Article 21 Definition: It states that no individual shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except through a “procedure established by law.” 

• Availability: This entitlement is accessible to both citizens and non-citizens, meaning that even foreigners can assert this right. This right can be claimed solely against the state. Nonetheless, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in January 2023 concluded that the fundamental right under Article 21 can also be enforced against individuals or entities other than the state. This ruling opens the door for filing writ petitions against private individuals or organizations for actions that violate Article 21. 

Evolving Interpretation of Article 21

Through various Supreme Court decisions, the rights to life and personal liberty have continually developed. Judicial intervention has expanded and widened the interpretation of Article 21. Key judgments pertinent to this article include: 

Background Judgment:  ● Narrow view of Article 21 

A.K Gopalan case (1950) 

In this case, the court held a restrictive perspective on Article 21. The court did not acknowledge the shortcomings of the “procedure established by law,” and the idea of due process was dismissed by the court. However, this ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court. 

Background

A.K. Gopalan was a political rival of the government who was notably active in the Madras Presidency. Since December 1947, he had been unlawfully detained multiple times, and even after being declared free by the court, he continued to be held in detention by the government. In 1950, he was again detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. A.K. Gopalan filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, contesting his detention. It was contended that the Preventive Detention Act was unconstitutional as it infringed upon fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)(d), which is the right to freedom of movement, and Article 21, which is the right to life and personal liberty.

Judgment

In its ruling, the court deemed the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 constitutional, asserting that it did not violate Article 19(1)(d) or Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Only Section 14 of the act, which stipulated that the grounds for detention communicated to the detainee or any representation made by them against these grounds could not be revealed in court, was invalidated. This judgment had the following consequences: 

Narrow view of Article 21

The court adopted a limited interpretation of Article 21 and concluded that Indian courts were not required to apply the due process standard. Consequently, a law’s validity could not be contested on the basis that it is unreasonable, unfair, or unjust. This also implied that the protection provided by Article 21 was available only against arbitrary actions by the executive and not against arbitrary legislative actions. Therefore, the state could revoke an individual’s right to life and personal liberty based on a law.

Restricted the scope of Article 19 and 21

In this case, the court narrowed the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that personal liberty refers solely to the freedom of the physical body. Additionally, the Supreme Court limited the interpretation of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, asserting that only an individual who is free can exercise the rights protected under Article 19. Consequently, when a person is in detention, they cannot take advantage of the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. 

No relation between Article 19 and 21

Regarding the relationship between the two articles, the court concluded that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are unrelated; Article 21 protects against the deprivation of personal liberty, while Article 19 safeguards against unreasonable restrictions. 

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 

Background

Smt. Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded ‘in the public interest’ by an order dated 2nd July 1977. When reasons for impounding her passport were sought from the Regional Passport Office, it failed to provide a proper reason. Therefore, Smt.  Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order on the grounds that it violated her fundamental rights under articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment

Various issues were dealt by the court in its Judgment. The Judgment had the following impact:

Introduced ‘Due process of law’ 

The court overruled its earlier judgement under Gopalan case and took a wider interpretation of Article 21. In this case the concept of due process of law was introduced in the Indian jurisprudence by the SC i.e. it was ruled that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law, provided the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable, fair and just. Thus, Article 21 would not only be available against arbitrary executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action.

Concept of ‘Golden trinity’ 

The court overruling A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) form the Golden Triangle of the Constitution. At any time, a law depriving a person of his personal liberty, has to meet the criteria as specified in Article 14 and Article 19 i.e. a law depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ must not violate any of these two articles. 

Widened the scope of Article 21 

In the case the court held that the right to travel abroad is included in the meaning of ‘personal liberty’ given under Article 21. Also, the court held that the ‘right to life’ as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go on to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It also ruled that the expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its judgement in the Menaka case in the subsequent cases. 

Procedure established by Law versus Due process of law

Important cases related to article 21

Judgements of the SC in following cases led to further expansion of the Right to life and personal liberty.

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition initiated by slum dwellers and pavement residents in Mumbai. The petitioners requested intervention against the Bombay Municipal Corporation’s order to evict slum inhabitants during the monsoon season. The court determined that the right to life encompasses the right to livelihood and asserted that eviction would deprive the petitioners of their means of earning a living. 

