A Human Rights Perspective in Expansion of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Text and Basic Meaning
Article 21 states:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
At its core, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which is fundamental and inviolable.
Human Rights Perspective in Article 21
Article 21 is not just a mere legal provision but a guarantee of human dignity and a repository of many human rights. Over decades, the Supreme Court has expansively interpreted it, transforming it into a broad spectrum of rights essential to human life and liberty.
The interpretation of Article 21 today embodies the human rights approach, ensuring that the right to life means much more than mere animal existence — it means the right to live with dignity.
Expansion of Article 21: From Literal to Broad Human Rights
Originally, Article 21 was seen narrowly as protection against arbitrary state action concerning life and liberty. But judicial interpretation has expanded it to include:
Right to a clean environment
Right to health and medical care
Right to privacy
Right to livelihood
Right to education
Right to shelter
Right against custodial torture and death
Right to speedy trial
Right to legal aid and fair procedure
This judicial activism is rooted in a human rights perspective that the Constitution’s fundamental rights must protect the dignity and freedom of every individual.
Landmark Case Laws Expanding Article 21
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without providing reasons.
Held: The Court held that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and the procedure established by law must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary.
Significance: This case expanded Article 21 to include the principle of natural justice and due process, and linked it with Article 19 (freedom of movement).
2. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981)
Facts: Issue concerned the right to life in the context of forced labor and basic necessities.
Held: The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it — adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself.
Significance: Cemented the human rights aspect of Article 21 by including basic necessities of life as a fundamental right.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts: Concerned the eviction of pavement dwellers.
Held: Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
Significance: It recognized that deprivation of livelihood amounts to deprivation of life.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
Held: The right to live with human dignity includes protection against bonded labor and exploitation.
Significance: Extended Article 21 to protect human dignity from exploitative labor conditions.
5. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Facts: Environmental pollution was harming lives.
Held: Right to clean environment is part of the right to life.
Significance: The environment's protection is essential to the right to life and human rights.
6. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
Facts: Issue of police surveillance infringing privacy.
Held: Right to privacy is implicit in Article 21.
Significance: Early recognition of privacy as part of personal liberty.
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Facts: Concerned the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme and the right to privacy.
Held: The Court declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21.
Significance: Landmark judgment strengthening human rights protections under Article 21.
8. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Held: Right against custodial torture and death is part of Article 21.
Significance: Laid down guidelines to prevent custodial abuse, enhancing human rights safeguards.
Human Rights Principles Underlying the Expansion
Dignity: Right to live with dignity is core to all interpretations.
Non-arbitrariness: State actions must be fair, reasonable, and just.
Due Process: Beyond “procedure established by law,” it must be fair and just.
Inclusiveness: Rights cover vulnerable groups (slum dwellers, bonded laborers).
Environmental Justice: Sustainable environment as part of right to life.
Privacy and Autonomy: Protection of individual freedom and choice.
Conclusion
Article 21 has transformed into a broad human rights safeguard ensuring not only protection from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty but also affirming positive rights essential for a dignified human existence.
The judicial expansion of Article 21 reflects a progressive human rights outlook, emphasizing the protection of life in all its dimensions—physical, social, cultural, and environmental.
RELATED Blog
0 comments