LAW RELATING TO LIFE AND

PERSONAL LIBERTY IN INDIA : A

CRITICAL STUDY
A
Dissertation
Submitted to the
Kurukshetra university, Kurukshetra
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
Award of the degree
Of

MASTER OF LAWS
Supervisor : Submitted by :
Prof. Rajpal Sharma Ajay Kumar
Dean, LL.M. (Final)
Faculty of Law, D.D.E Ref. No. 2567
Director,
Institute of Law,
Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra

DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY,
KURUKSHETRA
2017
 Dean,
Faculty of Law,
Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra- 136119
Director,
Prof. (Dr.) Rajpal Sharma Institute of Law,
Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra- 136119

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ajay Kumar has worked under my supervision for his

LL.M dissertation entitled “Law Relating to Life and Personal Liberty in India : A

Critical Study”. The dissertation is fit for submission in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the degree of Master of Law.

Prof. (Dr.) Rajpal Sharma

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No research work can be accomplished without the adequate guidance, through

ordination, required analysis and proper supervision. It takes the necessary heed and
inspiration of not only researcher but of the other who contribute for the compilation and
completion of the research work of modifying the way we perceive the things and change the
mode to access, evaluate and analysis the literature.
Above all, I would like to thank God, it’s all his grace that this dissertation has seen
the light of the day. My sincere thanks to esteemed supervisor, Prof. RajPal Sharma, Dean
and Director, Faculty of Law and Institute of Law, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
It is my proud privilege to be guided by him. This work is an outcome of unparalleled
infrastructural support that I received from Dr. Sudhir Kumar Vats, Assistant Professor of
Law, Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. His
intellectual thinking, enthusiastic attitude and round the clock help towards research is a
source of encouragement for researchers.

I find this opportunity to thank the library staff of Indian Law Institute, New Delhi;
Department of Law, Chandigarh; Department of Law, Delhi University Delhi; and library
staff of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

Finally, but not the least I explicitly give all credit to my mother Smt. Sarswati Devi
wife Smt. Anjana Kumari, Rahul Kumar and other family members for moral courage,
loving care, understanding and indispensable support to bring this task to its completion.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my friends Shri Harbans Singh, Mr.
Rajesh Saini, Avani Malik and Gaurav Singh Tomar as they have helped me all along. My
sincere thanks are also due to all those authors, critics and writers whose scholarly works I
have consulted during the research work. I have taken utmost care to acknowledge the
sources used in present work in footnotes and bibliography, anything missing due to an
oversight are, however, deeply regretted.

(Ajay Kumar)
 TABLE OF CASES

.A.

A.A. Mulla v State of Maharashtra, AIR, SC 1441.

A.D.M. Jabalpur v Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976.

A.K. Goplan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

Ambika Prasad v. State of U.P AIR 1980 SC 1762.

Ashok Kumar Gupta v State of U.P (1997) 5 SCC 201.

Ahamdabad Municipal Corp. v Nawab Khan, AIR 1997 SC 268.

.B.

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.

Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.

Baseswara Nath v CIT, 1959 (1) SCR 528.

Bapi Raju v State of A.P., AIR 1983 SC 1073.

Babu Singh v State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527, 531.

.C.

Chameli Singh v State of U.P AIR 1971 SC 1367.

Charankit Kaur v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1491.

Chawla v State of Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 579.

Cheena Jagdeeswara v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 Cri.LJ. 549

Cheetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 2060.

Consumer Education and Research Centre v Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 938.

Court on its Motion v Yogesh Kumar, Registered as Crl. Revision 230 of 1985.
.D.

D.B.M Patnaik v State of A.P AIR 1974 SC 2092.

D.K. Basu v State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610.. 90,97,153,238.

Daya Singh v Union of India, AIR 1991 Sc 1548.

Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795.

.F.

F.B Tara[prawala v Bayer India Ltd, AIR 1997 SC 1846.

Frances Coralie v Union Territory, AIR 1981 SC 746.

Francis v Union Territory, of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 764.

.G.

Gaurav Jain v Union of India, AIR 1990 Kant 2.

Ghulam Sarwar v Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021.

Goplan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27,54,55,56,57,58.

Govind v State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1378.

.H.

Hamid Khan v State, AIR 1997 M.P. 191

Husainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1065.

.I.

Inderjit Barua v Assam, AIR 1983 Del 513.

.K.

Kharak Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1295.

Khatoon v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd v E.S.I. Corp, AIR 1996 SC 3260.

Kubic Darusz v Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 568.

Kartar singh v State of Punjab, (1994) Cr.LJ, 3139 (S.C).

Kehar Singh v State of Delhi. AIR 1989 SC 653

Kesav Talapade v Emperor, F.L.J 28.

K.C Malhotra v State, AIR 1994 M.P. 48.

.L.

L.K. Koolwal v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj.2.

Liversidge v Anderson 1942 A.C 206, 260

.M.

M.C Mehta v Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1036.

Maharashtra v Champalal, AIR SC 1675.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) SCC 249.

Maruti Sripati Dubal v State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cri LJ. 743.

Minerva Mills v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.

Munn v Illinois, 94 US 113 (1877).

.O.

Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

.Q.

Qamar Sultana v Commr., Municipal Corp, of Hyderabad AIR 1995

A.P. 230

.R.
Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P AIR 1979 SC 916.

Ramesh v Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775.

Ram Singh v State of Delhi, AIR 1951 SC 270.

R. Rajgoal v State of Tamil Nadu., AIR 1995 SC 264.

Rs Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932.

P.U.C.L v Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.

R.C. Cooper v Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 648.

.S.

Shantisar v Narayana, AIR 1990 SC 630.

Smt. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648.

State of H.P v Umed Ram, AIR 1986 SC 847.

State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali.

State v Sanjay Kumar, 1985 Cri.L.j 931.

Subash v State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.

Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579.

Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR(1978) 4 SCC 494.

.T.

T. Damodhar Rao v S.O Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR

1987 AP 174.

Tabassum Sultana v State of U.P AIR 1997 All. 177.

.U.

Unnikrishnan v State of A.P AIR 1993 SC 2178.

Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 273.

Upendra Baxi v State of U.P 1981 3 Scale 1137.

Upendra Baxi v State of U.P AIR 1987 SC 191.

.V.

Vincent v Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 994.

Virender Gaur v State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 576.

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

.W.

Walton v Arizona, 110 S. Ct.3047 (1990)

Wyatt v Wilson. (1820) 1 H.& T.25.

.Y.

Yarkey Jseph v State of Kerala, AIR 1993 SC 1892.

.Z.

Zele Singh v State of Haryana, AIR 1992 P.& H. 229.

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujrat.

CONTENTS
 • SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• CONTENTS
• LIST OF CASES

Pages

CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION 1 - 23
1.1 Meaning And Concept Of Personal Liberty
1.2 Procedure Established By Law
1.3 Changes In Criminal Justice System After Maneka Gandhi’s Case
1.4 Extended View Of Personal Liberty
1.5 Relation Of Article 21 With Other Constitutional Provisions
1.6 Article 32 Of The Indian Constitution: A Provision To Enforce Article 21
1.7 Historical Background Of The Right To Life And Personal Liberty
1.8 A Tale Of Two Judgments
1.9 A New Begining Of The Right To Life And Liberty – Maneka Gandhi Case
1.10 Does Right To Life Give You The Right To Die?
1.11 A Series Of Right To Be Forgotten Cases In Courts Highlight How India Doesn’t
Have A Privacy Law
1.12 Quotations
1.13 Aims & Objectives Of Research
1.14 Hypothesis
1.15 Methodology
1.16 Research Methodology
1.17 Research Design
1.18 Research Questions
1.19 Research Tools Applied
1.20 Scope of The Study

CHAPTER – II THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND ARTICLE 21

2.1 The Constitutional Perspectives and Article 21
2.2 Directive Principles of State Policy
 2.3 Article 21 and Directive Principles of the State Policy
2.4 Article 32: A Provision to Enforce Article 21

CHAPTER- III COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIGHT TO THE LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
3.1 Law
3.2 Constitutional England

CHAPTER – IV RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY : EXPANDING HORIZONS

4.1 Right to Life

4.1.1 Right To Live with Human Dignity

4.1.2 Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

4.1.3 Right Against Rape

4.1.4 Right to Reputation

4.1.5 Right to Livelihood

4.1.6 Right to Shelter

4.1.7 Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

4.1.8 Right against Honour Killing

4.1.9 Right to Health

4.1.10 Right to Medical Care

4.1.11 No Right to die

4.1.12 Euthanasia and Right to Life

4.1.13 Sentence of death –Rarest of rare cases

4.1.4 Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

4.1.1 5 Right to Clean Environment

4.1.16 Right Against Noise Pollution

4.1.17 Right to Know or Right to Be Informed

4.2 PERSONAL LIBERTY

4.2.1 Right to Privacy

4.2.2 Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

 4.2.3 Right to privacy and subjecting a person to medical tests

4.2.4 Right to Privacy-Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

4.2.5 Right to go abroad

4.2.6 Right against Illegal Detention

4.2.7 Article 21 & Prisoner’s Rights

4.2.8 Right to Speedy Trial

4.2.9 Right to Fair Trial

4.2.10 Right to Bail

4.2.11 No right to Anticipatory Bail

4.2.12 Right against Handcuffing

4.2.13 Right against Solitary Confinement

4.2.14 Right against Custodial Violence

4.2.15 Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21

4.2.16 Right against Public Hanging

4.2.17 Right against Delayed Execution

4.2.18 Right to Write a Book

4.2.19 Right against Bar Fetters

4.3 PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

4.4 ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION

In the advent of delving into what has unfurled into one of the most controversial issue that
could have tremendous ramifications on basic ethical concepts and most importantly, the sanctity of
life…The precious words of Thomas Jefferson strike a chord… “The care of human life and happiness
and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good governance.”

A right to life is a right to have or strive for whatever one needs to live, provided that having
it does not violate rights of other beings. Article 21 of the Constitution says- “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” These
eighteen words guarantee us the right to live, meaning no one can injure us and get away with it;
meaning we cannot be illegally deprived of our personal liberty. This means that a person’s life and
personal liberty can only be disputed if that person has committed a crime. However, the right to life
does not include the right to die, and hence, suicide or an attempt thereof, is an offence.

The origin of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 can be traced by the analysis of
various international human right instruments and legal documents. The concept of life has emerged
from the times of Adam and Eve and has constantly evolved since ages. The right of life is an
inherent and inalienable right bestowed on very human being by all the powerful God himself.
Similarly, various countries have incorporated this all powerful right in their legal documents to give
it a legal force.

1.1 MEANING AND CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO LIFE

The next important ingredient of Article 21 is the expression ‘Life’. Right to life under Article
21 is something more than mere survival or animal existence. It is something more than mere
breathing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory that right
to life would include the right to live with human dignity. Thus while interpreting the expression
‘Right to live with Human Dignity’ one must not lose sight of the other face. For instance, the Right
to live with human dignity will not include a right under a settlement to claim bonus or DA, aright of
wife not to be subjected to a decree in restitution of conjugal rights, a right not to be subjected to
death penalty or conviction for an offence under criminal law.

1.2 MEANING AND CONCEPT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

The next important ingredient of Article 21 is the expression ‘Personal Liberty’. When the
Constitution was being framed, the word used in the draft Constitution as prepared even up to the
stage of Advisory Committee was “liberty” without being qualified the word “liberty” by “personal”
being of the view that otherwise “liberty” might be construed very widely so as to include freedom
already dealt under article 19. The result is that article 21 as it finally found place in our Constitution
protects “personal liberty”. Expansion of Article 21 has led to many of the directive principles being
enforced as fundamental rights. On account of this expanded interpretation, now the right to
pollution free water and air, right to food clothing, environment, protection of cultural heritage,
Right to every child to a full development, Right of persons residing in hilly areas to have access to
roads and Right to education (Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka) have all found their way into Article
21.

1.3 PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

A reading of Article 21 would go to show that a person may be deprived of his life or
personal liberty only in accordance with the procedure established by law. In other words,those who
are called upon to deprive other person’s of their personal liberty will have to observe the forms and
rules of the law strictly and scrupulously. The word ‘Law’ has been used here to mean state made or
enacted law and not as an equivalent of law in the abstract or general sense. Therefore, the
expression ‘Procedure established by law’ means prescribed by law of the State. The parliament has
power to change the procedure by enacting a law by amending it and when the procedure is so
changed it becomes the procedure established by law.

1.4 CHANGES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AFTER MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE

The criminal justice system in India beginning with the year of 1978, marched towards new
dimension when the Apex Court held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , that the procedure
established by law contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness. Procedure
must be “right,just and fair” and not arbitrary or oppressive. Article 21 forbids deprivation of
personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and curtailment of
personal liberty to such an extent as to be a negation of it would constitute deprivation.
Administration of criminal justice is a state matter. Fortunately by reinterpreting Article 21 in
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, and by giving up the sterile approach in A.K. Gopalan v. state of madras , the
supreme court has found a potent tool to seek to improve matters, and to fill the vacuum arising
from governmental inaction and apathy to undertake reform in the area of criminal justice. The
court has now been seeking to humanize and liberalize the administration of criminal justice.

1.5 EXTENDED VIEW OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

 A very fascinating development in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence is the extended
dimension given to Article 21 by the supreme court in the post Maneka era. The Supreme Court has
asserted that in order to treat a right as a Fundamental Right, it is not necessary that it should be
expressly stated in the constitution as a Fundamental Right. Political, social and economic changesin
the country entail the recognition of new rights.

1.6 RELATION OF ARTICLE 21 WITH OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Inter-relation between Article 14, 19, and 21 : OLD VIEW : In A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras, the supreme court held that Article 19 has no application to laws depriving a person of his
life and personal liberty enacted under Article 21 of the constitution. It was held that Articles 19 and
21 dealt with different subjects. Article 19 deals only with certain (six freedoms)important individual
rights of personal liberty and the restrictions imposed on them. Article 21, on the other hand,
enables the state to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty in accordance with procedure
established by law. Thus the view taken by the majority in A.K. Gopalan’s case was that so long as a
law of preventive detention satisfies the requirements of Article 22, it would not be required to
meet the challenges of Article 19.

PRESENT VIEW : In Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, the supreme court has overruled its earlier decision and
held that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19, that is, it must satisfy the requirements of Article 19
also. The court observed : “ the law must therefore now be settled that Article 21 do not exclude
Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of his
personal liberty, and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by
Art.21 such a law in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Art.19 would
have to meet the challenges of that Article(Art.19). Thus a law depriving a person of his ‘personal
liberty’ has not only to stand the test of Art 21 but also of Article 14 and 19 of the constitution”.(
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI ; R.C.Cooper v.UOI).

1.7 ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: A PROVISION TO ENFORCE ARTICLE 21

The most unique feature of the Indian constitution is Article 32 (remedies for enforcement
of rights conferred by this part). It is a fundamental right guaranteed to citizens of India under Part III
of the constitution. The provision states that : 1. The right to move to the supreme court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the constitution. 2.
The supreme court shall have the power to issue directions, orders or writs whichever may be
appropriate for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part. In the constituent
assembly debate Dr. Ambedkar once said, “if iam asked which is the most important provision of the
Indian constitution, without which the constitution would not survive, I would point to none other
than Article 32 which is the soul of the Indian constitution”.

1.8 Historical background of the right to life and personal liberty

Human constant throughout human history is a concept that has been developed.
Throughout the ages the complex laws, customs and religions deal. Individual rights are references
to the codification of the law is the first example of a tablet of Hammurabi.

About 4000 years ago, Sumerian tablet was built by King Hammurabi. Considered barbaric
by today's standards, the 282 system of laws created a precedent for the legal system. This kind of
precedent and legally binding document that protects people from arbitrary harassment and
punishment. The concept of human rights, prevention of arbitrary persecution began to take greater
meaning than the one where it was in ancient Greece. Human rights, rights that have become
synonymous with natural rights spring from the natural law. Socrates and Plato, according to Greek
tradition, natural law is essentially the natural order of the universe, nature reflects the will of the
gods who control the law. Despite this theory, human rights, natural rights are fundamental
differences between today and the past.

