Definition and Case Laws

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most significant and fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India. It is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution’s commitment to protect the life and personal liberty of individuals. Over the years, through various landmark judgments, the scope and interpretation of Article 21 have been expanded to encompass a broader range of rights and freedoms.

Definition of Article 21

Article 21 states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” At its core, Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which are fundamental to the dignity and well-being of an individual. The phrase “procedure established by law” implies that any deprivation of life or personal liberty must be in accordance with the laws enacted by the legislature.

Evolution and Interpretation

The interpretation of Article 21 has evolved significantly over the years, moving beyond mere physical existence to include a dignified life. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity, encompassing the right to education, health, clean environment, and livelihood.

Scope of Article 21

Article 21 encapsulates two essential rights:

1. Right to Life: This right signifies more than mere existence. It encompasses the right to live a life of dignity, meaning, and fulfillment. It underscores the holistic development of an individual, ensuring a life free from harm, torture, and exploitation.
2. Right to Personal Liberty: This right safeguards the individual’s freedom from arbitrary detention and preserves their autonomy and personal choices.

State and Article 21

The protective shield of Article 21 is primarily directed towards the State, which includes not only the government but also its various departments, local bodies, and legislatures. If a private individual violates the rights enshrined under Article 21, it does not directly amount to a violation of this Article. The aggrieved individual can seek redress under Article 226 or other general laws.

Judicial Interpretation of Article 21

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in expanding and interpreting the scope of Article 21 through landmark judgments.

1. AK Gopalan Case (1950): Initially, Article 21 had a limited scope, reflecting the British concept of personal liberty. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the ‘procedure established by law’ did not encompass the broader ‘due process’ concept prevalent in American jurisprudence.
2. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This case marked a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Article 21. The Supreme Court overturned the Gopalan case judgment and emphasized that Articles 19 and 21 are interconnected. The ‘procedure established by law’ must not only be in accordance with legislative enactments but must also be fair, just, and reasonable, devoid of any arbitrariness.
3. Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): The Court in this case reiterated that any procedure resulting in the deprivation of life or personal liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just, ensuring that it is not whimsical or fanciful.
4. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Court emphasized the importance of fair play and justice, asserting that any procedure depriving an individual’s fundamental rights should conform to the principles of justice and fairness.
5. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to a safe and secure working environment as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, emphasizing the State’s duty to protect the dignity of women.
6. Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011): This case dealt with the sensitive issue of euthanasia or passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. The Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, recognizing the autonomy and dignity of individuals.
7. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality, recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to live with dignity and equality under Article 21. The Court held that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy, personal liberty, and the right to expression.

Conclusion

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a beacon of hope and protection for every citizen, ensuring the inviolability of life and personal liberty. Through its progressive interpretation and landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21, recognizing a broader range of rights and freedoms essential for a dignified and meaningful life. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and upholding the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity.