Article 21 stands as the bedrock of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. It is one of the most significant and widely interpreted provisions, guaranteeing the most cherished rights of life and personal liberty to every person, citizen or non-citizen alike. Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has expansively interpreted this article, transforming it into a repository of various unenumerated rights essential for living a life of dignity.
Initially interpreted narrowly, the judicial approach towards Article 21 underwent a transformative shift, moving from a formalistic understanding of ‘procedure established by law’ to a more substantive concept akin to ‘due process of law’. This evolution reflects the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual freedoms in a rapidly changing society. Article 21 is not merely a negative right against state interference but also casts positive obligations on the state to create conditions conducive to a dignified life.
Original Text
21. Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Detailed Explanation
Article 21 guarantees two fundamental rights: the right to life and the right to personal liberty. The crucial limiting phrase is “except according to procedure established by law”.
Initially, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation. It held that ‘procedure established by law’ meant procedure enacted by a validly enacted law, even if that law was unjust, arbitrary, or oppressive. The Court distinguished between procedure established by law and ‘due process of law’ as found in the US Constitution, stating that the Indian Constitution explicitly chose the former, which meant the judiciary could only check if the procedure was followed, not if the law itself was fair. This interpretation meant that if a law prescribing a procedure for depriving life or liberty was validly enacted, the deprivation was constitutional, irrespective of the reasonableness or fairness of the procedure.
This restrictive view was significantly departed from in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, overruled the Gopalan case’s interpretation of ‘procedure established by law’. The Court held that the procedure established by law must not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. It must satisfy the test of reasonableness, which is implicitly guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 19. This essentially injected the concept of ‘due process of law’ into Article 21, giving it a much broader scope. The Court held that ’life’ and ‘personal liberty’ are not just mere animal existence but include the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.
The term ’life’ in Article 21 is not restricted to mere physical existence. It encompasses the right to live with human dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to health, the right to clean environment, the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to shelter, the right to food, the right to clean water, the right to reputation, the right to free legal aid, the right against solitary confinement, the right to speedy trial, the right against custodial harassment, the right against public hanging, etc. The Court has continuously expanded the horizon of the ‘right to life’ to include various facets essential for a meaningful existence.
The term ‘personal liberty’ was also given a wider meaning in Maneka Gandhi’s case. It is not confined to mere freedom from physical restraint or incarceration but includes various rights that constitute personal liberty. The Court held that the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is a compendious term that includes all the varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberty of man other than those already included in Article 19.
Article 21 is available to ‘any person’, meaning it applies to citizens as well as foreigners. The right cannot be suspended even during an Emergency (Article 359). It is the most fundamental of fundamental rights.
Detailed Notes
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
- It applies to ‘any person’, including citizens and non-citizens.
- Deprivation of life or personal liberty is only permissible ‘according to procedure established by law’.
- Initial interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): ‘Procedure established by law’ meant strict adherence to validly enacted law, even if the law was unfair (narrow view).
- Landmark shift in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Overruled Gopalan’s interpretation.
- Maneka Gandhi established that the ‘procedure established by law’ must be just, fair, and reasonable, not arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful.
- This effectively introduced the concept of ‘due process of law’ into Article 21.
- The ‘right to life’ is not limited to mere physical or animal existence.
- It includes the right to live with human dignity.
- Various rights have been derived from Article 21 through judicial pronouncements:
- Right to live with human dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981)
- Right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985)
- Right to shelter (Chameli Singh v. State of UP, 1996)
- Right to health (Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989)
- Right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)
- Right to privacy (Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963 initially denied, later affirmed and expanded in Gobind v. State of MP, 1975 and definitively held as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
- Right to education (Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 and Unni Krishnan, JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993; now also explicitly guaranteed by Article 21A)
- Right to free legal aid (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979)
- Right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979)
- Right against solitary confinement (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978)
- Right against custodial violence and death (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1996)
- Right against public hanging (People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1997)
- Right to reputation (R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994)
- Right to marry a person of one’s choice (Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018)
- Right to clean drinking water (Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991)
- Right to sleep (In Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident, 2012)
- The ‘right to personal liberty’ is interpreted broadly to include all rights that constitute personal liberty, except those specifically covered under Article 19.
- Article 21 is not absolute; it is subject to procedure established by law, provided that procedure is just, fair, and reasonable.
- Article 21 cannot be suspended during a National Emergency under Article 359.
- It is considered the heart of fundamental rights, providing dignity and worth to the individual.
Additional Comments
- Article 21 is closely linked with Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 19 (Six freedoms), forming the “golden triangle” of rights. Any law affecting life or liberty must satisfy the tests under all three articles.
- The expansive interpretation by the judiciary has led to the inclusion of many socio-economic rights within the ambit of Article 21, underscoring the idea of a welfare state.
- The state has a positive obligation under Article 21 to take necessary steps to secure these rights for individuals.
Summary
Article 21 guarantees the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty, allowing their deprivation only through a procedure established by law. Initially interpreted narrowly, the judiciary significantly broadened its scope, requiring the procedure established by law to be just, fair, and reasonable, effectively incorporating the concept of due process. The ‘right to life’ is understood as the right to live with human dignity, encompassing a wide array of rights essential for a meaningful existence, including livelihood, health, clean environment, privacy, and education. The ‘right to personal liberty’ is also interpreted broadly beyond mere physical freedom. This article is available to all persons and cannot be suspended during an emergency, making it a cornerstone of fundamental rights in India.