The fundamental philosophy of human rights arose from the idea of positive law. Thomas
Hobbes, (1588-1679) vast differences of interpretation as being too vague and open hollow, and saw
the natural law. So instead of being wholly positive human rights law, they can be taken away, and
modified by a society to suit your needs. Jeremy Bentham, a legal positivist sums up the essence of
the positivist view: From real laws come real rights, but from imaginary laws, from the "laws of
nature," come imaginary rights . Natural rights is simple nonsense, is a child of law.

Dwelling in a body and life and liberty have existed in ancient times, the evidence to support
that approach. Rigveda, ancient texts like the Mahabharata, home life and the principle of individual
liberty deeply rooted in ancient Indian society are full of literature to that conclusion.

The British Era

. The West Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, in the interest of peace and

security of the people of the detention of any person authorized by. At that time people had the
same rights and privileges enjoyed by the British wanted. Indian people wish it was implicit in the
formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885. Heralds the dawn of the fundamental rights of
the Indian national movement. Demand for Fundamental Rights Bill, India, between 1917 and 1919,
Congress adopted a series of resolutions 1895 and also appeared in the Constitution.
 With regard to the fundamental right to life and liberty Nehru Report a systematic approach,
started with 1928. This, says among other things, contained a chapter on fundamental rights: No
person will be entering your home or property shall not be deprived of his liberty, sequestered or
confiscated, save in accordance with law.

Over the people of India demand was rejected by the British Government of India Act, 1935
contained no declaration of fundamental freedoms. The protection from unlawful arrest and
detention Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 is available under the writ of habeas corpus that can be
mentioned here.

1.9 A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS1

In 1947, Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court advised one of the chief
architects of India’s Constitution, Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, to delete the words “due process of law”
from the text of India’s draft Constitution. However, two recent cases, one decided by the Supreme
Court and the other by the Bombay High Court, tell a very interesting, yet conflicted, story about the
incorporation of the U.S. doctrine of substantive due process in Indian constitutional law.

The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide that a person cannot be
deprived of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law”. Only a few decades before the
meeting between Frankfurter and Rau took place, the U.S. Supreme Court had used the “due
process clause” in the 14th amendment to invalidate social welfare legislation. This phase in
American constitutional history is often described as the “Lochner era”, named after the dreaded
case of Lochner v. New York (1905) in which the Supreme Court invalidated a New York law which
prohibited confectionary establishments from employing workers for more than 60 hours per week.
The Lochner era is said to have come to an end around 1937, starting with the decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish(1937), when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
threatened to “pack” the Supreme Court with favourable justices in order to ensure the survival of
his ambitious “New Deal” legislation.

Rau and Ambedkar

Even though the Lochner era had come to an end around a decade prior to the meeting
between Frankfurter and Rau, Frankfurter believed that the words “due process of law” imposed an
“undue burden” on the judiciary and that they should be deleted from the draft Indian Constitution.

Even prior to his meeting with Frankfurter, Rau (who was the Constitutional Adviser to the

1
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-tale-of-two-judgments/article8586369.ece
Constituent Assembly) was having serious misgivings about the due process clause. His meeting with
Frankfurter was the final nail in the due process coffin for the Indian Constitution. In March 1947, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar, a product of Columbia Law School himself, had drafted a provision for the Indian
Constitution which was very similar, if not identical, to the due process clause of the 14th
amendment. It read: “… Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty and property without
due process of law.” After Rau’s meeting with Frankfurter, Ambedkar’s clause was substantially
altered. Property was altogether deleted from this clause, to make way for the extensive land
reforms which were being contemplated in the Constituent Assembly. “Liberty” was qualified with
the word “personal”, so as to limit its meaning. And the words “due process of law” were replaced
with the words “procedure established by law”. Thus, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution now
reads: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”

In the early decades, the Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 21 faithfully to the
intent of the framers of India’s Constitution. However, beginning in the 1970s, an activist Supreme
Court started incorporating the U.S. constitutional doctrines of “procedural due process” and
“substantive due process” in India. Though Article 21 formally provides that a person’s life and
personal liberty can be deprived so long as there is merely a “procedure established by law” (that is,
a validly enacted law), the doctrine of procedural due process mandates that this procedural law
must be “fair, just and reasonable”. The doctrine of substantive due process enables a court to
question not merely procedural laws, but the substantive value choices of the legislative branch of
government as well.

In a recent case, Rajbala v. Haryana (2015), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India
strongly rejected the doctrine of substantive due process in India. In this case, the constitutional
validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 was in question. Under the Act, five
categories of persons were considered ineligible to contest elections for certain offices in panchayats
in Haryana (for example, those against whom criminal charges of a certain kind were framed, those
who had not paid their electricity dues, those who did not have specified educational qualifications,
those who did not have a functional toilet in their homes, etc). The Act was challenged on the
ground that it was “wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution”. Though the Supreme Court rightly held that a statute cannot be invalidated merely
because it is “arbitrary”, it also went on to reject the U.S. doctrine of substantive due process by
holding that Indian courts “do not examine the wisdom of legislative choices unless the legislation is
otherwise violative of some specific provision of the Constitution”, as “to undertake such an
examination would amount to virtually importing the doctrine of ‘substantive due process’
employed by the American Supreme Court”, and under the Indian Constitution “the test of due
process of law cannot be applied to statutes enacted by Parliament or the State Legislatures”.

The Rajbala decision is particularly interesting because earlier Benches of the Supreme
Court, in cases like Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) and Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), have
repeatedly held that substantive due process and due process generally are a part of Indian
constitutional law under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Beef in Maharashtra

Thereafter, in Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. State of Maharashtra, decided on May 6, 2016, a

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was dealing with the constitutional validity of the
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act, 1995, which received the assent of the President of India on March 4, 2015
(hereinafter, the “Beef Act”). Among other provisions which were challenged, Section 5-D of the
Beef Act made it a criminal offence to have in one’s possession, in the state of Maharashtra, the
flesh of a cow, bull or bullock slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra. The question was
whether this provision violated the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 5-D
was struck down by the court. It was held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the right to eat the food of one’s choice, if the food itself is
not injurious to health, is a part of the right to privacy. By declaring that the right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution includes the right to privacy, the Bombay High Court was, in essence,
circumventing the intent of the framers of India’s Constitution (who had deliberately qualified the
broad word “liberty” with the word “personal”). Recognising an unenumerated right like privacy is
an example of substantive due process.

Section 9-B of the Beef Act cast the burden of proof on the accused in some cases. The court
was examining its constitutional validity. This was a procedural due process inquiry, as the provision
reversed a well-known procedural rule of evidence in criminal trials, that is, the burden of proof is on
the prosecution. Section 9-B was also struck down by the court. It was held that the “right of life and
liberty under Article 21… clearly covers the [substantive] due process aspect envisaged in the
American jurisprudence.”

Thus, interestingly, while the Supreme Court of India in the Rajbala case has strongly
rejected the doctrine of substantive due process, the Bombay High Court has, following earlier
Supreme Court pronouncements, applied and reiterated the doctrine in Indian constitutional law.

1.10 A NEW BEGINING OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY – MANEKA GANDHI CASE

A great transformation in the judicial attitude towards the safeguard of personal liberty has
been noticed after the horrible experiences of the infamous 1975 national emergency. The judicial
pronouncement before the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978) were not satisfactory in
providing adequate protection to the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ guaranteed under Article 21
of the constitution of India . Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) is a landmark
judgment and played the most significant role towards the transformation of the judicial view on
Article 21 of the constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from Article 21.

The factual summary of Maneka Gandhi case is as follows;

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The
regional passport officer , New Delhi issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi , in
which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c ) of the Act in public interest,
within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to
the Regional passport officer New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for
such order. However the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any
such reason in the interest of general public.

Maneka Gandhi then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution in the Supreme
Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.

The main issues before the court in this case were as follows;

– Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

– Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before

depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said Article.

– Whether section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14, 19(1) (a) and 21 of the
constitution.

– Whether the impugned order of the regional passport officer is in contravention of the
principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court in this case reiterated the proposition that the fundamental rights under
the constitution of India are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated. According to Justice K. Iyer,
‘a fundamental right is not an island in itself’. The expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 was
interpreted broadly to engulf a variety of rights within itself. The court further observed that the
fundamental rights should be interpreted in such a manner so as to expand its reach and ambit
rather than to concentrate its meaning and content by judicial construction. Article 21 provides that
no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure
established by law but that does not mean that a mere semblance of procedure provided by law will
satisfy the Article , the procedure should be just , fair and reasonable. The principles of natural
justice are implicit in Article 21 and hence the statutory law must not condemn anyone unheard. A
reasonable opportunity of defense or hearing should be given to the person before affecting him,
and in the absence of which the law will be an arbitrary one.

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections
between Article 14, 19 and 21. Thus a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of
“personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Article 14 and 19 also. Moreover the ‘procedure
established by law’ as required under Article 21 must satisfy the test of reasonableness in order to
conform with Article 14.

Justice Krishna Iyer in this case observed that, “the spirit of man is at the root of Article 21”,
“personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person” and “travel makes liberty worthwhile”.

The court finally held that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the
right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is not
violative of Article 21 as it is implied in the provision that the principles of natural justice would be
applicable in the exercise of the power of impounding a passport . The defect of the order was
removed and the order was passed in accordance with procedure established by law.

The hon’ble Supreme Court in this case laid down a number of other propositions which
made ‘the right to life’ or ‘personal liberty’ more meaningful. Maneka Gandhi case has a great
significance in the development of Constitutional law of India.

1.11 DOES RIGHT TO LIFE GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DIE?2

Some time back, a 24-year-old resident of Delhi committed suicide by hanging herself. She
had been married for barely a year and had a month-old baby Her in-laws were arrested for
harassing her for dowry. But had the victim survived, along with her in-laws, she too would have
faced a prison term and perhaps, even a fine. In the eyes of the law, she would have been a criminal
for attempting suicide. That's what Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) says.

2
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/does-right-to-life-give-you-the-right-to-die/story-
U7KKH3jp9gXfjk78p1LPaO.html
 Soon, such victims of circumstances may no longer have to deal with the police along with
their trauma. A central government committee, set up to draft the National Policy on Criminal
Justice, is recommending decriminalisation of attempt to suicide in its report to be submitted to the
Union Home Ministry.

Committee chairman Prof NR Madhava Menon says they are recommending re-classification
of marginal offences into four categories: social welfare offences, which will include attempt to
suicide, civil offences, correctional offences and economic offences. However, the final decision will
rest with the government, Prof Menon adds.

Victims or criminals?

Every year, one lakh Indians commit suicide; 10 times that number make an attempt to end
their lives, but survive. A majority of these people suffer from psychiatric or psychological disorders,
says Dr Nimesh G Desai, head of psychiatry and medical superintendent at the Institute of Human
Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Delhi. Others are pushed to the brink in the face of extreme social,
economic, emotional and even political circumstances, he says. In the eyes of the law, they are all
criminals, fit to be punished under Section 309 of the IPC.

In the early 70s, there was a countrywide debate over this issue following which the Law
Commission recommended that Section 309 be repealed. It wasn't. Thirty years later: India figures
anume tlw only five nations in the world where attempt to suickle is still a criminal offence. The
others are Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Bangladesh.

Four years ago, Sri Lanka also repealed the law that bracketed suicide with other crimes.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has also strongly recommended decriminalisation
of attempt to suicide.

"Nine out of ten suicideseekers suffer from a diagnosed psychiatric disorder and thereby
need more sensitive handling," says Dr P Sithole, professor and head of psychiatry, King George's
Medical College, Lucknow.

Suicide law: a deterrent?

The argument in favour of the law against suicide is that it is a deterrent. But like many
others, Dr Lakshmi Vijayakumal member of WHO's International Network for Suicide Research and
Prevention, doesn't buy this argument.

"If the purpose of the law was to prevent suicides by legal methods, it has been counter-
productive," says Chennai-based Dr Vijayakumar - the first Indian to be invited to the Collegiums of
International Academy of Suicide Research.

"Besides underreporting of the cases, emergency care to those who have attempted suicide
is denied because many hospitals and practitioners hesitate to provide the necessary treatment due
to legal hassles," adds Dr Vijayakumar.

She recalls the case of a woman who was brought to a hospital after she consumed poison
and was given a stomach wash. The hospital decided to keep her under observation for a day
Because it was a medico-legal case, the police soon arrived on the scene. The family panicked and
left with the woman, who later died at home.

1.12 A SERIES OF RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN CASES IN COURTS HIGHLIGHT HOW INDIA DOESN’T
HAVE A PRIVACY LAW

Two years ago, X was involved in a criminal complaint filed by his wife and her mother. They
resolved their differences later and now live amicably with their minor child. The criminal case
against X has been withdrawn. However, the court order pertaining to the criminal case pops up
each time X enters his name during an internet search.

X, a bank employee in Dubai, has now filed a writ in the Delhi High Court seeking the right to
be forgotten. The petitioner has sought that his name be delinked or removed from Google’s search
index so that it does not appear along with “irrelevant and obsolete” and harmful data about him.

The respondents in his petition are the Union government, Google and indiankanoon.org, a
search engine for Indian law, which uploaded the legal order. The case is still pending in court.

Right to be forgotten

Going by the spate of recent writs and orders in courts in India, the right to be forgotten
seems to be catching on. Originating from another legal term, the right to oblivion (known in French
as le droit a l’oubli), a person exercising this right can knock on legal doors to request that their
personal data or information be removed from online resources. The right to be forgotten has to do
with taking control of one’s personal information online – the right to stub out irrelevant data after a
certain period of time and start over afresh.

Made popular by the European Court of Justice in 2014 in the Google Spain vs Mario Costeja
Gonzalez case – in which the court ruled that European citizens had the right to request commercial
search firms such as Google to take down links to private information that were no longer relevant –
the right to be forgotten has emerged as a new legal tool in the internet age and is an “evolving law”
in India, say lawyers.

“There is a lot of unfiltered information on the internet which affects a person’s right to
privacy, which is read into right to life and liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution,” said Rohit
Madan, X’s counsel. Madan added that his client did not seek to destroy court records but sought to
delink irrelevant information on him on the internet. Madan added that Google did not respond to
their requests to take down the irrelevant information.

Recent cases

Last month, Justice Anand Byrareddy of the Karnataka High Court quietly delivered a
landmark judgement in which he ruled that a woman whose name featured in a criminal complaint
order filed during a marital dispute had the right to be forgotten.

The woman’s father, the petitioner, argued that an earlier court order, which revealed his
daughter’s name in the case title and elsewhere, could lead to friction with her husband with whom
she had since reconciled.

The judge directed the court registry to ensure that: “any internet search made in the public
domain ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the cause-title of the order or in the
body of the order in the criminal petition”.

Justice Byrareddy, however, affirmed that the woman’s name would not be removed from
the order in the High Court website.

Similarly, last month again, Justice Shaji P Chaly of the Kerala High Court passed an interim
order asking indiankanoon.org to remove the name and personal information of a rape victim from
Kerala High Court judgements regarding her case, which the site had uploaded. The woman wanted
the “materials disclosing the identity of the petitioner as a rape victim in websites be removed or
hidden appropriately to protect her privacy guaranteed under Article 21 [of the Constitution]”.

‘India needs a privacy law’

These instances of individuals approaching courts to uphold their right to be forgotten

highlight how India still does not have a privacy law.

“The current government has just abandoned the idea of a privacy bill,” said AP Shah, former Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court, who had chaired a group on a privacy bill in 2012. “How can they talk
of building a modern nation, make us an economic force if we have no privacy or even a data
protection law?”

Shah added: “It is frightening the way the government is now asking school children for
Aadhaar cards.”

