+

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

SUBJECT

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY

CH .LAKSHMI MAM

NAME OF THE STUDENT

JANARDHAN G

ROLL NO & SEMESTER

2015036 & SEMESTER-6

Page 1 of 28
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Public
International law faculty, CH.LAKSHMI MAM for giving me a golden opportunity to take up
this project regarding –RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY. I have tried my best
to collect information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the
given project topic.

Page 2 of 28
OBJECTIVES/AIMS OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to explain about the provisions under Article 21 to protect the
deprivation of life and personal liberty of people.

SIGNIFICANCE & BENEFIT OF THE STUDY

This study helps to know the rights guaranteed under the Article 21and the benefits of such rights

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is limited only to the rights conferred under the article 21 .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Dr. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this project the researcher is using doctrinal type methodology. The methodology may include
publication research, surveys and other research technique.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What are the various rights avialble to indiviudals under the concept of inalienable right to
life and liberty?

2) What are the possible remedies in case of violation?

3) rights of a prisoner?

Page 3 of 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) INTRODUCTION

2) RIGHT TO LIFE

 RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY

 RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
 RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE
 NO RIGHT TO DIE
 EUTHANASIA AND RIGHT TO LIFE
 RIGHT AGAINST DELAYED EXECUTION
 RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD
 RIGHT TO GET POLLUTION FREE WATER AND AIR AND RIGHT TO CLEAN
ENVIRONMENT
 RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE
3) PERSONAL LIBERTY
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY
 ARTICLE 21 & PRISONER’S RIGHTS
 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
 RIGHT TO BAIL
 RIGHT AGAINST SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
 RIGHT AGAINST DELAYED EXECUTION

4)RIGHT TO EDUCATION

5)CONCLUSION

6)BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 4 of 28
 RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

INTRODUCTION:

‘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.
UDHR ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ARTICLE 3:

“everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration provides that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person." This is not simply an Enlightenment reflex, but a profound reaction to what
went on in the concentration camps. Article 3 overlaps with Article 25 and should be read in
conjunction with Article 5, which provides that no one shall be subject to "torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," and Article 9, which provides that no one shall
be the subject to "arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

Page 5 of 28
At the time of the drafting of the Declaration, the Chinese representative in the Third Committee
of the UN General Assembly, Mr. Chang, proposed a conceptual framework in which the initial
three articles of the Declaration should express the main ideas of eighteenth century political
philosophy on rights: Article 1 to express the idea of "fraternity;" Article 2 that of "equality;" and
Article 3 that of "liberty." Article 3 thus sets forth this basic principle, which is then defined and
clarified in the following nine articles (Articles 4--11). These inter-related articles, and especially
Article 3 on which they are conceptually based, deal with the issue of personal security (as
opposed to issues of political and civil rights, new international rights like citizenship and
asylum, and economic, cultural and social rights which are dealt with in later parts of the
Declaration).

These strong protections for personal security illustrate the close connection between the
Holocaust and the Declaration. Hitler had an organic view of the state (the implications of which
were drawn out in Mein Kampf - in a terribly consistent way). He is the best known, though not
the first thinker, to take the word "organic" literally. He stated many times that he saw the "state
as the living organism of a nationality" and he used similar metaphors and abstract phrases
identifying the state with race, and race with blood. Most of the activities of the Third Reich can
be categorized as the assembling, preserving, and bringing to dominance of the Aryan race. At a
mass meeting in 1934, Rudolf Hess declared National Socialism to be "nothing but applied
biology." Accordingly, National Socialism was not just authoritarian and totalitarian, it was first
and foremost racist.

This extreme "organic view" ensured the total breakdown of the dividing line between
individuals and their state. As Hernan Santa Cruz, the Chilean delegate to the Third Committee,
stated--this view is directly opposed to the assumption upon which the Declaration is based. That
is to say, the Declaration in Articles 3--11 and 25, is based on the belief that "the interests of the
individual [come] before those of the state and that the state should not be allowed to deprive the
individual of his dignity and his basic rights."

