Right of Freedom: Article 21 | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to encompass a wide range of human rights, transforming it from a negative directive to a positive mandate aimed at ensuring a dignified life.
• Article 21 now protects the right to life and personal liberty not only from executive actions but also from legislative actions, ensuring that both citizens and non-citizens are protected under this article.

 Personal Liberty: Meaning and Scope 

• In the case of  A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras  , the Supreme Court interpreted "personal liberty" as narrowly defined, focusing on liberty concerning the individual’s body rather than broader freedoms.
• However, in the case of  Kharak Singh v State of Punjab  , the term "personal liberty" was seen as encompassing all rights related to personal liberty not covered by Article 19(1).
• The Supreme Court, in  Maneka Gandhi case  , emphasized that any law affecting personal liberty must meet the standards of Articles 14 and 19, ensuring the procedure is just, fair, and reasonable.

 Leading Case: Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 

•  Facts:  The Central Government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, citing public interest.
•  Legal Challenges:  Gandhi challenged the legality of the order on grounds of violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
•  Supreme Court Ruling:  The Court held that Article 21 is influenced by Articles 14 and 19, requiring laws affecting personal liberty to meet their standards as well.

 Key Principles Established:

• Personal liberty encompasses a wide range of rights, including the right to socialize and consult a legal advisor.
• The right to live with human dignity includes essential needs like nutrition, clothing, shelter, and the ability to express oneself freely.
• Judicial recognition of the right to live with dignity, influenced by Directive Principles of State Policy, emphasizes humane working conditions and child development.

Implied Fundamental Rights (Under Art. 21)

Judicial Activism and Expansion of Fundamental Rights 

• In the case of  Maneka Gandhi  , Justice Bhagwati emphasized expanding the scope of fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution rather than limiting them.
• This activist approach has transformed rights like  equality (Art. 14)  ,  freedom of speech (Art. 19(1)(a))  , and  right to life (Art. 21)  into positive human rights, urging the government to create conditions for their effective realization.

Fundamental Rights Beyond Specific Articles 

• The Supreme Court ruled that a right can be considered fundamental even if not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
• If a right is integral to a named fundamental right or shares the same basic nature, it can be deemed a fundamental right.
• Activities facilitating the exercise of a named fundamental right may be integral to that right and thus considered fundamental.

Expansion of Rights under Article 21 

• Article 21 has led to the development of various human rights jurisprudence, recognizing several rights as fundamental even if not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
• Examples of rights recognized under Article 21 include:
•  Right to speedy trial  (M.H. Hoskot v State of Maharashtra, Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, Raj Deo Sharma v State of Bihar).
•  Right to travel abroad  (Maneka Gandhi's case).
•  Right to dignity  (Maneka Gandhi, Francis Coralie cases).
•  Right to privacy  (Govind v State of M.P.).
•  Right to clean environment  (M.C. Mehta v Union of India).
•  Right to livelihood  (Olega Tellis case).
•  Right to education  (Mohini Jain and Unni Krishnan cases).
•  Right to marriage  (Lata Singh v State of U.P.).
•  Right against torture  (Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, Jolly Varghese v Bank of Cochin, Khatri v State of Bihar).
•  Right against bondage  (Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, People's Union For Democratic Rights v Union of India, Neeraja Chaudhary v State of M.P).
•  Right to legal aid  (Sheela Barse v Union of India, Suk Das v V.T. of Arun Pradesh).
•  Right to food  (PUCL v UOI).

Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) 

• The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under  Article 19(1)(a)  includes rights such as the right to know, right to information, and right to reply.
• Freedom of the press is inferred from the freedom of speech and expression.

Right to Dignity

Maneka Gandhi Case

• The court ruled that the right to live encompasses not just physical existence but also the right to live with human dignity.

Francis Coralie Case

• It was affirmed that the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity, which involves basic necessities like adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and social interaction.

P.U.D.R. v UOI

• The Supreme Court held that not paying minimum wages to workers in Asiad Projects violated their right to live with basic human dignity under Article 21.
• Rights and benefits under labor laws are meant to ensure basic human dignity for workers. Deprivation of these rights violates Article 21.
• Non-implementation of labor laws by private contractors and non-enforcement by State authorities infringes workers' fundamental right to live with human dignity.

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan

• The Supreme Court addressed the issue of sexual harassment of working women in all workplaces.
• It was determined that sexual harassment violates the fundamental rights of Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• Sexual harassment also infringes upon the victim's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to work in a "safe" environment.
• The court emphasized that gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity, which is a basic human right.
• In the absence of domestic legislation, international conventions consistent with the constitutional spirit can be referenced.
• The court laid down guidelines for employers and responsible persons in workplaces and institutions until suitable legislation is enacted, applicable to both public and private sectors.