Shah is of the view that abstract constitutional rights like the right to be forgotten cannot
help. It is only a privacy bill that can do so, he said. “Most individuals may not be able to go to
court,” said Shah. “The right to our personal data should be our legal right. We should be able to
write to Google or a data collector to remove any personal data we don’t want online. We cannot do
that now because we don’t have a statutory right.”

Thulasi Raj, a lawyer with the Kerala High court, said that Indian courts have always
supported the spirit behind the right to be forgotten, and cited two judgements to support her
contention. In the first case, State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, 1996, the Supreme Court had held that
“The anonymity of the victim of the crime must be maintained as far as possible throughout.” In the
second case, State of Karnataka vs Putta Raja, 2003, the Supreme Court chose to describe a person
who had been subjected to a sexual offence as “victim” in the judgement to protect that person
from social ostracism.

Lawyers agree that the right to be forgotten cannot be a blanket right. For instance, a judge should
not stub out the name of a criminal convicted for murder in a judgement, as people have the right to
know.

Similarly, in Mr ‘X’ vs Hospital ‘Z’, 1999, the Supreme Court, discussing the issue of privacy of
medical records, ruled that while medical records are considered to be private, doctors and hospitals
could make exceptions in certain cases where the non-disclosure of medical information could
endanger the lives of others – in this case the fiancée of a patient with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome, or AIDS. Mr X took the hospital to court for breach of confidentiality of his test reports
after his fiancée broke off the engagement after she learned that he had AIDS.

The courts have to tread a fine balance even as the Union government makes no move towards a
privacy bill.3

1.13 QUOTATIONS

There were many important people throughout history that contributed to the notion and
understanding of human rights. These are some of the pioneers of the concepts.

Plato

Plato believed in universal truth and virtue. This idea has continued on to become

3
https://scroll.in/article/831258/a-series-of-right-to-forgotten-cases-in-courts-highlight-how-india-still-doesnt-
have-a-privacy-law
universalism, that human rights are universal, and as such are above the laws of individual states.

Aristotle

Aristotle’s view of the world included the existence of different social classes, accepting that
there will always be an underclass, and even a slave class and that this is perfectly normal.

St. Thomas Aquinas

He saw that basic human needs such as self preservation require fundamental human rights.

Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham

Positive law is the idea that law and human rights come from the state. Hobbes and
Bentham were positive law theorists who believed that human rights needed strong laws to protect
them. One difference from previous viewpoints is that these rights can be given and taken away by
the state, they are not universal. Bentham believed in utilitarianism, that there should always be the
greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

John Locke

The positive law view was changed to include the idea that the state’s law stemmed from a
constitution, the legal framework of the society. The constitution however, was itself based on
natural law, which includes a natural right to self preservation. Therefore the power of the state was
still subject to inalienable human rights. The state should protect individuals from the actions of
other that would impinge on their freedoms. Citizens should be empowered to revolt if they felt that
the state was abusing its power. This became the underlying idea behind the French and American
revolutions and their subsequent development of new nations.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau came up with the social contract theory, that stated that all individuals in a society
had entered into a contract to form a civilized society in exchange for the government giving them
equality.

Immanuel Kant

In his book On Liberty, Mill strongly disagrees with utilitarianism, and sees it as a type of
tyranny by the majority. Liberties such as freedom of expression and association should not be
absolute, but that they should exist in such a way as not to deprive others of their ability to achieve
their own liberties.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

 Marx and Engels, the fathers of communism, saw rights in an entirely different view, namely
that they were unconnected to the reality of the exploitation of the working class. Unlike Mills, Marx
had another definition for liberalism as something to be gained through government, rather than as
a freedom from interference. Equality was more important that liberty, especially in the ownership
of private property (fundamental tenet of communism). Only one fundamental right existed under
their system, that of revolution.

Ronald Dworkin

Dworkin’s philosophy disagrees with Bentham’s rejection of natural rights. He sees human
rights not as being absolute and universal, but as being a creation of politics that try to treat all
people equally. Therefore all members of society have the

same voice, which is not dependent on their social status. Utilitarianism, with its idea of ignoring the
rights of minorities in the name of the greatest good for the majority threatens to destroy the entire
concept of individual human rights.

1.14 Review of literature:

An attempt is made in this research to review available literature on A Historical Study of

fundamental rights with special reference to Right to life and liberty, with a view to examine the
different formatted points and views adopted by the various thinkers and political scientists .
However the relevant contribution is briefly present.

Mukherjee; Constitution of India, 2007

In this the discussion was made on various issues such as on various Articles but the main
thrust was connoted on the main Articles that is the Right to life and all about the personal rights of
an individual which are very necessary for the human existence.

V.K.Puri, Sunita Puri; Indian Government and Politics and Political Theory; 2012

So for as this venture is concerned, it elucidates that there is a chapter on fundamental

rights in which the right to life is the most important right. In it mention was also made that the
democracy had always helped the upliftment of the rights of an individual and as a society as a
whole.

Manohar Gupta; Political Science key concepts; 2011

In this the various concepts have been discussed such as the liberty, rights and the like but
so far as the present research work is concerned mention may be made that rights are essential
asset of our life and with the help of rights we can have the proper protection and security in our
life.

A.P. Awasti; Indian Political System; 2009

This study tells about all that, which is about the fundamental rights, provides the historical
background of the constitution of Free India. It also gives the information regarding the basic rights
like the right to life and liberty and their role in the constitution of India.

R.C.Agarwal; Indian Political system; 2000

The study mentions that there is a great importance of the fundamental rights such as the
rights which are very necessary for the promotion of good and healthy life of an individual and as a
society as a whole.

B.L.Fedia; Indian Government and Politics

In this mention may be made that the rights are very important in the Indian part of view. In
this it was also discussed that what is the constitution of India its importance and relevance in with
that of the foreign states.

M.V. Pylee; Indian constitution

This mentions that the constitution of India contains the various rights and duties,
particularly the rights like right to life and liberty. In it there is all about the working and the
organization of fundamental rights which are mentioned in the proper way under chapter third and
fourth of the constitution of India.

Hans Raj; Indian Political System; 2003

In it the whole summary was mentioned on the political system of India and in it the
fundamental rights were discussed and the main thrust was given on the right to life and the like.

N. Shrinivas; Democratic Government in India

This important venture elucidates that in India there is a government of ideals and the
democracy had have always supported the rights of the people as a whole, that is why the people
from Indian origin always used to give proper support to the government in order to get the rights
be in a flexible way and in a good manner for the betterment of the Indian People

L.M.Singhvi ; Union State Relation in India 2001

In mentions that there is close contact between the two that is centre as well as state and
mention ,may be made that it is all due to the same kind of fundamental rights such as the life and
liberty.

Mashwari .S.R: Indian Administration .1989

The study envisages that the administration of India is having the good way and the control
over the public of India. It is all due to the rights which are guaranteed by the constitution of India to
her people.

R.Khan; Political Integration in Federal India; 1962

So for as this is concerned in discusses that the integration of India is based on the people of
India. It is also said that the government of India gives its citizens the fundamental rights particularly
thee life and liberty these are the essential rights in the list of fundamental rights.

J.W.Garner; Political science and government, 1935

In it the evaluation was made that the politics is essential for the upliftment of whole
people. In it there was the discussion on the rights that means there should be the rights for the
development of people as a whole.

V.K.Puri: Political Theory and Indian Government and Politics: 2012

In this the writer discusses on various issues and circumstances but within he also made the
description on the fundamental rights and defined them very smoothly to make understand that the
rights are very essential for the development of an individual and as for the society as a whole.

Manohar Gupta: Key concepts of Political Science and Indian Government and

Politics;2011

In this the mention was made on the important issues like constitution, government and the
like but the important topic which was discussed is the fundamental rights which are very important
for the human existence.

1.15 AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH

1) In order to gets the whole meaning regarding the concept of right to life and Personal liberty.

2) To know what is the main motive of the cases given in the Articles given in the constitution of
India regarding the Personal liberty.

3) To evaluate in detail the different dimensions of Article 21.

4) To examine the views of Supreme Court regarding the field of the rights such as

the right to life and the personal liberty in detail.

5) To make the comparison of Indian rights with the other countries of the world such as with the
united states of America.

1.16 HYPOTHESIS

The study proposes to test the following hypotheses:

1) What is the Meaning Of Right to Life And Personal Liberty ?

2) Whether there is a correlation between the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.?

3) Whether there is Article 21 fulfill the entire fundamental Basic rights of an

individuals?

4) Whether there is a significant effect of Article, 21’ on, socioeconomic status of

the Human being, and Society.?

5) Whether and if so why there is an need to review on Right to Life and Personal

Liberty.?

6) Whether there is Article 21 of Indian Constitution is affective in comparison with

developed Countries Bills of Rights?

1.17 METHODOLOGY

There are accepted truths and theories in all field of knowledge. The intellectuals of the
society are always inclined to probe for facts of the empirical world and confirm the proved truth of
his 'investigations by acceptor correcting the existing theories. Such probing is called research.
According to the Webster's International Dictionary "Research is a careful critical inquiry or
explanation in seeking facts or principles; deli gent investigation in order to ascertain something”.

1.18 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a systematized investigation to gain new knowledge about the

phenomena or problems after finalization of subject matter or study the next step is to Research
Methodology - the method, of date collection. Data Collection is the process of obtaining valuable
information for the purpose of research.

1.19 RESEARCH DESIGN

To design is to plan, i.e. designing is the process of making decisions before the situation
arises in which the decision has to be carried out. According to Pauline V. Young, "A research design
is a plan of action a plan or collecting and, analyzing
the data in an economic, efficient and relevant manner”

The researcher is going to critically analyze the Right to Life and Personal Liberty Under
Article, 21 of Indian Constitution. Hence the researcher has given the statement of problem to
introduce his subject. Next, he has given the background Right to Life and Personal Liberty in the first
chapter. In the second chapter of the research work the researcher is going to discuss the different
dimensions of Article,21 of Indian Constitution substantive aspect regarding the Right to Life and
Personal Liberty under Indian Constitution.

In the third chapter the researcher has discussed The Constitutional Perspectives and Article,
21. In the fourth chapter the researcher has critically analyzed the Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 of Indian Constitution with modern Constitutions like United States, and United Kingdom
Constitutional Amendments regarding Freedom Right to Life and Personal Liberty As per the custom
this research work will end with Conclusion and suitable Recommendations/Suggestions.

DOCTRINAL RESEARCH

A doctrinal research means a research that has been carried out on a legal proposition or
propositions by way of analyzing the existing statutory provisions and

cases by applying the reasoning power.According to S. N. Jain, "Doctrinal research involves analysis
of case law, arranging, ordering & systematizing legal propositions and study of legal institution
through legal reasoning or ration al deduction.”

The Doctrinal Research study is mainly based on proposition. The sources of data for
doctrinal Research are law library. the reports of appellate courts, case laws,

law journals, internet etc.

The researcher used the method of Doctrinal Research for research. The reason for choosing
the Doctrinal Method is that, the issue of Reforms of Right to life

and personal liberty is not limited to particular sections of one Act but it is too wide. So also to save
the time and money the Researcher has used the doctrinal method for

research work.

So the doctrinal method is good to make good research. Also there are some other reason to
choosing this method ,this are the advantages of the this doctrinal method.

METHOD OF WRITING

Researcher has follows primarily descriptive and analytical form of writing.

1.20 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What is the meaning of Concept Right to life and Personal Liberty.?

2) What are the different freedoms provided by the Indian constitution under Article

21. which is fundamental and basic needs of human being.?

3) What are the various grounds used to expand the scope of Article 21.?

4) Indian judiciary is competent to handle complex issues like Right to life and

Personal Liberty.?

1.21 Research Tools Applied

(1) Statutory Materials: The Constitution of India, The Code of Criminal procedure Code,
Indian Penal Code, International Conventions,

(2) Decided Cases: Judicial pronouncements of the Supreme and various High Court cases as
reported in journals and periodicals like All India Reporter, Supreme Court Cases, Supreme Court
Reports and Supreme Court Journal, Criminal Law Journal, Judgment Today and Manupatra etc.

(3) Periodical Writings: Use of Indian Law Journal and International Law Journal on the
point, Research Paper, e - Journal, Research Law Journal, Thesis and dissertation, Encyclopaedias,
Dictionaries, Souvenir.

(4) Reports of Commission: International Narcotics Control Board, Indian Hemp commission,
Royal commission on opium, World Health Organisation Technical Report Series, etc., Narcotic
control Bureau (India), Government Documents.

(5) Views of Expert Interviews.

1.22 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

To Understand the meaning of Concept Right to Life and Personal Liberty; To Look a at the trend of
cases in Article 21; To examine in detail the different dimension of Article 21 and related case laws
and To examine the views of Supreme Court in detail in the areas of the Right to Life and Personal
Liberty in India.

My study on the topic Law Relating to Life and Liberty in India : A Critical Studu is divided in
to five chapter the first chapter is introductory in nature Second chapter is based on the
Constitutional Perspective and Article 21.

Chapter third attempts a detailed analysis Comparative study of right to life and personal
liberty. Chapter four includes Judicial analysis Right to Life and Personal Liberty and Expanding
horizons. Chapter six, at last, concludes the discussion and sums up the all types of findings.

A Comprehensive Bibliography is provided at the end of this research work.

 CHAPTER- II
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND ARTICLE 21

2.1 The Constitutional Perspectives and Article 21

Which is enshrined in the Constitution, right, 'fundamental right' is. The right of every citizen
of the physical, mental and moral development to be sure. They can make life worth living for, and
the conditions of those fundamental freedoms which are included. The feeling of security is a
fundamental right of the minorities. The rule of the 'democratic legitimacy' to the structure. No
democracy, such as freedom of speech and expression in the absence of fundamental rights may not
work.

Conduct fundamental rights, citizenship, justice and fairness standards provide. They serve
as a check to the government. The various social, religious, economic and political problems is an
important fundamental right.

Our Constitution, fundamental rights are enumerated in Part III of section 14 32. This right is
justifiable. Our Constitution and the law by the legislature or by the

executive order does not allow the executive to sit on the right. Supreme Court or the High Court
found to be infringing or abridging the fundamental rights that no law can be set aside. You judicial
system, detailed reading of the text is on.

Also some basic rights, are enjoyed by foreigners, such as the right to freedom of religion
and the right to equality enjoyed by both the citizens as well as foreigners are.Justiciable the
fundamental right is not absolute. The interest of the public good on the enjoyment of the right to
impose certain restrictions empowers. Seven fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of
India is not.

In 1976, the 44th Amendment to the Constitution of the property rights of the Year has been
removed from the list of fundamental rights by law. Since then, it has been a legal right. There are
six basic right now.

Fundamental rights are: -

1. The right to equality

2. The right to freedom

3. Right against exploitation

4. The right to freedom of religion

5. Cultural and educational rights, and

6. Remedies constitutional right.

The 86TH Amendment by law, the rights of the 21 (b) as part of the right to freedom as a
fundamental right has been included in the list. We will now study the right one.

Art 14. - Right to equality

The right to equality of all citizens enjoy equal rights and opportunities. It is religion, caste, race,
gender, or place of birth by the State to protect its citizens against any discrimination. The right to
equality equalities five types are included.

Equal rights before the law

According to the Constitution, "the law or the equal protection of the laws

within the territory of India shall not be denied to any person equality." 'Equality before the law, no
person is above the law and all are equal before the law means that every person has access to the
same court. Belong to two different people, two persons commit the same offense, if both of them
will get the same punishment, equal protection of the laws.

Art 15

Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, no discrimination on the basis of Any
citizen of the shops, restaurants and places of public entertainment, access can not be ignored.
Neither wholly or partly out of any funds in the maintenance of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, can not
be ignored road use. However, the Women, Children and Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes (OBC's) is empowered to make provisions for the lift. State educational
institutions that provide the discounted fee to reserve seats or can arrange special coaching classes.

Art 16

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment Our Constitution employment or

appointment to public services for all citizens in matters relating to guarantees equality of
opportunity. Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or residence on the basis of matters relating to
employment in the public service shall be no discrimination. Employment will be on the basis of
merit. However, due to limitations in the enjoyment of these rights have been granted.

