Challenges Antecedent To The Liberties Connected To Article 21 Of The Indian Constitution - An Analytical Study

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T18:45:10.215Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:11:09.130Z

CHALLENGES

ANTECEDENT TO THE LIBERTIES CONNECTED TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY

Vibhansh Soni & Navodita Kaushik, Christ (Deemed To Be University)

ABSTRACT

Even though the Indian judiciary is conservative, it utilized judicial activism to evolve into a world-saving force. Article 21, often referred to as the "celebrity rule" of the Indian Constitution, occupies a unique position as an inherent right for the people of India. It safeguards life and individual freedom, ensuring that no one can lose their life or freedom without following a legally prescribed process. This right encompasses the right to health, a safe environment, and access to nutritious food, all integral to the right to life. Human rights, once known as natural rights, are designed to fulfill specific purposes, and it is essential for every individual to live with dignity. The term "life" in Article 21 includes not just physical existence but also the positive aspects of life, such as the freedom to seek happiness and the ability to earn a livelihood.

This fundamental right is guaranteed to all residents of India, whether citizens or non-citizens. The Indian Constitution upholds the right to life, which inherently includes the right to work. This right is not just a theoretical concept; it is actively enforced and dynamic, reflecting the public policy principles envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. It prohibits the infringement of rights except through legally established processes, serving as a cornerstone of our Constitution. Article

21 is the most fundamental and transformative provision, applicable to all

Indian citizens and nationals from other countries. Furthermore, the "protection of life and personal liberty" under Article 21 comes with certain limitations. Therefore, this research paper aims to explore the constitutional perspective on the right to life and freedom of conscience, along with the legal implications surrounding these freedoms.

INTRODUCTION

India is considered a developing nation, particularly in terms of its economic status, which plays a significant role in improving people's lives. The Indian Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights, highlights this aspect. The essence of our Constitution is often referred to as our fundamental liberties. These rights are recognized as essential for human existence and as prerequisites for societal progress. It ensures civil liberties so that every Indian can live in harmony and peace. These rights encompass basic entitlements and individual benefits that are typically found in the most progressive democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, the right to practice any religion, security of life and personal freedom, and the right to seek remedies under the Constitution.

These rights, outlined in Part III of the Constitution, apply to all individuals, regardless of gender, socioeconomic status, or birthplace. Article 21 states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. " The primary aim of this fundamental right is to protect individuals from being stripped of their liberty or dignity. This assistance is available to anyone, regardless of their citizenship status, as long as they are Indian nationals. This section of the law is dynamic, not dormant. Given the proactive stance of judges, it is important to connect this subsection with other provisions to view it from a constructive and comprehensive perspective that encompasses all aspects of contemporary society. J.

Bhagwati asserts that "Article 21 incorporates a constitutional value of crucial importance in a democratic society. " Additionally, Iyer, J. has referred to Article 21 as "the administrative Magna Carta, safeguarding life and liberty. "1 Magna Carta (1215), the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article XXXI of the Japanese Constitution (1946), and Article 40(4) of the Irish Constitution (1937) are all referenced in Article 21. This article pertains to natural individuals, meaning that it can be invoked by anyone, regardless of their citizenship status. Therefore, this Right is also applicable to immigrants. The term "liberty," as described by Lord Denning, has been expanded in its meaning.

He stated: What I understand by independence is the ability of every constitutional citizen to think freely, express themselves, and travel wherever they wish on their own terms, without interference or obstruction from others. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW "Procedure established by law" refers to a procedure that is stated in a statute or that is mandated by state law. Soon after the Indian government signed the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India had been charged with interpreting the terms used in Article 21 in the wellknown Goplan case, which contested the constitutional validity of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. The petitioner questioned his detention on the grounds that the requirements of the Act unreasonably restricted his ability to exercise his rights and that the imprisonment had

1 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

an impact on his rights as guaranteed by Article 19(1). i. Article 21's definition of "law" comprises the concepts of natural justice as well as established laws. As a result, a law that takes away a person's liberty or personal freedom is invalid unless it also integrates these principles into the process it spells out. ii. Article 19 should be employed to assess the constitutionality of the preventive detention law. iii. The word ‘procedure established by law’ encompasses in to India the American concept of procedural due process which enables the courts to see if the law serves the required elements of a legitimate procedure. The Supreme Court stated that, in order to uphold the right to personal liberty while strengthening the guarantee of "procedure established by law," the term "law" in Article 21 should, when necessary, be interpreted alongside Articles 19 and 14.