Right to Privacy

Kharak Singh v State of U.P

• The court interpreted "life" in Art. 21 as more than mere existence, encompassing all aspects that contribute to a meaningful life.
• Unauthorized police visits to a person's home were deemed a violation of personal liberty.

Govind v State of M.P

• The court upheld police regulations allowing domiciliary visits, stating that the right to privacy would evolve through case-by-case development.

Malak Singh v State of Punjab

• The court emphasized the fundamental right to privacy of citizens.

State of Maharashtra v Madhulkar Narain

• The court affirmed that the right to privacy is available even to individuals of "easy virtue."

Right to Bear a Child

• In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court recognized that a minor girl has the right to bear a child, highlighting that fundamental rights apply equally to minors.
• The court emphasized that the opinion of a parent or guardian is not relevant in cases involving mature and understanding minors.

R. Rajagopal v State of T.N

• The Supreme Court included the right to privacy in Art. 21, allowing citizens to safeguard their privacy regarding personal matters.
• Publication of such matters without consent is a violation of privacy, except for public officials and information on public records.

Mr. 'X' v Hospital 'Z'

• The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for reasons such as crime prevention and public health.
• In this case, the disclosure of the appellant's HIV status was justified to protect his fiancée's health, highlighting the balance between individual privacy and public interest.

Right to Food

• In the case of PUCL v Union of India [2000 (5) SCALE], the Supreme Court recognized the right to food under Article 21.
• People who are starving due to their inability to purchase food grains have the right to receive food free of cost from the States.
• This provision applies to vulnerable groups such as the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women/men, pregnant and lactating women, and destitute children.

Right to Livelihood (Right to Work)

• In the case of Olega Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corpn. (AIR 1986 SC 180), also known as the pavement dwellers' case, the petitioners challenged the validity of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
• The Act empowered municipal authorities to remove huts from pavements and public places.
• The petitioners argued that their removal deprived them of their right to livelihood, violating Article 21.
• The court held that the term "life" in Article 21 includes the right to livelihood.
• Depriving someone of their means of livelihood would be an easy way to take away their right to life.
• However, the court stated that the right to livelihood can be restricted through just and fair procedures.
• The restrictions on the livelihood of slum dwellers were deemed reasonable in the interest of the general public.
• Public streets are not intended for carrying on trade or business.

Right to Shelter

• In the case of Chameli Singh v State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549, the Supreme Court held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21.
• The Court emphasized that the right to live in any civilized society includes the right to food, water, a decent environment, education, medical care, and shelter.
• These are considered basic human rights known to any civilized society.

Right to Legal Aid

• Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that no person arrested shall be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
• Additionally, the State is constitutionally obligated (as implied in Article 21) to provide free legal aid to indigent or poor individuals (detainees or accused persons).
• The right of an arrested person to have a counsel of their choice is fundamental and essential for a fair trial.
• In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to free legal services is a crucial component of 'reasonable, fair, and just' procedure for an accused individual and is implicit in the guarantee of Article 21.

Right to Clean Environment

• In recent times, the Indian judiciary has expanded the concepts of 'right to life' and 'procedure established by law' in Article 21.
• The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty to include the right to a wholesome environment.
• High Courts in states like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala have also noted that environmental degradation violates the fundamental right to life.
• In the Ganga Pollution (Tanneries) Case (AIR 1988 SC 1037), Justice Singh justified the closure of polluting tanneries by prioritizing life, health, and ecology over unemployment and revenue loss.
• In the Shriram Gas Leak Case (AIR 1987 SC 1086), the court established the principle of absolute liability for compensation, linking it to the right to live and the remedy under Article 32 for fundamental rights violations.
• The court asserted that the State could restrict hazardous industrial activities to protect people's right to a healthy environment.
• The right to live includes the right to claim compensation for victims of pollution hazards.
• While the Supreme Court was initially hesitant to explicitly confer a right to a clean and humane environment under Article 21, various High Courts declared that the right to environment is part of the right to life concept in Article 21.
• High Courts were more specific in including the right to environment within the right to life.

Right to Education [Art. 21 A]

• The Constitution 86th Amendment Act, 2002 introduced Article 21-A, mandating the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years.
• This right imposes a duty on the State to ensure education for children within the specified age group.
• To implement this right, the State will enact appropriate laws, as education is a concurrent subject.
• In the case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858), the Supreme Court recognized the 'right to education' as a constitutional mandate.
• The Court emphasized that the State is obligated to provide education at all levels, including professional education.
• In Unni Krishnan v State of A.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2178), the Supreme Court ruled that admission to recognized private educational institutions, particularly in professional courses, should be based on merit.
• The Court aimed to address the financial burden on affluent students while ensuring access for poor meritorious students.
• The Court highlighted the importance of education for individual dignity and emphasized that education should not be treated as a commodity for sale.