Art 17

The abolition of untouchability Constitution abolishes untouchability and its practice in any
form is forbidden. Action crimes committed on the basis of untouchability in the box is considered.
Art 18

Titles Extinction .To create an artificial distinction between the social status of the title of
national or foreign, which has been abolished. The provision of 'Rai Sahib' has been included in the
Constitution to take away with the title, 'Rai Bahadur' from colonial rule as a reward for their
effective cooperation on a few Indians have been given to the British. The practice of conferring the
title of this Act is against the principle of equality. Bharat Ratna, the Padma Vibhushan, Padam Shri,
PARAM Veer Chakra, Veer; country or meritorious service rendered to mankind by individual citizens
of India to recognize their service and achievements as well as for those who can confer the award
on the civil and military chakra, etc., but the 'title' can not be used.

Art 19

Right to Freedom. Freedom is a basic feature of democracy is Reedom. The Constitution of the
citizens "the right to freedom referred to as" a set of six guarantees. Six fundamental freedoms. The
Constitution guarantees freedom of the following six:

Speech (a) freedom.

(B) freedom to assemble peacefully without arms.

(C) Freedom to form associations or unions.

To move freely throughout the territory of India (iv) Freedom

Reside and settle in any part of the border (V) Freedom.

To practice any profession or an occupation, trade or business carried (VI) Freedom.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of the common law, or affect the operation of the state
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes restrictions on the right to exercise reasonable
on the issue in the interest shall be paid by the (Indian sovereignty and integrity), foreign states,
public order, decency or morality, or the court, defamation or incitement, with contempt of the
state, friendly relations to the crime.)

(3) Nothing in clause sub-clause (b) so far as it imposes affect the operation of any

existing law, or (in the interest of sovereignty and the integrity of imposing the law shall prevent the
state from making or) public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to sub- said
clause.

(4) In sub-clause clause (c) Nothing in so far as it imposes affect the operation of any

existing law, or (in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, shall prevent the
state from making any law imposing or) public order or morality, to exercise the rights provided by
the Reasonable restrictions in sub-clause.

(5) Nothing in (the sub-clause (d) and (e) so far as it imposes, or affect any existing law, any law,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right of the sub-clause shall prevent the state from
making the general public interest or To protect the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

(6) Nothing in clause sub-clause (g) imposes far as it affects the operation of any existing law, or shall
prevent the state from making any law imposing. Exercise of the right conferred by the general
public, reasonable restrictions in the sub-section, and in

particular, in [the sub-clause so far as it relates to the operation of any existing law, or

shall, however, to prevent the state from making any law relating to -

(1) The practice of any profession or an occupation, trade or carry on business requirements, or
professional or technical qualifications

(2) the complete or partial exclusion of citizens or otherwise. Whether by the state, or any trade,
business, industrial or service of a corporation owned or controlled by the

executing]

Art 20

Convicted for the offense of protection. (1) No person shall be convicted of an offense except for
violation of a law in force at the time of the commission shall be guilty of an offense, or might have
been inflicted under the law, which is to be subjected to a penalty greater than the effective time of
the commission of crime.

(2) A person shall not be punished, and punished more than once for the same offense.

(3) No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Art 21

Protection of life and personal liberty No person except in accordance with procedures
established by law deprived of his life or personal liberty shall not be.

Art 21

A Right to Education. From the age of fourteen years in such manner as the state of the
child, may be determined by law shall provide free and compulsory education.

Art 22

Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases :

(1) Any person who is arrested as soon as the grounds for the arrest, and may consult

with, and the choice of a legal practitioner shall not be denied the right to defend themselves, as
shall be detained in custody without being informed.

(2) Every person arrested and held in custody for the journey from the place of arrest to the
Magistrate Court and, except as required during the twenty-four hours of the nearest magistrate
within a certain period of time, such person shall be produced before the magistrate said, without
authority, shall be detained in custody beyond the period.

(3) Nothing in clause (1) and (2) shall apply to -

(A) Any person who for the time being, you are an enemy alien, or

(B) to preventive detention under the Act, any person who is arrested or detained.

(4) any act to preventive detention for three months, if not longer shall authorize the

detention of a person for a long time.

(A), or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as an advisory board consisting of

individuals, a High Court judges before the expiration of the period of three months for the reason
that there is sufficient evidence, such as detention: (b) in clause (7) of sub - clause under any law
made by Parliament by any person beyond the maximum period of time, or

(5) Any person detained under preventive detention order is made under any Act, the

Authority, as soon as may be, shall order the person to contact and that has made him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order capability.

(6) in clause (5) Nothing in making any kind of authority, such as the authority to order the disclosure
of which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose the information specified in that
clause shall be required.

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe -

(A) the circumstances under which a person in accordance with the provisions of sub

preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board under any law, and then
held for a period of three months, which may be the class or classes of clause -

clause (a) (4) ;

(B) any person or class of cases may be classed, for which the maximum period of

preventive detention under any law to be held

(C) Method of clause (4) sub-clause (a) under an investigation will be followed by an

Advisory Board; Right against exploitation

Art 23.

Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labor.

(1) The man and the beggar and other similar forms of forced labor are prohibited traffic and any
breach of this provision shall be an offense punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from the public for the purpose of imposing
compulsory service, and the service pleasant state religion, race, caste or class or any of them shall
be no discrimination.

Art 24.

Factories, etc., prohibited the employment of children. No child below the age of fourteen
years in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment shall be appointed.

The right to freedom of religion

Art 25.

Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (1) public
order, morality and health, and subject to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally
entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to practice freely profess and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article affects the operation of any existing law or prevent the state

from making any law shall be.

(B) the control of religious practice may be associated with any economic, financial,

political or other secular activity is limited.

(B) all classes and sections of Hindus social welfare and reform of Hindu religious

institutions of a public character, provide for open cast.

I explain: kirpans's wearing and carrying the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be included in the job.

He explained: - sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus Sikh, Jaina or

Buddist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing shall be construed accordingly.
Art 26.

Freedom of religious affairs

Public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof

shall have the right, subject to: -

(A) establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable;

(B) the conduct of his own affairs;

(C) the owner and acquire movable and immovable property, and

(D) in accordance with the laws of property management.

Art 27.

As well as the payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

Freedom: -

No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which specifically promote any
particular religion or religious denomination or in paying for maintenance costs are included.

Art 28.

Specific religious instruction or religious worship in the presence of Freedom

Educational institutions: -

(1) No religious instruction in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds shall
be.

(2) in clause (1), which is managed by the state, but the religious instruction shall be

imparted in such need has been established under any endowment or trust shall not apply to an
educational institution.

(3) recognized by the state or states in attending any educational institution receiving aid out of a
person, organization or person unless attached to the outside of the premises may be conducted
shall be required to take part in any religious worship, or, if such person is a minor, his In addition to
his guardian consent has been given.

Art 29.

Preservation of minority interests (1) in the area of its own as a distinct language, script or
culture of its citizens living in any part of the section shall have the right to the same store.

(2) No citizen of the state or by state money to help out only on the basis of his admission into any
educational institution can not be ignored, race, cast, language or any of them.

Art 30.

The right of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions [(1A) be a point of
reference, established and managed by the compulsory acquisition of

any property of an educational institution making any law (1) the amount fixed by or

determined under the Act to ensure that the acquisition of such property shall be such as to ensure
that the clause under Do not restrict or abrogate the right, as is.]

(2) state, granting aid to educational institutions, whether based on religion or language, it is under
the management of the ground shall not be any discrimination in educational institutions.

Art 31.

Compulsory acquisition of property

[31A. The law of conservation estates, etc., to provide for [(1) Article13 anything, in spite of the law
(B) any property or any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights
acquired by, or

(B) the proper management of the property in order to protect the public interest or for a limited
period of time by the state to take over management of the property, or

(C) the public interest or order is a blend of two or more corporations, the management of any
corporation, secure, or

(D) extinguishment or modification managing agent, secretary, or the right to vote, no

right to any of its shareholders, or

(E) the search for, or to, any mineral or mineral oil, or the premature termination or

cancellation of any such contract, lease or license for the purpose of winning a contract, lease or
license of any rights accruing by virtue of the extinguishment or modification, on the ground that it is
inconsistent with deemed to be void, or takes away or abridges "[Section 14 or Section 19] shall be
given by any of the rights: Provided that where such law is a law made by the legislature, such as the
law, having been reserved for the consideration of the acceptance of , if not the state, the provisions
of this article shall not apply thereto; [The Act also makes provision for any estate acquired by the
state and where the conditions of that time being in force or any building is the ceiling limit
applicable to him under any law of the land, it is as a formed for the acquisition of any land therein is
held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the acquisition of such land,
building or structure shall not be less than the value of its maker, which does not provide for
payment of a compensation at the rate of its formation or I appurtenant thereto.]

(3) In this article - [(A) the expression "estate" of any local, have the same meaning as

that expression or its local equivalent of the existing law relating to land tenures in force in the area
and includes - shall

(1) Any jagira, inam or muafi or other similar grant and [Tamil Nadu] of the United

States of Kerala, no right to janmam

(2) Any land held under ryotwari disposal;

(3) any land or in the waste land, forest land, agricultural land and land for pasture or sites of
buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of the village artisans, including agricultural
purposes or for purposes outside help;]

(B) the expression "right", in an estate, the owner of a small, tenure - holder, [raiyat, short raiyat] or
other intermediary and any rights or privileges of land revenue, shall include any rights vesting in an
owner. [31B. Acts and Regulations specified validation

The provisions of Article 31A, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the
specific provisions of the Ninth Schedule to Regulation No one on the ground, shall be deemed to be
void, or ever to have become void that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent or away or
abridges the right of any of these given by any of the provisions, and notwithstanding any judgment,
decree or order to the contrary in any court or tribunal, and the provisions of the said Regulations
shall, if appropriate, and any repeal or modification with respect to the power of legislature,
continued to be in force.]

[31.c Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles Section 13 of the state's policy
towards the protection of the law [the principles laid down all or any part of the fourth] deemed to
be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or shall take away or abridges [Section 14 or
Section 19] and it is a policy to take effect with the declaration of the rights provided for by the law
is no such policy is in effect shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that; Such law,
having been reserved for the consideration of its compliance with, the provisions of this Act, this
article shall not apply thereto is made by a state legislature that is where the term.]

31D. The law of conservation of matter Constitutional Rights Remedies

Art 32.
 The right to enforce remedies provided by this Part This part is confirmed by

(1) the right to enforce the right to move the Supreme Court in appropriate proceedings.

(2) the Supreme Court, which may not be suitable habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, or the nature of the orders or writs, including writs issued by the authority
shall have the right to any part of the enforcement.

By the Supreme exercisable (3) on the ability of the Supreme Court (1) and (2) of the Act, the
jurisdiction of any other court to exercise within the local limits can be powerful without prejudice to
all or any of the powers of the Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this paragraph, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, shall
be suspended.

Art 33.

Power of Parliament, etc. provided by this Part in their application the right to

make changes Parliament may, by law, any right provided by this section shall apply to them to
determine how much

(A) a member of the armed forces, or

(B) the members of the public in order to be charged for maintenance, or

(C) the person appointed, or connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the
purposes of intelligence or counter-intelligence, or

(D), or employed in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the

purpose, bureau or agency referred to in clauses (a) to (c).

Limited or discharge their duties properly and to ensure the maintenance of discipline

among them will be abrogated.]

Art 34.

Martial law in force in any area, while the right part of the limitation provided by this article.
Despite the foregoing provisions of this section, by Act of Parliament in order to serive or
maintenance or restoration of any act done by him with regard to a State or any other person or to
verify a person can compensate for any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or
other For example, under the law of martial law in the area.

Art 35.
 To enforce the provisions of this Part This was in spite of the Constitution.

(A) Parliament shall, and a State Legislature shall not have power to make laws -

(1) Section 16, Section 32 clause (3) of clause (3) of Section 33 and Section 34 may be provided by
law made by Parliament with respect to any matter, and (2) an offense under this Part of this is, that
prescribing punishment for those acts; And the Parliament, as soon as may be after the
commencement of this Constitution shall, sub-clause (ii) for prescribing punishment for the acts of
the legislation;

(B) in clause immediately sub-clause (a), (b), or referred to in the Act to provide for the punishment
of the territory of India with respect to any matter specified in this

Constitution, any law in force before the commencement of that sub-clause of clause (b) of the
terms and conditions thereof, and in such Do not come into force until altered or repealed or
amended by continuously under Section 372 may be therein and are subject to change at any
adoptions.

Explanation: - In this article, the expression "law in force" has the same meaning in

Section 372. "

2.2 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Art 36. Definition.

In this section, unless the context requires other things,'' State'' has the same meaning as that of T.

Art 37. Principles apply in this Part.

Provisions in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the basic principles laid down
therein is not less than The rule of law making in the country and it shall be the duty of the State to
apply these principles.

Art 38. In order to promote the social welfare of the people of the state safe.

(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people

W And it could effectively secure and protect a community in which justice, social,

economic and political, of the National Institutes of informal .

(2) state, in particular, strive to reduce income inequality, and the state shall endeavor to eliminate
inequalities, but also between the facility and the people living in different regions or groups of
people in various vocations, not only the opportunity to be involved.

Art 39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. State, in particular, should be
protected at the point of

(A) citizens, men and women are equal, they have the right to an adequate livelihood;

(B) sub-serve the common good of the community is the owner of T as a continuing role

in the distribution of wealth is that?

(C) the operation of the economic system and general well-being of the damage is a result of the
concentration of the means of production;

(D) for both men and women have equal pay for equal work;

(E) workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that

citizens' health and power of their age or economic power to enter unsuited avocations

are not compelled;

(F) that children in a truly healing and freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth the
opportunity to be developed and the facilities are protected against exploitation and against moral
and material abandonment.

Art 39A. Equal justice and free legal aid.

Operation of the legal system as a basis of equal opportunity, justice, media, and in particular, to
secure justice for the opportunity to ensure that appropriate legislation or schemes or in any other
way by, and shall provide free legal assistance that may be safer because of economic or other
disabilities that You can not deny the citizens.

Art 40. Gram Panchayat bodies

State to take steps to organize village panchayats and such powers and functions as may be
necessary for their self-government units, as the authority shall endow them with

Art 41. Education and the Government, the right to work.

State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, education and unemployment,
the Government, shall be effective measures to secure the right to work, old age, sickness and
disablement, and in other cases are undeserved.

Art 42. Just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief measures.

State shall make provision for securing just and humane Ion. Conditions of work and for maternity
relief.

Art 43. For workers, wages, etc. Living

State all workers, agricultural industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, a decent

quality of life and working conditions in order to ensure the full enjoyment of Lei for

sure, by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way, shall secure the
Endeavour, and social and cultural opportunities and in particular, the Endeavour to promote
cottage industries on an individual or co-Bas is to be in rural areas.

Art 43A. Participate in the management of industrial workers.

Takings under the State, or any of the public sector workers involved in the management of the
company to secure the appropriate law or by any other means, shall take action.

Art 44. Uniform civil code for the citizens.

State of the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India shall secure the Endeavour.

Art 45. Free and compulsory education for children

Until they complete the age of four tin free and compulsory education for all children for ten years
from the commencement of this Constitution shall Endeavour to provide a certain amount of time.

Art 46. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker teams ions promotion of educational
and economic interests. State Scheduled Castes and scheduled tribes special care the educational
and economic interests of the weaker groups of ions, and in particular, shall promote with, and shall
protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

Art 47. The duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and improve
public health. State of nutrition and the standard of living and improve public health as among its
primary duties shall consider enhancing the level and, in particular, shall Endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of intoxicating drinks and is harmful to
the health of the drugs.

Art 48. Agriculture and Fisheries Organisation

State agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, organize, and in particular,
the cows and calves and other milch and draft cattle, preserving and improving the breeds, and
prohibiting that was taken shall be Endeavour.