ICCPR ON HUMAN RIGHTS:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international human
rights treaty adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1966. It is one of the two treaties that give

Page 6 of 28
legal force to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the other being the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR).

ICCPR commits the states signed up to it to protect and respect the civil and political rights of
individuals. The UK ratified ICCPR in 1976.

ICCPR rights are fundamental to enabling people to enjoy a broad range of human rights,
including those relating to:

 freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
 freedom from slavery and forced labour
 arrest, detention and imprisonment
 movement into, within and out of a state
 treatment by the judicial process
 privacy, home and family life
 freedom of thought, religion and expression
 peaceful assembly
 freedom of association, including through trade unions
 marriage and the rights of children
 political participation, and
 equality and non-discrimination.

Under Indian constitution:-

The part III of the Indian constitution provides the fundamental rights to the citizens of India.
Originally the constitution provided seven fundamental rights they are:
Right to equality (Article 14-18),
Right to freedom (Article 19-22),
Right against exploitation (Article 23-24),
Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28),
Cultural & educational rights (Articles 29-30),
Right to Property (Article 31)
and Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32).

Page 7 of 28
The right to property was removed from this list by 44 th Constitution amendment Act, 1978 and
after this amendment it was made legal right under article 300-A in part-12 of the constitution.
At present there are only six Fundamental rights. The court gives monetary compensation for the
infringement of these rights by the state.

Article 21 provision:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.”
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 a private individual is not within the
preview of Article 21.
Article 21 secures two rights:
1) Right to life; and
2) Right to personal liberty.
In A. K. Gopalan case the court had taken a narrower view. After the judgment in the Maneka
Gandhi case article 21 now not only protects the right to life and personal liberty of the people
from executive and also from the legislative. In order to deprive a person of his life and personal
liberty two conditions must be satisfied. First one is there must be a law and the second condition
is there must be a procedure prescribed by that law which is just, fair and reasonable.
Thus to deprive a person of his personal liberty Article 21 requires following conditions must be
satisfied:
1) There must be a valid law
2) The law must provide a procedure
3) The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable
4) The law must satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 & 17 i.e., it must be reasonable
Article 21 Applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien.
Thus even a foreigner can claim this right.

Page 8 of 28
 RIGHT TO LIFE:

The right guaranteed in Article 21 is available to 'citizens' as well as “non citizens”

Prior to Maneka Gandhi's'- Decision.— the meaning of the words –personal liberty came up
for consideration of the Supreme Court for the first time in A.K Gopalan v. Union of India.In
that case the-petitioner, A. K. Gopalan, a communist leader was detained under the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention under the Act on the
ground, that it was violative of his right to freedom of movement under Art. 19 (1) (d) which is
the very essence of personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution. He argued that the
words “personal liberty include the freedom of movement also and therefore the preventive
detention act 1950must also satisfy the requirement of art.19(5).

In gopalan the Supreme Court interpreted the 'law' as "state made law" and
rejected the plea that by the term 'law' in Art. 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale or
the principals of natural justice. Fazal Ali, J., however, in his dissenting judgment held that the
Act was liable to be challenged as violating the provisions of Art. 19. He gave a wide and
comprehensive meaning to the words 'personal liberty' as consisting of freedom Ement and
locomotion. Therefore, any law which depris a person of his personal liberty must satisfy the
requirements of Arts. 19 and 21 both.

RIGHT TO LIFE

The term life as mentioned in the Article 21 has been given a wider meaning by the Supreme
Court.
Right to life guaranteed under the article 21 not only talks about the physical existence but about
the quality of life.
In kharak Singh vs state of uttar pradesh 1 , it was held that the expression life was not limited
to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only but something more than mere animal
existence . In that case the petitioner ,kharak Singh , had been charged in a facility case but was
released as there was no evidence against him . under the u.p police Regulations, the Police
opened a history-sheet for him and he was kept under police surveillance which included secret
picketing of his house by police, domiciliary visits at nights and verification of his movements

1
kharak Singh vs state of uttar pradesh
Page 9 of 28
and activities. 'Domiciliary visits' means visits by the police in the night to the private house fo e
urpose of making sure the suspect is staying home or whether he has gone out. he Supreme Court
held that domiciliary visits of the policemen were an invasion t e petitioner's personal liberty.

RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY

Govind v. State of Madhya pradesh the Supreme Court held that M.P. police Regulations 855
and 856 authoring domiciliary visits were constitutional as thet have the force of law. These
Regulations were framed by the Government under section 46(2)(e) of the Police Act. The
petitioner challenged the validity of those Regulations on the ground that they were violative of
his fundamental right guaranteed in Article 21 which also includes the 'right of privacy it he
Supreme Court held that Regulations 855 ind 856 have the force of law and, therefore they are
valid.

Menaka gandhi vs union of India – new dimension :

Passport was impounded without any reasons.

1.sec-10(3) (c) passport act was violation of art-14 as confirmed on arbitrar power. Since it didn't
prescribe for hearing of a holder of the passport before it was impounded.

2.sec-10(3) (c) was violative of art - 21,since it didn't prescribe the procedure within meaning of
art-21.

3.sec-10(3) (c) was violative of art-19(1)(a) and (g) since it permitted. Imposition of restrictions
not provided in clauses to (2) or (6) of art-19.

She filed a case challenging the validity of section 10(3) (c) of the passport act, 1967 as it is
violative of

 Article 14 because it did not provide for hearing of the passport holder of the passport
before it was impounded
 Article 21. Since it did not prescribe procedure within the meaning of Article 21
 Article 19 (1) (a) and (g). Since it permitted imposition of restrictions not permitted in
clauses 2 or 6 of Article 19.

Page 10 of 28
The Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21 and held that the right to live is not merely
a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.

 After the decision of the Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi’s case the Article 21 now
protects the right to life and personal liability of citizens not only from executive actions
but also from the legislative actions. By this decision the citizens of India were now
protected from the arbitrary actions of the legislature also.

 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 

In this case it was laid that 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
all 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 India 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 the 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

Page 11 of 28
provisions of these laws was held to be violative of fundamental right of workers to live with
human dignity contained in Art. 21.

In Chandra Raja kumari v. Police Commissioner Hyderobad It has been held that the right to
live includes right to live with human dignity or decency and, therefore holding of beauty
contest is repugnant to dignity or decency of women and offenrs art 21 of the Constitution. the
government is empowered to prohibit the contest as objectable performance performance under
ection 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable performance Prohibition Act 1956.it is grossly
indecent scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmailing.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, the Court struck down a provisioin of bombay Civil
Service Rules, 1959, which provided for payment of only a nominal subsistance 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.

RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE

Art. 21 guarantees right to life with dignity. The court in this context observed that the meaning
and content of fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution of India are of sufficient
amplitude to include all aspects 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

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

In this case Supreme Court has declared that 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.
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
In this case Supreme Court took a serious note of the incidents of sexual harassment of women at
work places. The Court said such an incident resulted in violation of the Fundamental Right to

Page 12 of 28
Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty which are the two most precious Fundamental
Rights.
 By the decisions in these cases the courts have made it clear that the sexual harassment at
workplace is a violation of right to gender equality and right to life and personal liberty.
This ensured the safety and security of the working women at the work place

PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW:

In Nand Lal v. State of Punjab, the validity of an order of detention made under Section 3 of
the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essentials Commodities Act,
1982, was challenged on the ground that procedure adopt by Advisory Board in allowing legal
assistance to the State but denying such assistance to the detenue, was both arbiary and
unreasonable and thus violative of Art. 21 read with Art. 14 of the Constitution.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD:

In Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, New delhi ,the supreme , Court further
extended the scope of this Article and held that the "right to travel abroad Was part of a person's
'personal liberty' within the meaning of article 21 of the Constitutioent ordered him to surrender
his .passport. He challenged the action of the Government on the ground that it was violative of
his fundamental rights under Article 21. His contention was that right to leave india or travel
abroad and return to India was part of his personal liberty which could be restricted only by
authority of law. he Government cannot deny him a passport in the exercise of its executive
power.