The ratio from the Bank Nationalization case indicates that a legally mandated approach must have a solid foundation. There is a clear difference between the strategies in Gopalan and Cooper. The former concentrated on the purpose and nature of the legislation rather than its consequences, while the latter took into account the law's effects when determining which elements should be linked together to assess the lawful legitimacy of the legislation. Perhaps the most often used definition of Article 21, which originates from Indian ideals, is "Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, Sarve santu niraamayaah, Sarve bhadraani pashyantu Maakaschit duhkha bhaag bhavet," which roughly translates to "May everything be happy, be free from disabilities! " May all have concern about the well-being of others and let no one turn away in grief.

RIGHT TO LIFE The fundamental right to life includes all other rights that contribute to a person's overall wellbeing and make life genuinely meaningful. Without this right, survival would be impossible. The simplest article of the Constitution has received the widest range of interpretations. Article

21 lists several rights, stating, "No person shall be deprived of his livelihood or personal liberty

except by the procedure established by law," as outlined in the Indian Constitution of 1950. In the context of Article 21, "living" means much more than just existing; it implies a quality of life akin to that of a sentient being, involving continuous effort. Its interpretation is extensive, covering rights to adequate nutrition, employment, clean air, and many other essential aspects.

The Supreme Court upheld the earlier findings in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration2, recognizing that the "right to life" includes the freedom to live a healthy lifestyle, which allows individuals to fully experience joy and the richness of life, including the well-being of their body and senses. This right also covers the ability to live in peace, sleep comfortably, maintain mental and physical health, and have a meaningful existence and way of life. It emphasizes the essential needs and conditions that are vital for human beings, highlighting the fundamental concept of the right to life. This right is regarded as the most important of all human rights and is enshrined in Part III of our Constitution. Justice H. R. Khanna rightly pointed out that societies with civilization, up until the drafting of the Indian Constitution, valued the sanctity of life and liberty.

Thus, the Indian Constitution embodies the principles of life, liberty, and protection against arbitrary governmental power. Justice Field defined "life" and "personal liberty" in Munn v. Illinois and cited the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in support of his points. 6 The definition of "life," according to him, is exceedingly broad and encompasses more than just the existence of humans. The meaning of "liberty" encompasses more than only being free from the actual bonds or confines of a jail. As stated by Justice Field in the much-heralded "Munn v. Illinois" decision, "life" comprises more than just animal presence; it encompasses both the tangible presence and the quality of life. According to the Supreme Court, the term "life" in this context encompasses more than just animal existence, as demonstrated in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3.

It protects a person's entire being from deprivation, including access to educational resources that are vital for life. The provision prohibits any form of bodily disfigurement, whether it involves the loss of an eye, mutilation of a limb, or harm to any organ that connects the soul to the outside world. The right to life includes the right to maintain human dignity and all that it entails, such as access to basic necessities like adequate food, clothing, and a safe environment, as well as the ability to write and express oneself freely. It also encompasses the freedom to move about and interact with others, with the pursuit of personal interests being a fundamental aspect of self-expression. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

2 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409

3 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1964] 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295

Art. 21 bestows a vast right to exist, which has taken an extensive amount of time to evolve into its current state. While it lays lower the principle that things need to be done according to the techniques set forth by law—for example, the issuance and execution of death sentences can only be carried out in accordance with regulations—it does not endorse the idea that existence can be entirely eliminated or taken away. But while it is one aspect of the right to life, the right to a livelihood is also an essential aspect of the right to existing because no one exists without it. In a restricted experience, the right to livelihood is likely safeguarded in the freedoms listed in Art. 19 or even Art. 16, but the language of Art. 21 cannot be understood in such a way that the term 'life' in Art. 21 also includes 'livelihood. ' "However, the view transformed afterwards.