Art 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and

wild life. State to protect and improve the environment and the forest fire and protect wild life shall
Endeavour.

Art 49. Monuments and places and objects of national importance Save ions.
It is every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest of the State's obligation shall be
devastated, national importance, disfigurement, DES T roof, removed, destroyed or exported under
the proposed law made by Parliament or, as the case may be.

Art 50. Separation of the judiciary from the executive. The State Government Services Executive
shall take steps to separate the judiciary.

Art 51. Development of international peace and security. State shall Endeavour to

(A) promote international peace and security;

(B) jus T and honorable relations between nations maintain;

For international law and treaty obligations

(c) foster respect Organized people dealing with each other, and

(D) encourage settlement of international disputes mediation

2.3 ARTICLE 21 AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE POLICY

Chapter - the fourth in a court of law, principles of mathematics as a state policy guidance is not
applicable. The "Principles of State Policy Guidelines" name implies, however, that the rule is
fundamental. The manufacturers then it is not judicially enforceable, the basic rule is still in the law
and the principles of state policy, which was justifiable in a court of 'fundamental rights', which is
classified as a novel constitutional entitlement to the collection device. Ex-Servicemen's Association
and others vs. Union of India Confederation of the historic judgment of the Apex Court observed
that, Apart from the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, it is the
responsibility of respondents [Government of India] Part IV of the Constitution under the policy
guidance in the implementation of the policy.

Bandhua the Morcha vs Union of India, Justice Bhagwati Francis Coralie Mullin v
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, is stated; It is free from exploitation and human dignity, to
live with Francis Mullen's case, this Court under Article 21 of the basic right to reassure everyone in
this country is. To live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the State's policies and
guidelines for the rights of the clause (e) of the policy, and (f), Section 39 and Article 41

and 42, and at least derives from the breath of his life, therefore, it must be included in

the new , opportunity, and a healthy manner and freedom and dignity, educational facilities for
children to develop the facilities, just and humane conditions of work, the

workers, men and women, and children of tender age, health and safety, etc.
 Neither the federal government nor any state government will be deprived of the basic
necessities fun person, which has the right to take any action with human dignity and to live in a
state in order to enable a person must be a minimum requirement. Principles of State Policy
Guidelines clauses (e) contains, and (f) Section 39, Article 41 and 42 of the law is not enforceable in a
court, so the trial can be arranged through the State may be forced to a life of human dignity, but in
the meantime The basic requirements formulated by the State and thus their right to live with basic
human dignity, with up to invest where necessary to ensure that the basic statutory enactment or
executive fiat by the concrete reality and content, the course of human dignity enshrined in Article
21 of the should be denied the right to live with the amount of such inaction on the part of the State
to ensure the implementation of the law for the rule of law and to ensure that such obligations may
be.

The court said the letter and spirit of the law cannot force the state to implement a law
already on the principles of state policy, with reference to Article 21 is where it is enacted to
enforce.

Based on the principles of state policy in 1993 at the age of fourteen, the right to education
is a fundamental right, and therefore Article 41.Article 41 states, falls under the protection of Article
21 until the verdict: "State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, education ,
work ... "Thus, the Court has interpreted Article 21 Principles of the State Policy Guidelines for
effective measures to protect the rights and shall be given a wider meaning of Article 21 of the
Articles in order to give life.

In detail in Section 21, and the next part we will discuss the relationship between
international human rights documents. The ambit of the fundamental human rights recognized by
international human rights instruments must be included in order to explain it in a manner provided
by Section 21 of the Supreme Court and will be discussed in detail.

2.4 ARTICLE 32: A PROVISION TO ENFORCE ARTICLE 21

The most unique feature of Section 32 of the Indian Constitution. Under the Constitution of
India, Part-III-citizens is a fundamental right guaranteed. That the provisions of article:

(1) enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part [Part-III-] for the right to move the

Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings is guaranteed.

(2) the Supreme Court that the right of habeas corpus may not be suitable forenforcement,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, writs, including the nature of the instructions
or orders or writs, issued this Part shall have the power to Constituent Assembly debates, Dr
Babasaheb Ambedkar once I'm asked if I'm the spirit of article 32, which would indicate that none
will survive, and the other, which is the most important provisions of the Indian Constitution, the
Indian Constitution.

Indian Constitution judicially enforceable "fundamental rights" of economic justice and social
transformation, which is part of the fourth set inspirational goals, set forth in the non-justifiable
"directive principles' in order to distinguish them from the set forth in Part III. Overtime, in the case
of the" fundamental rights "violations of petition in the Supreme Court where the accused is
permitted for ordinary citizens as defined in Section 32 of the [particular Article 21] of the
Constitution.

Moreover, the courts or a right to violating the fundamental rights recognized by the
Constitution. has, on behalf of a claimant to a higher court As the court explained that the
opportunity to include Section 226, therefore, the spirit of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Has
violated Article 21 of the basic rights of the aggrieved person can approach the Supreme Court of
India to enforce.
 CHAPTER - III
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

3.1 Constitutional Law

Under the Constitution the right to life and personal Liberty eighteenth century, originated
with the rise of the modern state, which is a concept. The French Revolution of 1789 and the
revolution that followed the declaration of the rights of the original imposition. Liberty of the right
to life and personal liberty and dignity against his best to save the people of the state are growing in
a rotted. When tested against the growth of the Indian Constitution is one of the research is
relevant. Comparative approach to life and personal liberty, life, and assaults on individual freedom
and personal liberty, and the range can be extended with the definition of the concept of the
framework will throw light on the problems involved.

United States

The following provisions of the Constitution of the United States that are

available, such as the right to life and personal liberty has a bearing; The Constitution of the United
States.

We are the United States, to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.

Fourth Amendment (1791)

Against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects, it
is safe to human rights, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things seized will.

Amendment V (1791)

Any person who, as a capital, or otherwise infamous crime shall be held to answer for,
except in situations arising in the land or naval forces, or militia, on a presentment or indictment of a
grand jury until the time of war or public danger, actual service, or any person in the in jeopardy of
life or limb shall be subject for the same offense, to be a witness against himself, nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case, or life, to be deprived of liberty, or property, without due process of
law, or private property without just compensation, public use shall be accepted for.
Amendment VI (1791)

Wherein the crime shall have been committed all the crimes of the state and district by an
impartial jury, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial, by law, which the district
shall have been previously ascertained to be aware of the nature and cause of the complaint;
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have In support of his patron witness
against her will in the face.

Amendment VIII (1791)

Require excessive bail, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments shall not be inflicted.

Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

All persons born or Naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction or to
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. That no person in his or deny, or
immunities abridge the right of any citizen of the United States shall, or enforce any law which shall,
in any state without due process of law, life, liberty, or property of any person shall not be deprived
of jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The difference between Art. 21 and the due process clause is American. The judge learned
the difference between the American Constitution and the clause identifies four specific points. In
India, it has been limited to personal liberty, the

Constitution of the United States of the Indian Constitution 21 (1), the word is used

Simpliciter Liberty. In India, the basic property rights and the arts are included when (2) the
protection of the U.S. Constitution, the property is offered. 31 (2). (3) the word

'because' Art.21 is omitted altogether, and the expression "due process of law '(4)'

established 'is the word we use Art.21 and' method 'is used deliberately limited. The

whole argument of the applicant and the Supreme Court of the United States of America and their
powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that it is unnecessary to embark on a discussion of
the word 'law' is the word 'law' is used in the art, because the expression "due process of law 'A' The
'influence. 21. According to the judges of the view that the law is reasonable

3.2 In England.

One of the earliest of these rights and freedoms of the people in England to find out where
the Magna Carta was drawn from. It proclaimed:
 No Freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, out, lawed banished, or in any way
destroyed, not the judgment of his peers, and without a valid, legal proceedings or prosecute
him, except in the case of the law of the land.

It declared that the guarantee was not available for all individuals:

The one we sell, we will have to deny or delay, right or justice. Great was forced

to sign the Magna carta King John 1215, which was a charter of demands by. This was the sovereign.
It's self-protection against the oppressive tyranny of monarchs as a weapon forged by the people.
So, as the life and freedom of self-protection against the oppressive tyranny of monarchs born
outside of class revolt. The demand for the right to freedom from imprisonment and detention in
1628 was reiterated, and then apply these principles to the practice of what is known as the rule of
law established in England. 's Record of human rights and freedoms, the Bill of Rights, 1689, of the
right to petition the King. It says:

This is the case, subject to the rights and all the promise and the punishment for

such petitioning are illegal.

The right to procedural fairness in the criminal justice bill also provides for bail and was
banned too. It requires that the excessive bail and excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted ought to be made. The statute of the 14th century, used the phrase due
process of law, even though it is England 'law', it is the American Constitution and the laws of the
land that had a different meaning, the meaning of the law as declared by the Parliament, and not
the act of an abstract.

Aforesaid constitutional history of England on the one hand in a matter of conflict between
the Crown and the subject is the focus of the debate on the issues of life and the freedom of
information, human rights and the rights of the Executive to imprison a person arrested and the
other, freedom from arrest and detention without trail. According to the law, and that the offense is
guilty of an offense alleged to be immune from

detention without being subject to the rights, was established. Law 'and' the legal system 'law'has
and by the people, ie, for a violation of a specific crime to be punished for trying to be the absence
of any means of arbitrary power. ' This right has been more clearly defined as Blachstone money; By
the time of the imprisonment without restraint, the situation changes or whatever to keep me from
turning the kinetic energy of a moving person.

Its definition, the life and liberty of freedom of movement is limited. The right to life and
personal liberty Dicey defined as follows:

England, as well as the understanding of the substance of the right to life and

personal liberty of a person's right to legal reasoning and any method that does not admit of
imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion should not be subjected to.

Dicey's means of life and personal liberty 'is a term used to expand the conjoined'

other physical coercion in any manner.

According to the Privy Council:

Any member of the Executive Council in accordance with the jurisprudence of a court of
justice in his life and he can not support the validity of the action without the condition that can
interfere with personal liberty or property of a British subject. And the judge in the face of such a
decision should not shrink from the British tradition of justice.

So the person's personal life and threatens to undermine the power of the

executive. It is only when the person is authorized by the statute to be arrested. The

subject provides protection only against the executive and the legislature was not. The

court at the time of the First World War Realm Act, 1915, authorized by the regulations made under
the Defence of the person detained without trail upheld. Liversidge V. Anderson, at Lords, by a
majority, even if it is not authorized by statute to detain the executive discretion to refuse the test.
Lord Atkin delivered the opinion of an officer of the rule and to limit the perceived need to check the
executive. Lord Atkin was considered more appropriate than that of the majority view. It's his life, or
the court of justice or due process of the person deprived of liberty includes a law on the ground
that it is not open to the Court to cancel. Right of the Lord represented as:

And not least of all in this House, they are upholding the freedom of the violence.

But the common law or statute is libery, limited and controlled by the law is a freedom.

Thus, the protection of life and liberty of the common law, and the law specifically by
Parliament guess it has been taken away, unless it remains in operation, that is. Modified or
supplemented by the common law and the protection of the constitutional guarantee of any
individual, it means that the common law and the common law, is safeguarded by. Writ of habeas
corpus, and damages for unlawful arrest and detention of the case: the protection of life and
personal liberty are two fold.

So, Engaland life and personal liberty of the unlawful arrest or detention by any other means
freedom from physical coercion. In light of the limited scope of the personal freedom of the press
and the demands of the present law, the Bill of Rights was to protect the citizen's freedom is a
feeling that can not. But there are two reasons, shall enjoy the right to a written bill. The first, which
was repealed by an Act of the Parliament may pass. Second, the judicial control of Parliament for
enforcing human rights in the Bill of Rights was a good forum.
 CHAPTER - IV

RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY : EXPANDING HORIZONS

4.1 RIGHT TO LIFE

Search of 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 heart of the Constitution, the most organic and
progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.

Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty”
by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the
preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life

2) Right to personal liberty

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure
established by law .Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the
American Constitution, Article 40(4) of the Constitution of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the
Constitution of Japan, 1946.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien.
Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to
reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The right to life is
undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question
and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to
living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the
other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental
Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Section will
examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

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 does not connote mere animal
existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to
live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc. Right to life
is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as human being and includes all
those aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the
only article in the Constitution that has received the widest possible interpretation. Under the
canopy of Article 21 so many rights have found shelter, growth and nourishment. Thus, the bare
necessities, minimum and basic requirements that is essential and unavoidable for a person is the
core concept of right to life.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh4, 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 armour 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.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration5, the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval
the above observations and held that the “right to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as
to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to
protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It
includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

4.1.1 Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21
and held that the right to live the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its
ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the same view, the Court in Francis Coralie v.
Union Territory of Delhi7, observed that:

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with
it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and
facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing

4
AIR 1963 SC 1295
5
AIR 1978 SC 1675
6
1978 AIR 597
7
1981 SCR (2) 621
and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic
necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare
minimum expression of human self.”

Another broad formulation of the theme of life to dignity is to be found in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India8. Characterizing Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the Court gave
it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free
from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath
from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and
Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of
workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and
facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity,
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the
minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and
no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action
which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

Following the above stated cases, the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic
Rights v. Union of India9, held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in
various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity
and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati J. held that, rights and benefits conferred on
workmen employed by a contractor under various labour laws are clearly intended to ensure basic
human dignity to workmen. He held that the non-implementation by the private contractors
engaged for constructing building for holding Asian Games in Delhi, and non-enforcement of these
laws by the State Authorities of the provisions of these laws was held to be violative of fundamental
right of workers to live with human dignity contained in Art. 2110.

In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad11,it has been held that the
right to life includes right to life with human dignity and decency and, therefore, holding of beauty
contest is repugnant to dignity or decency of women and offends Article 21 of the Constitution only
if the same is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene or intended for blackmailing. The government is

8
1984 AIR 802
9
1981 AIR 746
10
J.N.Pandey, Constitution Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42 nd Ed.(2005), p. 222
11
AIR 1998 AP 302
empowered to prohibit the contest as objectionable performance under Section 3 of the Andhra
Pradesh Objectionable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan12, the Court struck down a provision of Bombay

Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re.
1 per month to a suspended Government Servant upon his conviction during the pendency of his
appeal as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

4.1.2 Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Art. 21 guarantees right to life right to life with dignity. The court in this context has
observed that:

“The meaning and content of fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution of India are
of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual
harassment or abuse.”

Sexual Harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the
most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan13, the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of
a working woman at her work as amounting to violation of rights of gender equality and rights to life
and liberty which is clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark
judgment, Supreme Court in the absence of enacted law to provide for effective enforcement of
basic human rights of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment laid down the
following guidelines:

1. All employers or persons in charge of work place whether in the public or private sector
should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. Without prejudice to the
generality of this obligation they should take the following steps:

1. Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the work place should
be notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways.

2. The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct

and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and
provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.

3. As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid

12
983 AIR 803
13
AIR 1997 SC 3011
 prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946.

4. Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health

and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women
at work places and no employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe
that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.

2. Where such conduct amounts to specific offences under I,P,C, or under any other law, the
employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint
with appropriate authority.

3. The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of perpetrator or
their own transfer.

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra14, the Supreme Court reiterated
the Vishakha ruling and observed that:

“There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work,
results in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the
two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India…. In our opinion,
the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to
encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and
the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights.
That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour
of a female and needs to be eliminated….”

4.1.3 Right Against Rape

Rape has been held to a violation of a person’s fundamental life guaranteed under Art. 21.
Right to life right to live with human dignity. Right to life, would, therefore, include all those aspects
of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and worth living.

In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty15, the supreme court held that

“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against
the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional
crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming

14
AIR 1999 SC 625
15
1996 AIR 922
to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most
hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most
cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Art
21”.