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD :

Earlier the Supreme Court took the view that right to life in Article 21 would not include
livelihood. In Re Sant Ram case the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood would not
fall within the expression life in Article 21.
The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 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:

Page 13 of 28
in that case the petitioners had challenged the validity of Sections 313,313-A,314 and 497 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which empowerd the Municipal Authorities to
remove their huts from pavement and public places on the grounded that their removal
amounted to depriving them of their right to livelihood and hence it was violative of Article 21.

In a land mark judgment, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs delhi

Administralion, the Supreme -Court has held that daily wages workmen employed under the
Jawahar Rozgar Yojna has no right of automatic regularisation even though they have put in
work for 240 or more days. The petitioners who were employed on daily wages in the Jawhar
Rozgar Yojna tiled a petition for their regular absorption as a regular employees in the
Development Department of the Delhi Administration. They contended that right to life, includes
the right to livelihood and therefore, right to work. The Court held that although broadly
interpreted and as a necessary logical corollary, right to life would include the right to livelihood
and therefore right to work but this country has so far not found feasible to incorporate the right
to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constition.

D.K. Yudav v. J.M.A. Industries, the Supreme court has held that the right to life enshrined
under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and therefore termination of the service of a
worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing in unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The
procedure prescribed depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge article 14 and so
it must , be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive . the Supreme Court, held
that the right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes right livelihood and 'therefore' before
terminating the service of an employee or workman fair lay requires that a reasonable
opportunity should be given to him to explain his case he procedure prescribed for depriving a
person of livelihood must meet the requirement of Article 14, that is, it must be right, just and
fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In short, it must be in conformity of the rules of
natural justice, Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood
without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY :

The constitution of India does not guarantee any right to privacy. It is picked up by the Supreme
Court from the Article 21 of the constitution.

Page 14 of 28
The first question arose in 1963 in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case whether the
right to life can be inferred from the existing fundamental rights. Majority of the judges in the
bench held that our constitution does not in terms confer any constitutional guarantee with regard
to it. But a minority of the judges are of the view that it can be inferred from the Article 21 of the
constitution.
Surveillance under Regulation 236(b) of the U.P. Police Regulations constituted an infringement
of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. In this case the police visited
the complainant’s house during mid nights to conform whether the accused was in the house or
not. The above said provisions permitted surveillance by domiciliary visits at night and it was
held to be in violation of Article 21.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The court in this case held that the police surveillance have to be restricted to only those persons
against whom there is reasonable material which induce the opinion that they show a
determination to lead a life of crime. In this crime was confined to such as involve peace or
public security only and if they are dangerous to security risks. Similarly the domiciliary visits
and secret picketing by the police is to be restricted only to the clearest cases of danger to
security of the community and not as a routine to the person who was released from the jail after
conviction. 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 were struck down by the Supreme Court in this case.
Malak Singh v. State of Punjab
In this case the question had arisen whether the person whose name was included in the
surveillance register has a right to be heard before including his name. The court held that the
principles of natural justice were not attracted in this case. Section 23 of the Punjab police act it
was the duty of the police officers to keep surveillance on bad characters and habitual offenders
for the purpose of preventing crimes. As long as the surveillance is for the purpose of prevention
of crimes within the prescribed limits prescribed by the act a person cannot complain against
inclusion of his name. it can be challenged if it exceeds the limit. In the present case the
sufficient grounds for inclusion of his name were shown and it was held to be a valid one.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamilnadu

Page 15 of 28
In this case Supreme Court held that right to privacy was guaranteed 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, child bearing and education among other matters.

