right to a fair trial is deeply connected with the right to life and liberty. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court emphasized that any law or procedure that affects a person’s rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.

• Right to Free Legal Aid: The right to legal aid has been considered an essential part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), the Court ruled that the state must provide legal aid to ensure that a person is not deprived of a fair trial due to financial constraints.
  
  
• Right to Speedy Trial: In Hussainara Khatoon (1980), the Supreme Court held that the right to a speedy trial is a component of the right to life and personal liberty. Prolonged detention without trial or unnecessary delay in trials violates an individual’s rights under Article 21.

6. Right Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment

Article 21 protects individuals from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the state and its agents. This right was elaborated upon in several judgments, including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which dealt with custodial torture.

• Custodial Violence: In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and arbitrary detention. This case affirmed that torture or cruel treatment, whether physical or psychological, is prohibited under Article 21, and that the state is obligated to ensure that human dignity is respected.

7. Right to Live Free from Arbitrary Detention

The right to personal liberty encompasses the right to be free from arbitrary detention. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court clarified that the procedure established by law must not be arbitrary, and it must be fair and reasonable.

• Preventive Detention: The Court further expanded the understanding of personal liberty in cases involving preventive detention, emphasizing that such detentions must not only be reasonable but also conducted within the boundaries of the law.

8. Right to Die with Dignity

The issue of euthanasia and the right to die with dignity became prominent with the case of Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011). In this case, the Court held that passive euthanasia could be allowed under strict conditions, with the idea that a person’s dignity and life should be preserved in death as well as in life.

• Living Will: In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals can execute a “living will” to refuse life-sustaining treatment, thereby exercising their right to die with dignity. This judgment further extended the scope of personal liberty under Article 21.

Conclusion

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stands as a robust guarantee for the protection of life and personal liberty. Over time, through judicial interpretations, it has evolved into a comprehensive provision that protects a wide array of rights, many of which are essential to the fundamental dignity of individuals. The expansion of rights under Article 21 has made it a key instrument for promoting human rights in India, ensuring not only the right to life but also the right to a quality and dignified life.

The right to life and personal liberty, though rooted in the Constitution, finds its true meaning in its interpretation by the courts. As society evolves and new challenges emerge, the courts will likely continue to expand the scope of Article 21, ensuring that it remains a beacon of justice for all citizens.