Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

Importance of Life and Personal Liberty

• Living freely and fully is a fundamental human right.
• Individuals should be able to lead their lives without unfair interference.
• Protection of Life and Personal Liberty as a Fundamental Right in India under the Constitution.

Article 21 of the Constitution

• Article 21 guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
• Ensures protection against infringement by the state.
• Limits the state's power over an individual's life and liberty.

Interpretation of 'Life' and 'Personal Liberty'

• Broad range of rights covered under these terms.
• Courts have expanded the understanding of Article 21 over time.

Legal Precedent: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

• Landmark case influencing the interpretation of Article 21.
• Highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in depriving someone of their rights.
• Emphasized the need for reasonableness in state actions affecting personal liberties.

Personal Liberty: Meaning and Scope

Before the Maneka Gandhi case: Personal liberty in India was limited to a few individual freedoms. 

A.K. Gopalan v. Territory of Madras(1950): Prevention Detention 

• Facts: A socialist leader was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, claiming it violated his freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and, thus, his Personal Liberty under Article 21. 
• Judgment: The court defined personal liberty as bodily freedom, excluding rights under Article 19(1). It included rights like rest and food but not the right to move freely. 

Kharak Singh v. Province of U.P. and Ors.(1964): Personal Liberty Curtailed

• Facts: Accused of dacoity, the petitioner was under police surveillance, challenging the constitutional validity of the state's actions.
• Judgment: Personal liberty includes freedom from movement restrictions and infringements on private life, encompassing all freedoms not in Article 19(1). 

Maneka Gandhi v. Association of India(1978): Right to Travel 

• Facts: Ordered to surrender her passport, Maneka Gandhi challenged the government's decision and lack of transparency. 
• Judgment: The right to travel abroad is part of Personal Liberty. The court expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 to cover various rights and emphasized fair, just procedures.

Extent of Right to Life and Personal Liberty 

Discussion: Article 21's scope has broadened over time. Let's delve into the different aspects of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty in detail.

Right to Live with Human Dignity

Importance of Human Dignity

Ensuring the right to live is not just about existence but also about living with dignity and respect.

Occupational Health and Safety

In the case of Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Association of India (2014), the focus was on ensuring the well-being and safety of workers to allow them to live with human dignity.

• Case Background: A non-profit organization sought regulations for occupational health issues in various industries, particularly nuclear power plants, due to health problems faced by workers.

• Court Decision: The court acknowledged the state's responsibility to protect workers from unsafe working conditions and instructed High Courts to address issues in nuclear power plants.

Right to Respect and Personal Autonomy

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Association of India (2018), the concept of human dignity was expanded to include the right to personal autonomy and self-expression.

• Homosexuality Case: The court ruled that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violated fundamental rights by criminalizing consensual sexual acts between LGBT individuals.

• Legal Implications: The judgment made consensual sexual acts between LGBT adults lawful, emphasizing the importance of respecting individual choices.

Comprehensive Understanding of Human Dignity

Human dignity encompasses various rights and freedoms that enable individuals to live without compromising their self-respect, honor, and security.

• Right to Occupation: Individuals should have access to resources to meet their basic needs. The law recognizes that every person, regardless of gender, should have an equal right to employment to fulfill necessities like food, water, shelter, and clothing.

Case Example: Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) - Right to Livelihood

• The case involved residents of ghettos and slums in Bombay who challenged a decision to forcibly evict and demolish their homes, arguing that it infringed upon their right to livelihood, which is part of their fundamental right to life.
• The court ruled in favor of the government's action to evict the residents for using public property for private purposes. However, it recognized the residents' vulnerability and ordered that evictions should occur after the approaching monsoon season. Those who were enumerated before 1976 were eligible for resettlement.
• While the case did not lead to successful resettlement and is sometimes used to justify state-led evictions, it played a role in establishing the Right to Livelihood as part of the Fundamental Right to Life.

Right to Protection

• The Right to Privacy, though fundamental, was not explicitly recognized in the Indian Constitution initially.
• Courts have increasingly emphasized an individual's autonomy over their body, mind, and information.

Case Example: R. Rajagopal v. Province of Tamil Nadu 

• A murder convict wrote an autobiography revealing his relationship with prison authorities. 
• His wife submitted it to a magazine for publishing, but officials interfered. 

Judgment: 

• The court ruled in favor of the convict's right to control his private information, allowing the magazine to publish the autobiography. 
• This case laid the foundation for future decisions on the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.

By analyzing cases like R. Rajagopal v. Province of Tamil Nadu, the judiciary has progressively recognized and reinforced the Right to Privacy as a crucial aspect of an individual's rights. This evolution has underscored the significance of personal autonomy and data protection.

Is Right to Privacy an Absolute Right?

• Overview: The Right to Privacy is considered one of the most crucial rights for individuals, especially in a modern democratic society. However, it is not an absolute and inviolable right. There are situations where reasonable limitations can be imposed on this right in the interest of the public.

Case Study: Mr. X v. Clinic Z (1998) 

• Background: The case involved a party who was diagnosed with HIV without their consent, leading to the cancellation of their planned union with Ms. Y and social ostracization. 
• Legal Action: The individual first approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, claiming a breach of confidentiality by the hospital, but the complaint was dismissed. Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court, arguing that the medical professionals' Duty of Care and his Right to Privacy were violated.
• Court Ruling: The court determined that the individual's Right to Privacy was overridden by Ms. Y's right to know a crucial fact about the person she intended to marry, as it significantly impacted her life. It was also established that a medical professional's duty to maintain confidentiality could be breached in cases where the public interest was at stake.

In the case of Mr. X v. Clinic Z (1998), the Supreme Court emphasized the balance between an individual's Right to Privacy and the broader societal interests. The ruling showcased that while privacy is essential, there are scenarios where it may be superseded by other considerations such as public safety or the rights of others. This case serves as a reminder that the Right to Privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and may be subject to limitations in certain contexts.

Phone Tapping and Right to Privacy

Phone Tapping in the Context of Right to Privacy

• Phone tapping has become a significant concern in today's digital age where personal information is vulnerable.
• In the 1997 case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, the issue of phone tapping was brought to light.

People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997): Case Details

• The case involved a voluntary organization challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
• This section allowed governmental bodies to intercept and record messages in cases of public emergency or in the interest of public safety.

Judgment and Legal Implications

• The court ruled that interception could only be authorized by specific high-level government officials when absolutely necessary and for a limited period, not exceeding six months.
• Copies of intercepted messages should be destroyed when no longer needed to protect privacy rights.
• A Review Committee was mandated to ensure that interceptions were in compliance with the law, with immediate destruction of unauthorized interceptions.

Key Takeaways

• Respecting an individual's right to privacy is crucial in any surveillance activities.
• Proper oversight mechanisms, such as the Review Committee, are essential to prevent abuse of surveillance powers.