In Mr. 'X' v. Hospital 'Z'33 the Supreme Court has held that although the "right to privacy" is a
fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution but it is not an absolute right and restrictions
can be imposed on it for the prevention of crime , disorder or protection of health or morals or
protection of rights and freedom of other . a two judge division Bench of the Supreme Court
comprising of Saghir And Kripal. JJ held that by disclosing that the appellant was suffering from
AIDS the.doctors had not violated the right of privacy of the appellant guaranteed by Art. 21.
The court held that although the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art. 21, but it is not
an absolute right and restrictions can be imposed on it.

in Ms X v. Ms Z the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and
adultery against husband under section 10 of divorce act.the husband also asserted that his wife
had adulterous affairs with one person which resulted in family way. The pregnancy of wife was
terminated at All India Institute of medical Sciences and records and slides of tabular gestation
were preserved in the hospital. the husband tiled an application for seeking DNA test of the said
slides with a view to ascertain if the husband is the father of the foetus. The Court held that the
right to privacy. though a fundamental right forming part of right to life enshrined under 21 is
not an absolute right. When the right to privacy has become a part of a Public document. in that
case a person cannot insist that such DNA test would infringe his or her right to privacy.

Virginity Test violates Right to privacy under Article 21 : In Surjith Singh

thind v. Kanwaljit Kaur- the Punjab and Haryana High Cout has held that allowing
medical examination of a woman for her virginity amounts to violation o her right to privacy and
personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case the wife has filed a
petition for a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the marriage has never been
consummated because the husband was impotent The husband had taken the defence that the
marriage was consummated and he was noT impotent. In order to prove that the wife was not
virgin the husband tiled an application for her medical examination. The Court held that allowing

Page 16 of 28
the medical examination of a woman's virginity violates her right to privacy under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Such an order would amount to roving enquiry against a female who is
vulnerable even otherwise. The virginity test cannot constitute the sole basis. to prove the
consummation of marriage)

Telephone-Tapping : an Invasion on Right to privacy:

In a historic judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of

India popularly known as 'Phone Tapping case'. The Supreme Court has held that telephone is a
serious invasion of an individual's right to privacy which is part of the right to and personal
liberty" enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution, and it should not be resorted to by the State
unless there is public emergency or interest of public safety requires. The petition was filed by
way of a public interest litigation under Art32 of the Constitution by the People's Union of Civil
Liberties—a voluntary organisation highlighting the incidents of telephone tapping in the recent
years. The petitioners has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Indian
Telegraph Act,1885 which authorises the Central or State Government to resort to phone
tapping in the circumstances mentioned therein. The writ petition was tiled in the wake of the
report "Tapping of Politicians Phones" by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).' The
procedural safeguards laid down by Supreme Court to exercise power under Section 5(2) are:

1. An order for telephone tapping can be given only by the home secretary of the central
or state governments and the power can be delegated in urgent cases to a person who
is atleast of the rank of joint secretary.
2. The order copy must be sent to the review committee within one week of passing the
order.
3. If the order is not renewed within two months the order will have no effect on the end
of the two months.
4. The authority issuing the orders must maintain the records of the intercepted
communications, the material disclosed, number of persons and their identity to
whom the material is disclosed.
5. The disclosed material should be limited to the minimum that is necessary.

Page 17 of 28
 6. The review committee will investigate the matter with in two months with regards to
its relevancy under section 5(2) of the act and if it is found to be against the provision
then the committee shall set aside the order and also directs for the destruction of the
intercepted material. If the committee founds that the order was not against the
section 5(2) of the act then it shall record the findings to that effect.
7. By the decision in this case the court made it clear that the telephone calls of an
individual cannot be tapped at any other situations except in the cases of public
emergency or in the interest of the public. This decision protects the right to privacy
of the individual under article 21 of the constitution.

Right to Medical Care

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, 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 restored.’ 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:

In another case Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, 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

Page 18 of 28
guaranteed under Article 21. It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect
to such a right, but maintained 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 treatment[l].here he
had an expenditure of 17,000 in his treatment.so the court directed the state to compensate
25,000 to the petitioner.