DK Basu vs government of West Bengal (1996)

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was accepted in the Supreme Court following a letter from D.K. Basu, a former judge of the Calcutta High Court, to the Chief Justice of India. The letter urged the Chief Justice to investigate the frequent occurrences of custodial deaths, establish arrest protocols, and create compensation mechanisms for victims or their families in cases of custodial torture or fatality. In the judgment delivered in 1996, the court proposed 11 guidelines that detailed arrest procedures and compensation for the death of a detainee. The case also emphasized that prisoners have the right to a dignified life as part of Article 21. 

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India & Ors (1996)

In a prior case, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 1987, the Supreme Court recognized the right to live in an environment free from pollution as a component of the fundamental right to life. Further expanding on this in the current case, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ‘Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum’ submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32, challenging significant environmental harm and water contamination from untreated effluents discharged by tanneries and other industries into the Palar River in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court applied the principle of sustainable development in its decision, utilizing both the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle,” which mandated that the tanneries pay fines. 

Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India

The right to die with dignity was recognized as part of Article 21, which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty. In this case, the court set forth guidelines to legalize passive euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses in India. Passive euthanasia involves the cessation of life-support systems or medical treatment, contrasting with active euthanasia, which entails intentionally ending a person’s life through lethal injection or substances. The apex court delineated specific procedures and guidelines for permitting passive euthanasia under “rarest of rare circumstances.” It was established in the ruling that decisions to withdraw life support should be made by family members or close relatives, and in their absence, by a “next friend,” while also requiring judicial approval.

K.S. Puttaswamy case

A nine-judge bench ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right for Indian citizens and is protected under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The court adopted a three-pronged test which needs to be passed for encroachment of any right under Article 21 i.e. legality – through an existing law; necessity, in terms of a legitimate state objective and proportionality, that ensures a rational nexus between the object of the invasion or encroachment of right and the means adopted to achieve that object. This judgment had substantial implications and paved the way for eventual decriminalisation of homosexuality in India in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) and abolishment of provisions related to adultery in Joseph Shine vs Union of India. Besides, the Judgment also recognised the Right to be forgotten as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The right to be forgotten refers to the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some circumstances.

Thus, Supreme court through its various judgments has has declared the following rights as part of Article 21: 

Article 21 during emergency

• Before the 44th Amendment, the Supreme Court, in the A.D.M Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla 1976 case, had held that article 21 can be suspended under article 359 in case of national emergency. But due to violation of human rights during the national emergency declared on the ground of ‘internal disturbance’ in 1975, the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 made provision that article 20 and article 21 both cannot be suspended during emergency.

Right to Education (Article 21A)

• Provision: It states that the State is required to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen in a manner determined by the State. 
• Scope: This provision recognizes only elementary education as a Fundamental Right, excluding higher or professional education. 
• Amendment: This provision was incorporated through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002.

86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

• Importance: This amendment represents a significant achievement in the nation’s commitment to realizing ‘Education for All’. The government referred to this action as ‘the dawn of the second revolution in the chapter of citizens’ rights’.

• Enforceable right: Prior to this amendment, the Constitution included a clause for free and compulsory education for children under Article 45 in Part IV; however, since it was a directive principle, it could not be enforced by the courts. The 86th amendment transformed it into a justiciable right.
• Changes in DPSP:  It also introduced a new fundamental duty under Article 51A, which states that ‘It shall be the duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide educational opportunities to his child or ward between the ages of six and fourteen years.’  
• Added a Fundamental duty: It also added a new fundamental duty under Article 51A that reads – ‘It shall be the duty of every citizen of India, who is a parent or guardian, to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the age of six and fourteen years’. 

Evolution of Right to Education

• The Ramamurti Committee Report of 1990 advocated for the establishment of the Right to compulsory education. 
• In the 1992 case of Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Others, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to education as an integral aspect of Article 21, which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty, stating that an individual’s dignity cannot be ensured without access to education. 
• In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in Unnikrishnan JP vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others that every child or citizen in India has the right to free education until the age of 14. After this age, the right to education is conditional upon the state’s economic capacity and development. 
• The Tapas Majumdar Committee was established in 1999 and recommended the addition of Article 21A, asserting that even children from the lowest economic strata should receive an education that is on par with the highest quality available. 
• The 86th Amendment was enacted in 2002, and in accordance with Article 21A, the Parliament introduced the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act in 2009. 
• This Act guarantees the right to a full-time elementary education of acceptable and equitable quality within a formal school that meets specific essential norms and standards. The legislation is founded on the principle that the ideals of equality, social justice, and democracy, as well as the formation of a fair and humane society, can only be realized through the provision of inclusive elementary education for all.