4.1.4 Right to Reputation

Reputation is an important part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human
civilization that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie
Davis16 in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry17 held that “good reputation was an element of
personal security and was protective by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of
life, liberty and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was
necessary to human society.”

The same American Decision has also been referred to in the case of State of Maharashtra
v. Public Concern of Governance Trust18, where the Court held that good reputation was an element
of personal security and was protected by the constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment
of life, liberty and property.

It has been held that the right equally covers the reputation of a person during and after
his death. Thus, any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous
person would certainly come under the scope of Art. 21.

In State of U.P. v. Mohammaad Naim19, succinctly laid down the following tests while
dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or authority whose
conduct comes in consideration before a court of law:

• whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself

• whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks

• whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to
animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must
be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve

16
55 American LR 171
17
1989 AIR 714
18
AIR 1989 SC 714
19
1964 AIR 703
 In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani20, a two-member commission of inquiry appointed
to inquire into the communal disturbances in Bhaglapur district on 24th October, 1989, made some
remarks in their report, which impinged upon the reputation of the respondent as a public man,
without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear
that one was entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation and one also had the right to protect it.
The court further said that in case any authority , in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under
the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a
chance to him to have his say in the matter. The court observed that the principle of natural justice
made it incumbent upon the authority to give an opportunity to the person, before any comment
was made or opinion was expressed which was likely to prejudicially affect that person.

4.1.5 Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not
include right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram21, a case which arose before Maneka Gandhi case, where
the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression “life” in
Article 21.The court said curtly:

“The right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in
Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of argument that the
word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”

But then the view underwent a change. With the defining of the word “life” in Article 21 in
broad and expansive manner, the court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nandkarni22, came to hold that “the right to life” guaranteed by Article 21
includes “the right to livelihood”. The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation23, popularly known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case” a five judge bench of the Court
now implied that ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can live without
the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood. That the court in this case observed that:

“The sweep of right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean,
merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and
execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
aspect if the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood

20
AIR 2003 SC 3357
21
AIR 1960 SC 932
22
AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC 124
23
AIR 1986 SC 180
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life,
the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation24.

In the instant case, the court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of
livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except
according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending
the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

Emphasizing upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the court Stated: “That,
which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be
an integral part of right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have
deprived him of his life25.”

Art. 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty
and for that matter on right to livelihood. What Art. 21 insists is that such deprivation ought to be
according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore
anyone who is deprived of right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure established by law
can challenge such deprivation as being against Art. 21 and get it declared void26.

In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress27, a regulation conferring power on the authority to

terminate the services of a permanent and confirm employee by issuing a noticing without assigning
him any reasons and without giving him a hearing has been held to be a wholly arbitrary and
violative of Art. 21.

In M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd.28, it was held that when a government
servant or one in a public undertaking is suspended pending a departmental disciplinary inquiry
against him, subsistence allowance must be paid to him. The Court has emphasized that a
government servant does not his right to life and other fundamental rights.

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law

which must be fair, just and reasonable and which is in the larger interest of people, the plea of

24
ibid
25
http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf
26
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315
27
AIR 1991 SC 101
28
AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679
deprivation of right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable. In, Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh29, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the land of a landowner was
acquired by state in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant law of acquisition the
right to livelihood of such a landowner even though adversely affected, his right to livelihood is not
violated. The Court opined that, the state acquires land in exercise of its power of eminent domain
for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in lieu of land, and therefore, the plea of
deprivation of right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable.

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors.30, the Supreme Court held that right to life
under Article 21 does protect livelihood but added a rider that its deprivation cannot be extended
too far or projected or stretched to the avocation, business or trade injurious to public interest or
has insidious effect on public moral or public order. It was, therefore, held that regulation of video
games or prohibition of some video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not violative
of Article 21 nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair, or unjust.

HIV Not a Sound ground for Termination

In MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY31, it was held that a person tested positive
for HIV could not be rendered “medically unfit” solely on that ground so as to deny him the
employment. The right to life includes the right to livelihood. Therefore, right to livelihood cannot
hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. Even though the petitioner might have been a
nuisance to others and conducted themselves either in a disorderly way or unbecoming on their
profession but, that in itself, it is not sufficient for the executive to take away their source of
livelihood by an executive fiat.

Right to Work Not a Fundamental Right under Art.21

In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee32, the five judge bench of the Supreme
Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to carry on any trade
or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) and held the right to carry on trade or
business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. Article 21 is not attracted in case
of trade and business. The petitioners, hawkers doing business off the pavement roads in Delhi, had
claimed that the refusal by the Municipal authorities to them to carry on business of their livelihood
amounted to violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court opined that while

29
Air 1996 SC 1051 : (1996) 2 SCC 549
30
AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC
31
AIR 1997 Bom. 406
32
AIR 1989 SC 1988
hawkers have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their
choice; they have no right to do so in a particular place. They cannot be permitted to carry on their
trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to be conveniently accommodating
the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all, or may be permitted once a week. Footpaths,
streets or roads are public property and are intended to several general public and are not meant for
private use. However, the court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the
concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. The two rights
were too remote to be connected together. The court distinguished the ruling in in Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation33 and held that “in that case the petitioners were very poor persons
who had made pavements their homes existing in the midst of filth and squalor and that they had to
stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in city. It was not the case of a business of
selling articles after investing some capital.”

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi34, the Court rejected that right to

employment at the present point of time can be included as a fundamental right under Right to Life
under Art. 21.

4.1.6 Right to Shelter

In U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited35, the right to
shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured in
article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed by article 21. To make the right meaningful to the
poor, the state has to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses36.

Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable

accommodation, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame37, the Court held that

“The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the
right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the
need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare
protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow
him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring
fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not

33
Supra Note(10 to be corrected.. olgatellis)
34
2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806.
35
AIR 1996 SC 114
36
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India
37
AIR (1990) SC 630 : (1990) 92 BOMLR 145 : JT 1990 (1) SC 106
necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a
reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-
built fireproof accommodation.”

In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.38, a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court had
considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen and it
was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as encompassing within its ambit, the right to
shelter to make the right to life more meaningful. The Court observed that:

“Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is
however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right
to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent
surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like
roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not
mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable
them to live and develop as a human being39.”

4.1.7 Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of family .K.
Ramaswamy J., in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra
Bose40, held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under Art. 21. The
learned judge explained that right to life and dignity of a person and status without means, were
cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations for meaning right to life and
that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were integral part of right to life.

In N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh41, (Chakmas Case), the supreme court said that
the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise,
and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons to threaten other person or group of persons. No
State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another
group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to
do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations.

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde42, it was held that right to

38
1996 AIR 1051, 1995( 6 )Suppl. SCR 827, 1996( 2 )SCC 549
39
http://nsm.org.in/2008/08/29/judicial-activism-on-right-to-shelter-rights-of-the-urban-poor/
40
AIR (1992)573 :(1991) SCR Supl. (2) 267 (Minority Opinion)
41
AIR (1996) 1234 :(1996) SCC (1) 742
42
(1995) Supp 2 SCC 549
economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed dalits was a fundamental right to
make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.

In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa43, the Supreme held that security
against sickness and disablement was a fundamental right under Art. 21 read with Sec. 39(e) of the
Constitution of India.

In L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre44, it was further held that
right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it must be
within the paying capacity and means of the insured.

4.1.8 Right Against Honour Killing

A division bench of Allahabad high court, In Surjit Kumar v. State of U.P.45, took serious
note on harassment, in ill treatment and killing of a person who was a major, for wanting to get
married to a person of another caste or community, for bringing dishonor to family since inter caste
or inter community marriage was not prohibited in law, the court said that such practice of “honour
killing” was a blot on society. The court, therefore, directed the police to take strong measures,
against those who committed such ‘honour killing’.

4.1.9 Right to Health

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla46, it has been held that- the right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care.

The Supreme Court in Vincent v. Union of India47, emphasized that a healthy body is the
very foundation of all human activities.Art.47, a directive Principle of State Policy in this regard lays
stress note on improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs injurious to health as one of
primary duties of the state48.

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India49, The Supreme Court laid
down that:

“Social justice which is device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human
dignity requires the State to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least
minimum standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The health and strength of

43
AIR 1995 SC 1811
44
AIR (1995)1811 :(1995) SCC (5) 482
45
AIR 2002 NOC 265
46
AIR (1997) SC 1225
47
1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468
48
Supra note p.1639
49
AIR (1995) 922, (1995) SCC (3) 42
worker, the court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen
the finer facets of life violating Art. 21.”

4.1.10 Right to Medical Care

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India50, the Supreme Court has very specifically
clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that ‘once life is
lost, status quo ante cannot be restored51.’ It was held that it is the professional obligation of all
doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life
without legal formalities to be complied with the police. Article21 casts the obligation on the state to
preserve life. It is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to
preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. No law or state
action can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the
medical profession. No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the
paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. The obligation being total,
absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statute or otherwise which would interfere
with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way. The court
also observed:

“Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the State to preserve life. The patient
whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it
is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that
the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death
by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment…. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital
or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting
life.”

In another case Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal52, a person
suffering from serious head injuries from a train accident was refused treatment at various hospitals
on the excuse that they lacked the adequate facilities and infrastructure to provide treatment. In this
case, the Supreme Court further developed the right to emergency treatment, and went on to state
that the failure on the part of the Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a
person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect to such a right, but maintained

50
AIR (1989) 2039, (1989) SCR (3) 997
51
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6th (2010), p. 1616
52
1996 SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43
that it was necessary for the State to provide for the resources to give effect to the entitlement of
the people of receiving emergency medical treatment53.

It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing
emergency medical care. In Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others54, it was
held that a hospital is duty bound to accept accident victims and patients who are in critical
condition and that it cannot refuse treatment on the ground that the victim is not in a position to
pay the fee or meet the expenses or on the ground that there is no close relation of the victim
available who can give consent for medical treatment55.

The court has laid stress on a very crucial point, viz., state cannot plead lack of financial
resources to carry out these directions meant to provide adequate medical services to the people.
The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical services to people
on account of financial constraints.

But, in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga56, the Supreme Court has recognized that
provision of health facilities cannot be unlimited. The court held that it has to be to the extent
finance permits. No country gas unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects.

In Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India57, right to get free and

timely legal aid or facilities has been held to be not a fundamental right of ex-servicemen. A policy
decision in formulating contributory scheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay one time
contribution does not violate Art. 21 nor is it inconsistent with Part IV of the constitution.

4.1.11 No Right to die

Art. 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life. Does, it also confers a right not
to live or a right to die if a person chooses to end his life? If so, what is the fate of Sec. 309,
I.P.C., 1860, which punishes a person convicted of attempting to commit suicide? There has been
difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the statute book.

This question came for consideration for first time before the High Court of Bombay
in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal. In this case the Bombay High Court held that the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes right to die, and the hon’ble High Court struck

53
http://blog.medicallaw.in/supreme-court-of-india-on-emergency-healthcare/
54
II (2005) CPJ 35 NC
55
Supra note 41 paschim bagga case online like at end of paragraph
56
AIR 1998 SC 1703 : (1998) 4 SCC 117
57
AIR 2006 SC 2945 : (2006) 8 SCC 199
down Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as
unconstitutional.

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India58, a two judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court, took
cognizance of the relationship/contradiction between Sec. 309, I.P.C., and Art. 21. The Court
supporting the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case held that the
right to life embodies in Art. 21 also embodied in it a right not to live a forced life, to his detriment
disadvantage or disliking. The court argued that the word life in Art. 21 means right to live with
human dignity and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the court
concluded that the right to live of which Art. 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not
to live a forced life. The court further emphasized that “attempt to commit suicide is in realty a cry
for held and not for punishment.”

The Rathinam ruling came to be reviewed by a full Bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v.
State of Punjab59. The question before the court was that if the principal offence of attempting to
commit suicide is void as being unconstitutional vis-à-vis Art.21, then how abetment can thereof be
punishable under Sec. 306, I.P.C., 1860. It was argued that ‘the right to die’ having been included in
Art.21 (Rathinam ruling), and Sec. 309 having been declared unconstitutional, any person abetting
the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in the enforcement of his fundamental right
under Art. 21.

The Court overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above stated case and has
put an end to the controversy and ruled that Art.21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and
personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life’ be read to be included in
protection of life. The court observed further:

“……’Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural

termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of
right to life”

4.1.12 Euthanasia and Right to Life

Euthanasia is termination of life of person who is terminally ill or in a permanent

vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab60, the Supreme Court has distinguished between
Euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide. The court held that death due to termination of natural

58
1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394
59
996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
60
Ibid
life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of
extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death that has already
commenced.

The court further held that, this may fall within the ambit of Right to live with human
dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity
when his life is ebbing out. This cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing
the natural span of life.

4.1.13 Sentence of death –Rarest of rare cases

The issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment was dealt with by the law
commission of India. After collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views
expressed by western scholars, the commission recommended the retention of the capital
punishment in the present state of the country. The commission held the opinion that having regard
to the conditions of India, to the variety of the social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the disparity in
the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its
population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country, India could not
risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.

In Jagmohan v. State of U.P,61 the Supreme Court had held that death penalty was not
violative of articles 14, 19 and 21.it was said that the judge was to make the choice between death
penalty and imprisonment for life on the basis of circumstances, facts and nature of crime brought
on record during trail. Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance
with the procedure established by law as required under article 21

But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P.62, Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the majority, held
that capital punishment would not be justified unless it was shown that the criminal was dangerous
to the society. The learned judge plead for the abolition of death penalty and said that it should
retained only for “white collar crimes”

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab63, the leading case of on the question, a
constitution bench of the supreme court explained that article 21 recognized the right of the state to
deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established by a
valid law .It was further held that death penalty for the offence of murder awarded under section

61
AIR 1973 SC 947
62
AIR 1979 SC 916
63
AIR 1980 SC 898
302 of I.P.C did not violate the basic feature of the constitution.

4.1.14 Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar64, it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable for insuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included in ‘right to live’
under Art.21 of the constitution. The court observed:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the
right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.32 of
the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of
life.”

4.1.15 Right to Clean Environment

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment
free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the
sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely
affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens
because of the hazards created if not checked.

The following are some of the well-known cases on environment under Article 21:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India(1988)65, the Supreme Court ordered closure of tanneries
that were polluting water.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India(1997)66, the Supreme Court issued several guideline and
directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental
degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India67, the Court took cognizance of the
environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources, rivers,
canals, underground water and agricultural land. The Court issued several directions to deal with the
problem.

In Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan68, the Supreme Court held that the

64
1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
65
AIR 1988 SC 1037 : (1987) 4 SCC 463
66
AIR 1997 SC 734 : (1997) 2 SCC 353
67
AIR 1996 SC 2721 : (1996) 5 SCC 647
68
(2007) 2 SCC 413
„right to life‟ means clean surrounding which lead to healthy body and mind. It includes right to
freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006)69, the Court held that the blatant and large-scale
misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi, violated the right to salubrious sand
decent environment. Taking note of the problem the Court issued directives to the Government on
the same.

In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India70, the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be
compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of act of smokers. Right to Life under
Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.

4.1.16 Right Against Noise Pollution

In Re: Noise Pollution71, the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious levels
of noise due to bursting of crackers during Diwali. The Apex Court suggested to desist from bursting
and making use of such noise making crackers and observed that:

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. It
guarantees a right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life
which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm
and there is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures.
Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the
noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises
that would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise, which
has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a
reasonable man, is nuisance…. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or
decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make
his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If
anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to
compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then
the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life
guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the

69
(2006) 3 SCC 399
70
AIR 2002 SC 40 : (2001) 8 SCC 765
71
Writ Petition (civil) 72 of 1998
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 2172”.

4.1.17 Right to Know or Right to Be Informed

Holding that the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court
in R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if
democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the
conduct of affairs of the State.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong
link between Art.21 and Right to know, particularly where “secret government decisions may affect
health, life and livelihood.

Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in Reliance
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, ruled that the citizens who had
been made responsible to protect the environment had a right to know the government proposal.

4.2 PERSONAL LIBERTY

Liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As
long as 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that,

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned… but… by the law of the land.

The smallest Article of eighteen words has the greatest significance for those who cherish
the ideals of liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India the concept of ‘liberty’ has
received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that
liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint; and has held that it encompasses those rights
and privileges that have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
by free men. The meaning of the term ‘personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in the
Kharak Singh’s case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police
Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits and secret picketing. Oddly
enough both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term
“personal liberty” by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois, which held the term
‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation
extended to all those limits and faculties by which the life was enjoyed. This provision equally
prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or
the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer

72
Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution v. Union Of India &Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3136 : (2005) 5
SCC 439
world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorizing domiciliary visits [at night by
police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus]
unconstitutional. The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is
the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they
are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all
fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those
‘necessarily’ lost as an incident of imprisonment

4.2.1 Right to Privacy

As per Black’s Law Dictionary, privacy means “right to be let alone; the right of a person to
be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the
public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”

Although not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the right to privacy is considered a
‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right that has been declared by the Supreme Court as
integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. Right to privacy has been culled by Supreme
Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the constitution read with the Directive Principles
of State Policy. Although no single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy; various
statutes contain provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserve this right73.

For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.74 question whether the right to privacy
could be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came
before the court. “Surveillance” under Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations constituted an
infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation
236(b), which permitted surveillance by “domiciliary visits at night”, was held to be in violation of
Article 21. A seven-judge bench held that:

“the meanings of the expressions “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 were considered
by this court in Kharak Singh’s case. Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no
explicit guarantee of a “right to privacy”, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a
right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance
caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate

73
https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/ii-legal-framework-0
74
AIR 1963 SC 1295
essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilization”

In a minority judgment in this case, Justice Subba Rao held that:

“the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on
his movements, but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does
not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential
ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give
him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where
he lives with his family, is his ‘castle’; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty”.

This case, especially Justice Subba Rao’s observations, paved the way for later elaborations
on the right to privacy using Article 21.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh75, The Supreme Court took a more elaborate
appraisal of the right to privacy. In this case, the court was evaluating the constitutional validity of
Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which provided for police
surveillance of habitual offenders including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects. The
Supreme Court desisted from striking down these invasive provisions holding that:

“It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable
restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals
and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that are subjected to surveillance.”

The court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an emanation from

Arts.19(a), (d) and 21. Mathew J. observed in the instant case,

“The right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a process of case by
case development. Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty. the right to move freely
throughout India and the freedom of speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy
as an emanation from them that one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that
the right is absolute…..

…… Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have

penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right
must be subject to restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest”

In R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu76, The right to privacy of citizens was dealt with

75
1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946
76
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
by the Supreme Court in the following terms:

“(1) the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens
of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy
of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other
matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent – whether
truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right
to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may,
however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or
raises a controversy.

(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception that any publication concerning the
aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records
including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record,
the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and
media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)]
an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault,
kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and
the incident being publicized in press/media.”

The final case that makes up the ‘privacy quintet’ in India was the case of PUCL v. Union of
India77, the Supreme Court observed that:

We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to
“life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given
case constitute a right to privacy; Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except
according to procedure established by law”.

Scope and Content of Right to Privacy:

Tapping of Telephone

Emanating from the right to privacy is the question of tapping of telephone.

In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that, the telephonic
conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or high handed’
interference by tapping the conversation. The protection is not for the guilty citizen against the

77
AIR 1997 SC 568
efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants.

Telephone tapping is permissible in India under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
The Section lays down the circumstances and grounds when an order for tapping of a telephone may
be passed, but no procedure for making the odder is laid down therein.

The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India held that in the absence of just and fair
procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible to
safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens under Section 19 and 21. Accordingly, the court issued
procedural safeguards to be observed before restoring to telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of
the Act.

The Court further ruled that “right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal
liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a
right to privacy; Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to
procedure established by law”. The court has further ruled that Telephone conversation is an
important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone
conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping would, thus, infract Article 21
of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The
procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.”

4.2.2 Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

In Mr. X v. Hospital Z78, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the
disclosure by the doctor that his patient, who was to get married had tested HIV positive, would be
violative of the patient’s right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy was not
absolute and might be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of
health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. The court explained that the right to
life of a lady with whom the patient was to marry would positively include the right to be told that a
person, with whom she was proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was
sexually communicable. Since the right to life included right to healthy life so as to enjoy all the
facilities of the human body in the prime condition it was held that the doctors had not violated the
right to privacy.

4.2.3 Right to privacy and subjecting a person to medical tests

78
AIR 1995 SC 495
 It is well settled that the right to privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such
action as may be lawfully taken for the preventive of crimes or disorder or protection of health or
morals or protections of rights and freedom of others. In case there is conflict between fundamental
rights of two parties that which advances public morality would prevail.

A three-judge bench in case of Sharda v. Dharmpal79, ruled that a matrimonial court had
the power to direct the parties to divorce proceedings, to undergo a medical examination. a
direction issued for this could not be held to the violative of one’s right to privacy but court however
said that for this there must be a sufficient material .

4.2.4 Right to Privacy-Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

A woman’s right to make reproductive choices includes the woman’s right to refuse
participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods such
as undergoing sterilization procedures woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to
give birth and subsequently raise children.

4.2.5 Right to go abroad

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi80, the Supreme Court
has included Right to travel abroad contained in by the expression “personal liberty” within the
meaning of Article 21.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India81, validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967,
which empowered government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of general
public was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of right to “personal liberty” the
impugned section didn’t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was
violative of Art. 21.

The court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in
order to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that as the right to travel
abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding
passport under the Passport Act. BHAGWATI, J., observed:

The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential

79
AIR 2003 SC 3450
80
967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
81
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that
It must be “‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be
no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

4.2.6 Right against Illegal Detention

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh82, the petitioner was detained by the police
officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days. Taking
the serous note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the Supreme
Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during investigation:

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have a friend,

relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being
detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station
of this right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal83, the Supreme Court laid down detailed
guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and
detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures and held that any form
of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation,
investigation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

4.2.7 Article 21 & Prisoner’s Rights

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not by
mere reason of their conviction deprived of all their fundamental rights that they otherwise possess.
Following the conviction of a convict is put into a jail he may be deprived of fundamental freedoms
like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But a convict is entitled to the precious
right guaranteed under Article 21 and he shall not be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
by a procedure established by law84.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article
21. The Court has interpreted Article 21 so as to have widest possible amplitude. On being convicted
of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law. Article

82
AIR 1994 SC 1349
83
AIR 1997 SC 610
84
Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India 47 thEd., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 269
21, has laid down a new constitutional and prison jurisprudence85. The rights and protections
recognized to be given in the topics to follow:

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra86, the Supreme Court said while holding free legal
aid as an integral part of fair procedure the Court explained that “ the two important ingredients of
the right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him
to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or
otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the
government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness;
this cannot be termed as government charity.

In other words, an accused person at lease where the charge is of an offence punishable
with imprisonment is entitled to be offered legal aid, if he is too poor to afford counsel. Counsel for
the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defence. Breach of these
safeguards of fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction.

4.2.8 Right to Speedy Trial

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar87, it was brought to the notice of
the Supreme Court that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons for
years awaiting trial in courts of law. The Court took a serious note of the situation and observed that
it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for
such long periods of time without trials.

The Court held that detention of under-trial prisoners, in jail for period longer than what
they would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal as being in violation of Article of 21. The
Court, thus, ordered the release from jail of all those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail for
longer period than what they could have been sentenced had they been convicted

In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak88, a Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court
dealt with the question and laid down certain guidelines for ensuring speedy trial of offences some

85
See Kumar, Narender, The Constitutional Law of India, 1 stEd., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009, p-
158
86
AIR 1978 SC 1548
87
AIR 1979 SC 1360
88
AIR 1992 SC 170
of them have been listed below89:

Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused to
be tried speedily.

Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage
of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial.

The concerns underlying the right of speedy trial from the point of view of the accused
are:

The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.

The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an
unduly prolonged investigation, enquiry or trial should be minimal; and

Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend him.

While determining whether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to all the
attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the
workload of the court concerned. Each and every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused.
An accuser’s plea of denial of speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the accused did at no
time demand a speedy trial

In the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar90, the Supreme Court directed the Judges of the
High Courts to give quick judgements and in certain circumstances the parties are to submit
application to the Chief Justice to move case to other bench or to do the needful at his discretion.

4.2.9 Right to Fair Trial

Free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme Court
in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat91 said that right to free and fair trial not only to the
accused but also to the victims, their family members and relatives, and society at large.

4.2.10 Right to Bail

The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to bathe
present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which insists merely on financial security
from the accused and their sureties. Many of the under trials being poor and indigent are unable to
provide any financial security. Consequently they have to languish in prisons awaiting their trials.

89
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEd., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010,
p.1200
90
AIR 2001 SC 3173
91
AIR 2006 SC 1367
 But incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offences during pendency of trial
cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. In the case
of Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh92, the Court held that right to bail was included in the
personal liberty under Article 21 and its refusal would be deprivation of that liberty which could be
authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.

4.2.11 No right to Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail is a statutory right and it does not arise out of Article 21. Anticipatory bail
cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be
considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.

4.2.12 Right against Handcuffing

Handcuffing has been held to be prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-
harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. It has been held to be unwarranted and violative of Article 21.

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration93, the Supreme Court struck down the Rules that
provided that every under-trial who was accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more
than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. The Court ruled that handcuffing
should be resorted to only when there was “clear and present danger of escape” of the accused
under -trial, breaking out of police control.

4.2.13 Right against Solitary Confinement

It has been held that a convict is not wholly denuded of his fundamental rights and his
conviction does not reduce to him into a non – person whose rights are subjected to the whims of
the prison administration. Therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison
system is conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguard.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration94, the petitioner was sentenced to death by the
Delhi session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high court. He was
detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of
conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement. It was contended that Section

92
AIR 1978 SC 527
93
AIR 1980 SC 1535
94
AIR 1978 SC 1675
30 of Prisoners Act does not authorize jail authorities to send him to solitary confinement, which by
itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
could be imposed by a court of law and it could not be left to the whim and caprice of the prison
authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the argument of the petitioner and held that imposition of
solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of Article 21.

4.2.14 Right against Custodial Violence

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of having
committed crimes are a routine matter. There has been a lot of public outcry from time to time
against custodial deaths.

The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities, intimidation,
harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has classified these as
being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with human dignity and the same
are available against torture.

4.2.15 Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21

In Deena v. Union of India95, the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging
was challenged as being “barbarous, inhuman, and degrading” and therefore violative of Article 21.
Referring to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949; the opinion of the Director General of
Health Services of India, the 35th Report of the Law Commission; and the opinion of the Prison
Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts, the Court held that death by hanging was the best and least
painful method of carrying out the death penalty, and thus not violative of Article 21.

4.2.16 Right against Public Hanging

The Rajasthan High Court, by an order directed the execution of the death sentence of an
accused by hanging at the Stadium Ground of Jaipur. It was also directed that the execution should
be done after giving widespread publicity through the media.

On receipt of the above order, the Supreme Court in Attorney General of India v. Lachma
Devi96 held that the direction for execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative
of Article 21. It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice.
Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric it would be a shame
on the civilised society to reciprocate the same. The Court said, “a barbaric crime should not have to
be visited with a barbaric penalty.”

95
AIR 1983 SC 1155
96
AIR 1986 SC 467
4.2.17 Right against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu97, the Supreme Court held that delay in
execution of death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection
under Article 21 and the death sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of the
delay is immaterial, the accused himself may be the cause of the delay.

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab98, the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for
execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way
to undo that is through Article 21. But the Court held that this cannot be taken as the rule of law and
applied to each case and each case should be decided upon its own faces.

4.2.18 Right to Write a Book

In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang99, the petitioner while under detention

in jail wrote a book on science and sought the permission from the Government to send the
manuscript of the book to his wife for publication, to which the Government refused. The Court held
that this was an infringement of personal liberty and that Article 21 included the right to write the
book and get it published.

4.2.19 Right against Bar Fetters

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court gave Right against Bar Fetters
and held that treatment that offended human dignity and reduced man to a level of beast would
certainly be arbitrary and could be questioned under Article 21, but the right is not absolute.

4.3 PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

The expression “procedure established by law” has been subject matter of interpretation
in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in the process of judicial
interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression. The Supreme Court took the view that
“procedure established by law” in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as enacted by the
state and rejected to equate it with the American “due process of law.” But, in Maneka Gandhi v
Union of India the Supreme Court observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a
person of his life and personal liberty must be “right, just and fair” and not “arbitrary, fanciful and

97
AIR 1981 SC 643
98
AIR 1983 SC 465
99
AIR 1966 SC 424
oppressive,” otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not
be satisfied. Thus, the “procedure established by law” has acquired the same significance in India as
the “due process of law” clause in America. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi
Administration has said that though “our Constitution has no due process clause” but after Maneka
Gandhi’s case “the consequence is the same, and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as
counterpart of the due process clause in American Constitution.”

Recently the Supreme Court has dealt with an increasing number of people sentenced to
death for “bride-burning”. In December 1985 the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish
Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for two separate cases of killing two young woman by
setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move the court ordered both prisoners to be publicly
executed. In a response to a review petition by the Attorney General against this judgment the
Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings, observing that “a barbaric crime does
not have to be met with a barbaric penalty.” The Court observed that the execution of death
sentence by public hanging is violation of article 21, which mandates the observance of a just, fair
and reasonable procedure. Thus, an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging
was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground inter alia, that it was violative of article 21. In
Sher Singh v State of Punjab the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death
sentence violates art 21.

The Supreme Court has taken the view that this article read as a whole is concerned with
the fullest development of an individual and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Every
procedure must seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just.’ The right to life and personal liberty has been
interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment and all those
matters that contributed to life with dignity. The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be
one that is commensurate to protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to
have the right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in
favour of the State is not reasonable, fair and just even though the State cannot affirmatively
provide livelihood for all. Under this doctrine the Court will not just examine whether the procedure
itself is reasonable, fair and just, but also whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable
manner. This has meant, for example the right to speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable,
fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State
action covering civil, criminal and administrative action.

The Supreme Court of India in one of the landmark decision in the case of Murli S. Deora v.
Union of India observed that, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. The Court
observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any
process of law. Taking into consideration the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive
smokers, the Supreme Court directed prohibition of smoking in public places. It issued directions to
the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure
prohibition of smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions
etc. In this manner the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution
and expanded its horizon to include the rights of non-smokers.

Further, when there is inordinate delay in the investigation – it affects the right of the
accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the
investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can be no
cause of action. But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation, then the
provisions of Article 21 are attracted and the right is not only against actual proceedings in court but
also against police investigation. The Supreme Court has widen the scope of ‘procedure established
by law’ and held that merely a procedure has been established by law a person cannot be deprived
of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. It is thus now well established
that the “procedure established by law” to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty, must be
just, fair and reasonable and that it must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, that the procedure
to be valid must comply with the principles of natural justice.

4.4 ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY

In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla100, Popularly known as habeas corpus case, the supreme
court held that article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty and
therefore, if the right to move any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by the
presidential order under article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for
challenging the legality of his detention.

Such a wider connotation given to article 359, resulted in the denial of the cherished right
to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established that during emergence of
1975, the fundamental freedom of the people had lost all meanings.

In order that it must not occur again, the constitution act, 1978, amended article 359 to

100
AIR 1976 SC 1207
the effect that during the operation of proclamation of emergency, the remedy for the enforcement
of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential
order.