PRISONERS RIGHTS:
The convicts in the jail are not deprived of their rights because of the reason of their conviction.
They may be deprived of some fundamental rights like right to move freely within the territory
of India but they are not deprived of some fundamental rights. One of those rights is guaranteed
under Article 21 of the constitution that no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty
unless it is according to the procedure laid down by law.
Sunil Batra (1) v. Delhi Administration
In this two petitions were filed by two convicts confined in Tihar central jail filed two petitions
under Article 32 of the constitution.
One of the petitioners was given death sentence on charges of murder and robbery by the
sessions judge and was subjected to solitary confinement. The prisoner filed a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Indian constitution challenging the sections 30 and 56 of the prisons act. The
court held that he had an opportunity to appeal and the section 30 does not empower the prison
authorities to impose solitary confinement on a prisoner given death penalty. The solitary is itself
a substantive punishment which is imposed by a court of law. He cannot be given punitive
detention except for the prison offences. The prisoner cannot be given solitary confinement as it
amounts to punishment to an offence more than once and is against the Article 20(2).
Charles Sobhraj, a foreigner who is a under trail prisoner challenged the action of superintendent
of jail putting him into bar fetters. He was detained under section 3 of MISA. 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.
Sunil Batra (2) v. Delhi Administration
In this case a prisoner has posted a letter post card to the Supreme Court against the brutal attack
of jail authorities on a co-prisoner. The same was accepted and converted into the form of writ
petition by the Supreme Court because the freedom of a person was at stake.

Page 19 of 28
The court said that the prisoners have some rights and they do not lose their basic constitutional
rights. When the rights of the prisoners are violated the court can and should run for his rescue.
The court held that petitioner’s torture was illegal and shall not be subject to any such torture
until fair procedure is complied with and any corporal punishment and personal violence on the
petitioner. The lawyers nominated or appointed n behalf of the prisoners should be allowed to
interview them. Grievance boxes should be opened in all prisons and they must be opened only
by the authorities appointed by the courts. The prisoners must be provided with medical and
health services. The district magistrate should give frequent instructions to jails regarding their
management. Until the mercy petition of the individual is dismissed by the president no solitary
confinement should be imposed on him.
The prisoner’s rights are protected in these cases. The decision of the courts in these cases made
it clear that the jail authorities cannot use any arbitrary power or subject them to any force
unlawfully and the decisions in these cases also have made special grievance boxes in the jails
for the prisoners to make their complaints

D.b m patnaik vs state of Andhra Pradesh , the petitioners who were Naxalite undertail
prisoners were undergoing the sentence in the central jai Visakhapatnam . They contend that the
armed police guards posted around the jail and the live electrical mechanism fixed on the top of
the jail was an infringement of their right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 of
the Constitution .

The cour however held that in the present case the convicts were not deprived of their
fundamental right by the posting of police guards outside the jail

The court said "a convict has no right more Than any one else to dictate where guard to be
posted to prevent of prisoners the installation of live wrie mechanism does not offend their right.

In Charles copraj case: notorious criminal put in iron fitters even though doctors suggested
not to put due to his ill health.

In babu Singh. V. State of U. P., it was held that refusal to grant bail in a murder case
without reasonable ground would amount to deprivation of personal liberty under article 21. In
that case six appellants were convicted by the sessions judge in a murder case. In appeal by the
state the high Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Page 20 of 28
 The appellants applied for bail during pendency of their appeal before the Supreme
Court. The court held that refuse to grant bail amounted to deprivation of personal liberty of
accused persons. Personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental and can be taken away
only in accordance with procedure established by law. So, deprivation of personal liberty must
be founded on the most serious consideration relevant to the welfare objectives of the society
specified in the Constitution. In the circumstances of the case, the court held that subject to
certain safeguards, the appellants were entitled to be released on bail.

Right against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, 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 Punjab, 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. 2 years delay is not a valid
one .

Triveni Ben vs state of Gujarat:

5 judge bench AIR 1989 SC 142 Overruled by earlier decision S.c.held that undue delay in
execution of the death sentence will entitle the undemined person to approach the court for
conversion of death sentence into life imprisonment but before doing so, the court will have to
examine the nature of delay and circumstances and there are no fixed periods of delay would
held to make the sentence of death in-executable.

in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 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 302 of I.P.C did
not violate the basic feature of the constitution.

Page 21 of 28
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 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 India, 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
Punjab. 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 .

