Article 21 Under Indian Constitution: Right to personal life and liberty with Case

Table of Contents

Article 21 Indian Constitution: Right to personal life and liberty

Introduction

The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to personal life and liberty under Article 21. These fundamental rights are available to every citizen and foreigner. The Supreme Court of India has described these rights as the ‘Heart and Fundamental Rights’. Article 21 secures two rights:

Right to life, and
Right to personal liberty.

Article 21 Indian Constitution States That

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails living a complete life of dignity and meaning.

How does the Indian constitution protect the right to personal life and liberty? Scope of the right:

This right is not limited to just physical survival but also encompasses the right to live with dignity, including access to necessities like healthcare, livelihood, and a healthy environment.

Judicial interpretation: Right to personal life and liberty

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 broadly, expanding its scope to include rights like the right to privacy, livelihood, and protection against arbitrary state action.

State obligation:

Article 21 places a responsibility on the state to protect the life and personal liberty of its citizens.

The State’s obligation regarding the Right to Personal Life and Liberty is primarily to refrain from infringing upon it. This is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established¹ by law.”

Here’s a breakdown of the State’s obligations:

Negative Obligation: The State must not take actions that violate an individual’s life or personal liberty. This includes:
- Arbitrary Arrest and Detention: The State cannot arrest or detain individuals without a lawful reason and without following due process.
- Unlawful Killing: The State cannot take the life of an individual outside the bounds of legally established procedures, such as capital punishment.
- Infringement of Personal Liberty: The State cannot unduly restrict an individual’s freedom of movement, right to privacy, or other aspects of personal liberty.
Positive Obligation: In addition to refraining from violations, the State also has a positive obligation to protect these rights:
- Protection from Third Parties: The State must take measures to protect individuals from threats to their life and liberty posed by other individuals or entities.
- Creating Enabling Conditions: The State should strive to create conditions where individuals can enjoy their rights to life and personal liberty, such as access to healthcare, education, and a safe environment.

It’s important to note that the Right to Personal Life and Liberty is not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of public order, national security, or other legitimate concerns. However, such restrictions must be:

Prescribed by Law: The restrictions must be based on a law that is clear, accessible, and predictable.
Necessary and Proportionate: The restrictions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and must not be disproportionate to the purpose.
Non-Discriminatory: The restrictions must not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or any other prohibited ground.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing these obligations and ensuring that the State does not unduly infringe upon the Right to Personal Life and Liberty.

Interpretation in article 21: Right to personal life and liberty

The Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the rights guaranteed under Article 21 in the interests of public order, national security, public health, or morality. However, such restrictions must be fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case in the subsequent cases. It has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

Right to live with human dignity.
Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection against hazardous industries.
Right to livelihood.
Right to privacy.
Right to shelter.
Right to health.
Right to free education up to 14 years of age.
Right to free legal aid.
Right against solitary confinement.
Right to speedy trial.
Right against handcuffing.
Right against inhuman treatment.
Right against delayed execution.
Right to travel abroad.
Right against bonded labour.
Right against custodial harassment.
Right to emergency medical aid
Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital. (19) Right not to be driven out of a state.
Right to fair trial.
Right of prisoner to have necessities of life.
Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.
Right against public hanging.
Right to road in hilly areas.
Right to information.
Right to reputation.
Right of appeal from a judgement of conviction
Right to family pension
Right to social and economic justice and empowerment (30) Right against bar fetters
Right to appropriate life insurance policy
Right to sleep
Right to freedom from noise pollution
Right to sustainable development
Right to opportunity.

A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras: Article 21 Case Law

Facts: A. K. Gopalan Vs State of Madras

In this case, the appellant, A K Gopalan, commonly known as AKG was an Indian Communist leader who served the Indian communist party for many years. He was detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. As per his contention, he was detained in jail from 1947 without any trial. He was made liable under the criminal laws which were set aside. Even the Madras government passed an order on March 1, 1950, when was still in jail. He argued that the principles of natural justice were not followed in his case and that he was not given a fair hearing. Mr Gopalan then filed a petition under Article 32(1) of the Indian constitution under habeas corpus writ against the order served under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Detention Act, 1950. He contended that the order passed under the Prevention and Detention Act is violating his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian constitution. He further stated that the order issued against him was done with the mala fide intention. It was further argued by him that ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 means the due process of law. Talking about his scenario, the procedure established by law was not followed and hence it is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Issues

There were several issues raised in this case including whether the Prevention and Detention Act 1950 violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian constitution. Secondly is there any connection between Article 19 and 21 of the constitution and lastly whether his natural justice is violated or not?

Judgement: A. K. Gopalan Vs State of Madras

The Supreme Court examined the arguments of the parties and concluded that there was no correlation between Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution. The court further determined that the principles of natural justice had not been violated in this case. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. Gopalan. The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case holds significant importance in Indian legal history. It is one of the key cases in which the apex court of India interpreted the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The ruling established a precedent for how Indian courts would interpret and apply constitutional provisions in future cases. Additionally, this case was one of the first instances in which the principles of natural justice were applied in India. The case also highlighted the principle that the Indian Constitution is a dynamic document, subject to interpretation in light of evolving times and circumstances.

Share this Post

Sneha Kumari

My name is Sneha Kumari Gupta and I am from Mumbai. I am currently pursuing a FY BBALLB course at Smt. Kamalaben Gambirchand shah law school. I joined a legalSchool website as an author. With a keen interest in law and social justice, I aim to make complex legal topics more accessible through my writing. Through my writing, I hope to inspire positive change and foster informed debates.

All Posts