In the end, the judge's bench in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni4 came to the conclusion that "the right to existence" is safeguarded by Article 21 and that the term "life" includes "the right to livelihood" based on the vast and expansive definition of the phrase.

The Indian government should take the following steps in order to ensure that an increasing number of individuals in the country can exercise their right to a living wage: properly implementing skill development initiatives in rural areas; offering insurance for farmers' crops (since the majority of Indians remain reliant on agriculture); advising small business enterprises through government support; and fostering an environment that encourages not only local enterprises but also attracts an increasing amount of foreign direct investment (FDI), which will increase chances for employment. An important case in Indian constitutional law is Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation(1985)5, which deals with the fundamental entitlement to livelihood guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

This case symbolizes a turning point regarding the Indian judiciary's defense of the freedoms granted to urban poor people who were in danger of being evicted, especially ghetto and pavement dwellers. Background: Many of the pavement dwellers and slum dwellers of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) had been there for decades. working as artisans or hawkers, when the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) launched a large eviction campaign in the 1980s. The individuals, who were viewed to be unauthorized users of public land and who were living in informal settlements off the streets, faced being forcibly removed from their homes and having everything demolished.

4 1983 (1) SCC 124

5 1986 AIR 180

In accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to livelihood is a supplementary provision of the right to life, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court of India's historic ruling in the favor of the petitioners. RIGHT TO POLLUTION FREE ATMOSPHERE TO LIVE IN Article 21 was determined to cover the maintenance of health, sanitation, and environment since these factors have a detrimental effect on people' lives and, if ignored, can lead to progressive poisoning and a reduction in a lifetime to come Article 21 was considered to cover the upkeep of health, sanitation, and environment since these factors have a negative impact on individuals lives and, if ignored, can lead to progressive poisoning and a reduction in lifetime. In accordance with Article 21, one's "right to life" is the ability to live in a civilized environment free from contaminants and illness threats.

India's courts have liberally implemented Articles 21, 48, 48A, and 51A of the Constitution to recognize environmental rights and sustainable development. There are several obstacles that prevent India from having a free of pollution the surroundings, despite numerous legal decisions and government policies in this regard. On the ground, the principles and policies upheld by numerous high courts and the Supreme Court are still not being carried out in a way that is very satisfactory. The Supreme Court had to resolve a dispute regarding mining in hilly regions in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 often referred to as the Doon Valley case. The Court of Appeal issued a court order to halt mining operations completing a thorough examination.

In order to uphold and maintain the freedom of individuals to live under a healthy environment, the court further mandated that the victims be compensated. The jury also expressed its deep concern for the livestock, houses, and agricultural land owned by the locals. The Supreme Court has put a temporary halt to all mining activities in the Aravalli Hill Range in Haryana until the project Reclamation Plan is finalized, as seen in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India7, I. A. No. 1967 in I. A. No. 1785, decided on May 8, 2009. For the restoration of the area, the aforementioned Plan must be implemented. In a bid to safeguard the Taj Mahal, a historic site, from environmental harm, the highest court in the country issued several recommendations and directives.

The court ruled that the party responsible for the pollution must bear the costs of remedying the damage and compensating the victims, emphasizing that

6 Kendra Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1983 SCC (2) 312

7 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819

ecosystem restoration is a vital aspect of "sustainable development. " This marked a significant move by the Apex Court in support of non-polluters. RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND LITERACY Before the 86th amendment to the Indian Constitution in 2002, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to education under Article 21. However, Article 21-A was added, explicitly stating the right to education in Part 3 of the Constitution. In India, children aged 6 to 14 are now guaranteed the fundamental right to education through the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This Act ensures that every child between the ages of five and fourteen has the right to free and compulsory elementary schooling.