Page 22 of 28
EUTHANASIA
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India
In the present case Ms. Pinki Virani who was the next friend of Aruna filed a writ petition with a
prayer of directing the respondents to stop feeding her and let Aruna die peacefully. In the
present case Aruna was raped on 27 th November 1973 by a sweeper in the King Edward
Memorial hospital where was working as nurse. She was tied with a dog chain at that time and it
stopped the blood circulation to the brain and she was in a vegetative stage from then. She reacts
to the food given to her and people around her. the parents of Aruna died and her relatives were
not interested in taking care of her.
The two judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down the law of passive euthanasia to continue
as fallows till the law made by the parliament:
The decision whether to discontinue life support or not vests with the parents or spouse or close
relatives in the absence of any of them the decision can be taken by a person who is acting as a
next friend to the person or doctors treating her. The decision must be taken in the bonafide
interest of the patient. Their decision must require the approval of High Court. The High Court
under Article 226 of the constitution can grant approval for withdrawal of life support to such
incompetent person.
In this case the hospital authorities were taking care of her for a long they were her friends who
could take such a decision and they want Aruna to live. If in future they want to withdraw the life
support to her they can apply to the Bombay High Court for approval.
Jolly George - varghase vs bank of kochi

Non payment of money to fulfill the contractual obligation relating to honest judgement senator.
Section-51 of CPC implemented against individual He was not in a position in a position to pay
money for his wife treatment suffering with a cancer As per supreme Court -"to be poor is not a
crime or a sin"

Vikram dev Tomer vs state of bihar

Care home Patna - an asailam maintained by state government no proper facilities for inmade

Court of bihar made to construct a new building and provide certain facilities

Page 23 of 28
Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, 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.” 

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

In the present case the tanneries at Jajmau near Kanpur were polluting the river Ganga. The
petitioner who was a social activist filed a public interest litigation and the court orders the
closure of the tanneries as they were notwithstanding with the provisions contained in the water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Environmental (Protection) Act and the
government has not taken any steps to prevent the public nuisance caused by the tanneries. In
this case it was held that the court is entitled to order for the closure of the tanneries until steps to
prevent the pollution has been taken.
RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

In this case the petitioner a communist leader was detained under the preventive detention act,
1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention under the ground that it is violative
against the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1) (d) and personal liberty under
Article 21. Supreme Court held that the personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution is
restricted to physical and bodily restraint. The state has the authority to deprive the individual of
his liberties under a law in which the procedure was established. The court rejects all his
arguments and held that it is valid.

Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi

Page 24 of 28
In this case the petitioner used to travel abroad for business purposes frequently and the
government of India ordered him to surrender his passport. The petitioner then filed a case that
his right to go abroad and return back to India was a part of person’s personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the constitution and it could only be restricted by authority of law. The
government’s contention was that it is not a right covered under Article 21 of the constitution.
The court held that right to travel abroad is a right covered under person’s personal liberty in
Article 21 of the constitution.

 By the decision in this case the court included the right to go abroad under the right to
personal liberty stating that the individual has right to go to foreign country and return to
India and the same cannot be taken away from the individual except by the authority of
law.

Compensation :

Rudal shah vs state of bihar

Awarded 30,000 as a compensation Competent authority asked to realise the person in 1968 but
negligently kept up to 1980 Rights of individual are infringed

Sebastian M. Hungray v. Union of India

In this case the Supreme Court asked the government to physically produce two men who were
taken by jawans of the army to military camp. The government failed to produce them and the
court found that the explanation given by the government to be incorrect. The truth was that
these two men met an unnatural death. The court keeping in view the mental torture and agony
undergone by the wives of the persons it directed the government to pay one lakh rupees as
exemplary costs.

Bhim Singh v. State of J.K

In this case the petitioner who was an MLA was stopped from attending the sessions of the
legislative assembly by the police officers and was detained in their custody. The police officers
acted mala fide. The constitutional right of personal liberty has been invaded and the Supreme
Court has the jurisdiction to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary damages or
other and the court awarded him a sum of 50,000 rupees as compensation.

Page 25 of 28
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner Delhi Headquarter

In this case the deceased was taken to police station for doing some work and when he demanded
wages for the same the police officials had beaten him severely and he died of those injuries
later. The court directed the government to pay 75,000 rupees compensation to the family of the
deceased person.

Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi

In this case a nine year old boy died because of beatings of the police officers which happened
when they are trying to vacate the deceased family from the house in which they are living by
taking some bribe. The court directed the Delhi Administration to pay 75,000 Rupees as
exemplary compensation to the mother of the deceased boy.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

In this case the police have taken the petitioner’s son in investigation for an offence of theft. The
next day his dead body was found on the railway track. The police claimed that he flew from the
police custody. But it was proved that he is died because of the treatment of the police officers.
This a case of custodial death and the Supreme Court said that Article 33 imposes an obligation
on the court to frame new tools to provide justice and enforcing the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the constitution. In this case court awarded compensation of 1,50,000 rupees to
the petitioner.

RIGHT AGAINST HAND CUFFING

Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration
In the present case the validity of the Punjab Police rules was challenged as they were violative
of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. According to the provisions in paras 22 and 26 it was
given that a person who is under trail was accused with a non bailable offence punishable with
more than three years of punishment was handcuffed. The court held that it was against the
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. Handcuffing should be made only in the cases where
there is clear and present danger of escape and they cannot use the same with mere assumption
and doing so is unfair and bad in law.
The right to life under the Article 21 of the constitution also covers many other rights under it
like right to reputation, right to shelter, right to education, right to be informed, right to social

Page 26 of 28
security and protection of family, right to sleep, right to free legal aid, right to fair trail, right
against rape, right against honour killing and many other rights.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRAIL
Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
In this case petition was filed for a writ of habeas corpus by a number of under trail prisoners
who were in jails in the jails of Bihar state for years waiting for their trail. The Supreme Court
held that right to speedy trail is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. Speedy trail is the essence of criminal justice. The
court ordered the Bihar government to release forthwith the under trail prisoners on their
personal bonds. The same view was reiterated in the Hussainara Khatoon (2) and Hussainara
Khatoon (3) cases.
Emergency and art. 21-

prior to the 44 th amendment the Constitution provided for the suspension of the
right guaranteed by Art. 21. Under Art. 359 the president was empowered by order to suspend
the right to move any court for the enforcement of right conferred by Art. 21. For the first time,
Art. 21 was suspended during the emergency arising out of the Chinese attack in 1962. In 1971,
it was suspended for the second time when Pakistan attacked India. In 1976,this article was again
suspended when the government headed by prime minister Indira gandhi declared emergency on
the ground of internal disturbance. In A. D. M., Jabalpur v. S. Shukla popularly known as
the habeas corpus case, it was held that article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and
personal liberty and if the right to move to any court for the enforcement of that right was
suspended by the presidential order under Art. 359 the detenue had no locus standi to file a writ-
petition for challenging the legality of their detention. 44th Amendment and Art. 21.—The 44th
amendment has amended Art. 359 which now provides that the enforcement of the right to life
and liberty under Art. 21 cannot be suspended by the presidential order. This amendment is
intended to prevent the re-occurence of the situation in future which arose in the habeas corpus
case. In view of the 44th amendment, the A. D. M., Jabalpur v.s. Shukla, is no longer a good law.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION :

Page 27 of 28
Murali Krishnan vs state of A. P. 1993,SCC 645 Right to education for children of age 6-14 is
a fundamental right. Art-21 A— which says that the children in between 6-14 yrs of age, the
state shall provide free and compulsory education for all children in such manner as the state
may by law determine. In persuance of constitutional amendment, the government of India made
enactment —right of children to compulsory education act, 2009 which contains 38 sections and
divided into 7 chapters. Besides this enactment fixed the responsibility on C. S. Government,
parents and teachers providing of education to children.

Conclusion:

Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective content and
meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet such deprivation of life would
not be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not
regarded as a part of the right to life.

Right to work has not yet been recognised as a Fundamental Right. and 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 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 are some of the observations under article 21 of the
constitution.

Bibliography:

http://www.abebooks.com/Constitutional-Law-India-Pandey-Central-Agency/272478654/bd

Page 28 of 28