“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty.
This right has been held to be the core of the Constitution and is the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.
Article 21 shelters two rights:
- Right to life.
- Right to personal liberty.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It has a much broader meaning which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc.
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[i], the Supreme Court quoted and held that:
By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.
Out of the 6 fundamental rights provided to Indian citizens, The Right to Life and Personal Liberty has been considered one of the rights which enables the citizens to live a life which is free and without interference. Although, this right was not interpreted to the fullest but with judicial developments the ambit of this right has amplified and still on the path of intensification.
This right of the Constitution provided to the citizens of India is not only considered to be a fundamental right but a right by virtue of being human enabling citizens to go through their life which is different from mere animal existence.
The words ‘personal liberty’ was first came up for contemplation in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
Interpretation of the Court: The Supreme Court illuminated the meaning and scope of ‘personal liberty’ with a very literal and narrow view. The term ‘liberty’ has a very wide meaning but when it is qualified by the word ‘personal’, the spectrum of the concept of liberty diminishes therefore, it does not include all that which is implied in the term ‘liberty’.
The Supreme Court held that personal liberty includes nothing more than physical freedom of body i.e. freedom from arrest and detention from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement.
The SC also interpreted the word ‘law’ as ‘state made law’ and rejected the contention of the petitioner. Fazal Ali J., however, held a demurring view and gave a broad and comprehensive meaning to the words ‘personal liberty’ as consisting of freedom of movement.
From time to time The Supreme Court of India has added Vruous dimensions to Article 21. Following is the list of these:-
- AK Gopalan V State of Madras : procedure established by law
- Right to have fair procedure- Maneka Gandhi V UOI
- Right to legal Aid- Hussainara v Home Sec , Bihar
- Right to Public Trial- Vineet Narain V UOI
- Right to go abroad- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- Right to privacy- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P
- Right against solitary confinement Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
- Right against hand cuffing Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration
- Right to Medical Care- Parmananda Katara v. Union of India
- Right to Health- Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India
- Right to Social Security and Protection of Family- L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre
- Right to Shelter- Chameli Singh v. State of U.P
- Right To Livelihood- D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
- Right to Reputation- D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis
- Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace- Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
- Right To Live with Human Dignity- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi
- Right against Bar Fetters- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration-
- Right to Write a Book- State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang
- Right against Delayed Execution: Sher Singh v. State of Punjab
- Right against Public Hanging : Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi
- Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21- Deena v. Union of India
- Right to Bail.- Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Right to Fair Trial- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
- Right to Speedy Trial- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar.
- Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal- M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
- Right against Illegal Detention- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases- Mr. X v. Hospital Z
- Tapping of Telephone- PUCL v. Union of India
- Right Against Noise Pollution- In Re: Noise Pollution
- Murli S. Deora v. Union of India- smoking in public place
- Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air- Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar.
- Euthanasia and Right to Life- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
- Right to Work- Olga tells v BMC
- Right to Marriage- Mr. X vs. Hospital Z
- Right to Food- PUCL v UOI
- Right to Legal Aid- Sheela Barse v UOI
- Right to Education- Mohini jain v state of karnatka
- Right to have clean Environment- MC Mehta v UOI
- Right to have shelter- chameli v state
- Right to receive compensation – Rudal Shah v state of Bihar.
If you have any query related to gender biased laws join Sahodar Whatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498