In view of the 44th amendment, 1978, the observation made in the above cited judgments
are left merely of academic importance.
 CHAPTER - V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESSTIONS

This is right in the sweet legislature has the right to life and personal liberty goes back to
the Magna Carta period. England, a democratic institution wedded full confidence in the legislature,
and the judiciary has to play a limited role. Absolute faith in the power of the legislature to provide
affordable access to judicial review brought under the American Constitution was mixed. The model
of life and personal liberty clause of the Constitution tow was before. In this regard, the experience
of comparative constitutional jurisprudence of the English and the English model shows a mastery of
the lodge.

In the Constitution. Along with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to live
there. It is with life and liberty, property, freedom from the capitalist point of view points, which was
included in the Constitution was the only American. 'Law' or 'due process and personal liberty is the
right to life, without exception, one of the exceptions enumerated in the Constitution. The
constitutional level, and thus the right to life and personal liberty to be filed initially in a limited
access. It is interesting to note that the life and freedom is the right of the Constitution. Now coming
to the international level.

Forming part of the lives of individual freedom and human rights, the rights, the
Constitution has not deviated from that experience was to enforce human rights have been an
effective and powerful instruments.

Magna carta of human rights to life and personal liberty or personal freedom of action ride
over the operation of the misaction shows a concern. There is also a political party with the majority
of the legislature, who ruled the country, the right to personal liberty, and especially the atrocities
committed there. The right to a judicial control of the legislature and will be held accountable.

"No person except in accordance with procedures established by the law of his life or
personal liberty shall not be denied.": Article 21 of the Maneka Gandhi's decision earlier, in Section
21, only the citizens against the arbitrary right to life and personal liberty, and is not guaranteed to
legislative action. This is a valid law can support his actions by the citizens of the state can not
interfere.

Maneka Gandhi, but later decided to Section 21 of Executive action and not only individual
freedom but protect the rights of citizens in the legislative process. If the terms of a person can be
deprived of his life or personal liberty, first, to be a law, and secondly, the method, provided that the
only fair and reasonable that, there is a procedure prescribed by law.

Celebrity provisions of Section 21 of the Indian Constitution, and as a basic right to occupy
a unique place. It is the right to life and liberty of citizens and aliens personal guarantees and are
enforceable against the state. Maneka Gandhi's case, a new interpretation of Section 21 of the right
to life and personal liberty of the horizon is the beginning of a new era. The founding fathers of the
Constitution to give the dimensions can not be visualized or that covers various aspects. 'Right to
life' and 'personal freedom' of the modern name for what traditionally has been known as a 'natural
right.' It is necessary for the development of the human personality is right primitive. Each of the
other people all the time, because it is contrary to the fact that the only rational and moral being
that they ought to have the moral right. Like the chalk out of his own life, he better be able to make
a man, which is a fundamental right.

The right to life and personal liberty of India, is protected by the constitution of 1950 and
32, respectively, under article 226 to be issued by the High Court and the Supreme Court of India,
the right one. Maneka Gandhi, in the case of judicial activism and citizen control of corruption and
the basic human rights with a view to ensuring that it can extend the reach of the law.

Very few landmark cases, the interpretation of Article 21 has been changed, which will be
discussed. The historical development of the modern interpretation of the right to life is one of
constitutional law.

Delhi Pollution case, the Supreme Court, "the environmental balance of a healthy
environment with minimal disturbance to the right to live" in 21 of the Constitution guarantees the
right to life must be explained that in 1989, and "non-essential constraints without [people] and
their cattle, house and agricultural land, and unnecessarily affection (SIC) of air, water, and
environment. " Charan in India sahu V. In the ruling Justice Kuldip Singh described the role of
government to protect the fundamental right to expand on this idea: "It is the responsibility and
obligation of the State to protect its citizens." Court to protect the fundamental rights of the
government's obligation to protect the environment as it has.

So, when the Supreme Court said, in real life infuse this article so broadly defined in
Section 21. It is so meaningful to the lives of the citizens of the locus standi rule waived.

Thus, the Supreme Court the widest possible interpretation of the Article 21 and the right
to live with human dignity in its ambit is included. The right to life and personal liberty in this part of
the test case in the Indian judicial system, which is shown to improve the interpretation of the latter
method. Thus, 21 of the Constitution the right to life of a civilized considerably explains the meaning
of the right to life, which has been extended by the Indian Supreme Court. Section 21 of the next
part of the composition of the Indian judiciary interpreters and creativity in order to understand the
meaning of judicial activism will be discussed.

So, even though in many ways it is the Indian judicial system, its judicial activism
suppressed by applying a Savior of mankind, as it is becoming clear that evolved in the wake of all
the above mentioned cases. The key is to expand the scope of application of

Article 21. However, the delay in the delivery of the decision of the Supreme Court on the
constitutional provisions of the friendly people of this Indian to win the trust of millions of people.
We welcome all new evolution - the Indian Constitution jurisprudence Parana a dispassionate
judicial rulings based on the aforementioned, it is unremunerated, there is an implied, but judicially-
evolved and the right to privacy guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Meanwhile, the MP
Sharma and Kharak Singh, the Supreme Court's rulings to deny the existence of the right to privacy,
Govinda, Rajagopal and PUCL the small benches unmistakably indicate the existence of such a right.
Judicial interpretation of Maneka Gandhi, most notably in the case of the transfer of satisfying the
requirements as laid down in this right is recognized, subject to lega restrictions, which in the case of
Maneka Gandhi, the following is observed. Right to privacy under Article 21 of the rewrite was to
address the issue, however, if it concludes that the right to privacy exists that there is little doubt.

Kharak Singh as effectively overrule a bench so that a greater number of judges, unless
such statements are not valid in law. Different points in time as the legal principles laid down by the
Supreme Court's interpretation of a musical composition, it is enough to put an end to the existence
of a right to privacy under Part III of the Constitution. Section 21 of the policy of "personal freedom,"
a freedom in the face of other people's rights which go to make up a compendious term to include
diversity Kharak Singh said that, it was stated in Section 19 of Article (1). The menu can be regarded
as a right of personal freedom, just to be fair and reasonable and that the second and third
principles which would interfere with any law Maneka, have been laid down as a fundamental right,
the right to the confidential nature of the fundamental and partakes of the recommendations of the
Constitution assures that every person is an attribute of a person's dignity.

So it does not encroach on the rights of a person merely on the state of order, but a
negative one will be able to effectively protect his private life that is not enough to create a positive
affirmation of the state. Explained by an appropriate bench of the Supreme Court, the right to
privacy, the rest of the judicial dispute may be settled, which has a strong constitutional Palace.
 I only had the honor of her, protect her, the word 'dignity' to enable interpreters to
maintain the dignity of the human being or the international convention and by inculcating in them
that they have done a lot of people who would like to conclude by stating that this is the case. Status
can not be enacted, some of which are, because it can protect the judiciary. And, also respect the
human dignity of the individual, and as long as a legal or would be used to support the tyrannical
and sadistic pain to use, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or other forms of persecution and suffering less
from the political morality of respect for the people you work with. Positive social goods and
services, such as respect for people, food, clean air, an efficient and economical transportation
system, embodying the claim for medical Potable water is defined as when some philosophical
problems, however, may arise, adequate nutrition, and so on, means of livelihood. We have seen
above that many claims can only be promoted.

After analyzing the various provisions of the code adopted by the Indian government in
the inquisitorial system, the reflection of the nature of the adversary, but also can not be denied,
however, that can be submitted. When dealing with this kind of system, the code provides a number
of methods. Concerned about the basic elements of a fair trial as much as the other, the provisions
of this material can be seen in a variety of loyalty code. But the real problem comes with the
implementation of this provision.

For example, one wants to resolve the case quickly, but the fact that the speedy trial
provisions for minor offenses (aree the total number of trials published or produced, although the
book for those who are languishing in jail under trial, around 1.7 million, that's all the legal issues
around 2.45 lakh) and The triangular nature of the circumstances in which an adversary criminal
system, the role of the suggestions are very important to set the maximum sentence.54 served in
spite of a major part of the prosecution in this case, because it has the support of the investigation,
because it represents the state, in a strong position.

On the other hand, the accused person can only rely on his advice, for those who are a last
resort to protect him from arbitrary and unjust actions may Conjointly by the court to life and the
right to access the personal Libert interesting development in the area of a fundamental right
guaranteed under Part III gave a new dimension. The world has been debating the permissibility of
criminal jurisprudence that the right to live, Apex and the location of the High Court level, the Indian
judicial system to settle under the Indian Constitution. Voted in favor of the right to live in the
Bombay High Court under Section 21 of the right to live as a fundamental right recognized by the
Apex Court got the power. This is a country where poverty dominates Literacy lies on the boundary,
this kind of abuse of fundamental rights, rather than the output may be beneficial that can be
provided. It is the area of the judiciary is recommended that expansion will be slow.

The main problem is how to find meaning and effectively enforce its mandate to educate
the public about their rights and forming part of the 'personal freedom.' Successfully developed the
principles of accountability and apart from rendering the official judicial guidelines, the department
is responsible for the proceeding for contempt of court and contempt of a High Court to be
introduced to him for the punishment of those responsible will render. In addition, the courts and
the general public as well as besides being shown on TV in the network to all of the great publishing
and distributing pamphlets in local languages for all India Radio to broadcast the appropriate cases,
require police and officials. This technique should not be used more frequently than the other.

The Supreme Court by creatively interpreting the scope of Article 21, the apex court has
strived to secure the people of this country a better life and greater liberty. But at the same time
these judicial pronouncements and innovations are not as spectacular and revolutionary as is
generally thought of. The inherent nature of adjudicatory process is such that judicial innovations
has to be incremental, has to be in consonance with the prevailing law and the system. The judges
have to justify their innovations by a persuasive dialectical reasoning, they are expected to be
reasonable and conscientious and objective lest their purely personal preferences and values get
infiltrated into the fabric of law and they have to take into account the possible consequences of
their innovations. We should therefore, look at the courts as symbolic transmitters of the normative
images of a legitimate society in which human dignity and liberty is considered to be sacrosanct.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONSTITUTIONS, ACT AND STATUTES

Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818

Body of Principles for the protection of All persons under any form of

Detention or Imprisonment, 1988.

Bill of Rights, 1689.

Bombay Regulation, 1827

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

Citizenship Act, 1955.

Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974

Constitution of Eire, 1937

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (H.M. Seervai)

Constitution Of United States.

Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, 1950

Government of India Act, 1935

Holdworth, History of English Law, 7th Edn., Vol 1 Rigueda.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Magna Carta, 1215

Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

Prisoners Act, 1894

BOOKS

Bansal, V.K., Right to Life and Personal Liberty in India, 1987.

Basu, D.D., Commentaries on the Constitution of India, 6th ed., vol.D,1978

Basu, D.D. Select Constitutions of the World, 3rd ed., 1990.

 Bhagwati. P.N., Law as Instrument of Change, 1985.

Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of Englnad, 16th Ed., vol.1 1825.

Constituent Assembly Debates, Government of India, Vol.III, 1947, Vol.VII

1948.

Cooley, Thomas M., The general Principles of Constitutional law in the United

States of America, 1931 (Indian Reprint 1994).

Dicey, A.V., Law of the Constitution, 10th ed., 1959.

Dhavan, Rejeev, Justice on Trail: The Supreme Court Today, 1980

V. Parabrahma Sastri Right to life and Personal Liberty Vol 1st 2005.

Mahabharata, Shanti Parva.

ARTICLES

Amar, Akhil Reed, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yele LJ 1193.

Baxi, Upendra, The Supreme Court Under Trail : Under Trails and the Supreme Court, ( 1980) 1 S C C
35 ( jour)

Bhat, P. Ishwara. Taking Right to Property in the Bosom of Right to life and Personal Liberty. (1996)
13.

Bhagwati,P.N Human Rights in the Criminal Justice System, 12 IBR (1985) 316.

Chaturbedi, M,N Liberalizing the Requirement of Standing in Public Interest Litigation, 26 JILI
(1984)52.

Dwivedi, B,P Bonded Labour and Judicial Process, ( 1988) CULR 391.

Dwivedi, B,P., The Right to Privacy : A New Horizon, AIR 1991 (jour) 113.

Errabbi, B, Right to Go Abroad : Judicial Treatment in India (1981) 8 JCBI 183.

Fazal, M.A., Drafting a British Bill of Rights, 27 JILI (1985) 423.

Gopalkrishnan, N.S Delay in Execution : An Evaluation of the Judicial Reasoning, ( 1989) INLSJ 169.

Jain, S,N., Money compensation for Administrative Wrongs Through Artcile 32

,25 JILI, 118 (1983).

Lloyed, Do we Need A Bill of Rights ? 39 M L R 121.

Mathur, L.N., Implementation of Legal Aid : Organisational, Financial and Administrative, ( 1977) Kur
L J, 97.

Pande, B,B When They Come To The Court Seeking Basic Needs : Alternative To The Flawed
Response, 31 JILI 360 (1989).

Ramchandran Raju Article 21 and The Ghost of shamdasani (1987) 1 S C C 19 (Jour). Sathe, S,P., XXVII
A S I L (1991), 200.

Tulzapurkar, Judiciary: Attacks and Survival, AIR 1983(Jour)

Zeev, Segal, A General Approach to Privacy : The Israeli V. The English Approach, Public Law, 1982,
Stevens, London, 240.

Webliography

• http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf

• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm

• http://www.voiceofresearch.org/doc/Sep-2013/Sep-2013_14.pdf

• http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_id=2799

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India

• http://www.academia.edu/1192854/10._RIGHTS_OF_PRISONERS

• http://nsm.org.in/2008/08/29/judicial-activism-on-right-to-shelter-rights-of-the-urban-
poor/

• http://www.firstpost.com/india/sc-agrees-to-examine-right-to-shelter-for-pavement-
dwellers-1108073.html

• http://www.hurights.or.jp/english/human_rights_and_jurisprudence/right-to-lifelivelihood/

• http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Article_21_of_the_Constitution_(in)

• http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2009/judicial_activism_tcd_dublin_1
4-10-09.pdf

• Case%20for%20Amendment%20of%20Copyright%20Regime%20in%20India%20November%
2022-%202009.pdf

• http://www.importantindia.com/2014/right-to-life-and-personal-liberty-in-indian-
constitution/

• http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-
discussed/5497/
 • http://www.lawnotes.in/Article_21_of_Constitution_of_India

• https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8
&sqi=2&ved=0CHgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.escr-
net.org%2Fusr_doc%2Fkothari_article.doc&ei=_ek1U8q8GMX9rAf-k4DwCw&usg=AFQjCNE-
jjWE6ux8WDx7fUt67WWSeNoDcw&sig2=4pVx-
2JKpcbKBR3hz5l9Uw&bvm=bv.63808443,d.bmk

• http://lawreports.wordpress.com/category/honour-killing/

• http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol5-issue6/F0562831.pdf

• http://www.lawprofiles.co.in/article.aspx

• http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/honour-killings-the-law-and-
improvements-to-it-law-essays.php

• http://www.academia.edu/5386926/Honor_Killings_Human_Rights_and_Indian_Law

• http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Honour-Killing-A-heinous-crime-
4985.asp#.UzXD3KiSySo

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779959/

• http://www.hrln.org/hrln/peoples-health-rights/pils-a-cases/1484-sc-reaffirms-workers-
right-to-health-and-medical-care.html

• http://blog.medicallaw.in/supreme-court-of-india-on-emergency-healthcare/

• http://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/Articles/health.htm

• http://www.cehat.org/rthc/paper3.htm

• www.legalsutra.com

• www.indiankanoon.com

• www.manupatra.com

• www.scribed.com

• www.supremecourtofindia.com

• www.legalserviceindia.com

NEWS PAPERS

_ The Hindu

_ Hindustan Times
 _ Times of India.

REPORTS

Bengal Committee Report, 1950.

Bombay Committee Report, 1949.

Government of India Processual Justice to the People, 1973

(Krishna Iyer Report )

Nehru Report, 1928.

Shah Commission Report, 1978.