Article 21 of the Indian Constitution with Top 10 Cases | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Evolution of Article 21 Scope

The breadth of Article 21 was limited until the 1950s.

A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras

• In this case, the court differentiated between Article 21 and 19 (1) (d), emphasizing distinct principles.
• Deprivation was narrowly interpreted, excluding restrictions on the right to move freely under Article 19 (1) (d).

Kharak Singh v. State of UP

• The Supreme Court ruled domiciliary police visits as a violation of personal liberty and freedom of movement.
• It highlighted that "personal liberty" extends beyond mere existence, protecting individual freedoms.

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (Bank Nationalisation Case)

• The apex court discarded the exclusivity theory from A. K. Gopalan case, favoring the effect test over the object test.
• Any act conflicting with citizens' fundamental rights is deemed unconstitutional and subject to nullification.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

• The Supreme Court emphasized that procedures must not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable.
• Article 21 imposes restrictions on the state when depriving an individual of life or personal liberty.

Legal Concepts and Fundamental Rights

• Acts of bad faith have no legal standing, emphasizing the importance of reasonableness in legal processes.
• A fair and just procedure is crucial when depriving an individual of their fundamental rights, ensuring adherence to principles of justice and fair play.
• Unreasonable procedures taint the legality of laws and actions taken under them.

Article 21 of the Constitution

• Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity, especially for marginalized sections of society.
• It includes rights such as living in humane conditions, rehabilitation, livelihood, and a decent environment.

Expanded Scope of Article 21

• The Supreme Court, in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., broadened the interpretation of Article 21.
• Some rights covered under Article 21 include the right to privacy, against solitary confinement, against delayed execution, to shelter, and against custodial death.

Non-Justiciable Directive Principles Included by Apex Court

• Right to pollution-free water and air
• Protection of under-trial individuals
• Right of every child to full development
• Protection of cultural heritage

Expanded Interpretation of Article 21 by the Apex Court

• In the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and others, the Apex Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to create an inclusive environment where individuals from diverse backgrounds can coexist peacefully. 
• The State is obligated to safeguard the life, liberty, dignity, and worth of every individual. 
• Failure to do so may result in the State being liable to compensate the family of a person whose life was lost due to a violation of Article 21.

Restrictions on Personal Liberty under Article 21

• In the case of Javed and others v. State of Haryana, the Honorable Supreme Court highlighted that the concept of reasonableness is integral to fundamental rights, including personal liberty under Article 21. 
• This emphasizes the importance of ensuring that restrictions on personal liberty are reasonable and justifiable.

Evolution of Interpretation of Article 21

• Initially, Article 21 was interpreted narrowly, but over time, the law concerning the life and personal liberty of individuals underwent a progressive transformation.
• The courts adopted a more liberal approach and provided a broader interpretation to safeguard these fundamental rights.