To uphold the right to adequate infrastructure, the Indian government is required to fund various initiatives, including training programs for educators and the construction of necessary facilities. The depth of the basic entitlement to education was thoroughly examined by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the instance of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka8. The Supreme Court ruled that the State is required to offer educational facilities to its residents at all levels of education by the combined impact of Articles 21, 38, 39 (a) and (b), 41, and 45. The Supreme Court declared that a person's right to receive an education ensures them a life of dignity. Before the 86th amendment to the Indian Constitution in 2002, the right to education was defined under Article 21. With the addition of Article 21-A, the right to education was explicitly included in Part 3 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, ruled that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses the right to education. In the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, the Honorable Supreme Court of India explored in detail the scope of the fundamental right to education. The Court determined that the federal government is obligated, through the combined effect of Articles 21, 38, 39 (a) and (b), 41, and 45, to provide educational resources to its citizens. The Right to Education is intended to ensure a dignified life for ordinary citizens, as emphasized by the Supreme Court of India. JUDICIAL APPROACH OF ARTICLE 21 Without maintaining the traditional perspective, it has challenged to completely comprehend how the right way of living has evolved.

8 Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666

The Supreme Court first adopted a conventional reading of Article 21 as envisioned in its ruling of A. K. Gopalan v. Union of India9, which held that a person could only be deprived of his right to life in obedience to the legal process. Therefore, the legal system's original interpretation of the abovementioned article's provisions was restrictive and grinding. In this case, the court's perspective amounted to little more than a release from arrest and detention due to the wrongful or false imprisonment of the individual. Therefore, "intimate freedom" pertains solely to the liberty of one's own person or body, standing in contrast to coercion or physical restraint. Over time, the Supreme Court's traditional and limited interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has evolved.

Following that ruling, the state began to take steps to intervene in an individual's right to life, establishing a clear process that is properly defined and carried out in accordance with the law. IMPOSING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 India is among the 78 countries that maintain the death penalty, asserting it will be applied only in the "rarest of rare cases" and for "special reasons. " However, neither the Supreme Court nor the legislature has clarified what constitutes a "rarest of rare case" or "special reasons. " Abolitionists argue that the death penalty, in its current form, infringes upon citizens' fundamental right to life, as guaranteed by the Indian constitution, which can only be revoked through a lawful process.

Many prominent lawyers believe that the ongoing presence of the death penalty in Indian criminal law is at odds with the rights of individuals. Several cases have occasionally contested the death penalty's constitutionality. By a unanimous decision in Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh10, the Supreme Court's five-judge panel affirmed the constitutionality of the death sentence and ruled that it was not in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21. Due to the lack of an approach, the legitimacy of the death sentence was contested in this instance on the grounds that it violated Articles 19 and 21. The process specified in the Cr. P. C. was deemed to be limited to determining guilt and not imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that the process is followed as imposing a death sentence.

9 A. K. Gopalan v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 27

10 Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)1 SCC 20

Judge Krishna Iyer sympathetically emphasized that the death sentence violates articles 14, 19, and 21 in a different instance, Rajendra Prasad vs. State of UP11. He added that the following two requirements must be met in order to apply the death penalty: • The precise justification for applying the death penalty in a case ought to be documented. • Especially in extreme cases may the death sentence be applied. Furthermore, in Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab12, the Supreme Court outlined a general framework of the situations in which the death penalty should to be used. Speaking for the Court, Justice Thakkar concluded that five types of cases might be considered the rarest of rare cases, deserving of the most severe punishment.

• Method of Murder: When a murder is committed in a way that is so heinous as to provoke enraged outrage in the community, such as when the victim's home is burned. • to the ground in order to barbecue him alive, when the body is shredded, or when the victim endures inhumane torture. • Motive: When a murder is carried out for a reason that shows wickedness and cruelty, such as a recruited assassin, a cold-blooded murder to inherit property or take custody of a ward's property, or a murder committed in treason of the motherland. • The crime is unethical or socially repugnant; it involves the murder of someone who is of a scheduled caste or minority group under conditions that provoke social dissatisfaction, such as bride burning for dowry or remarriage.

• Crime Magnitude: Serious infractions, such as repeatedly occurring killings of members of a family or members of a specific caste, group, or location. • Fifth: The murder victim's personality can justify while imposing capital punishment. FREEDOM AGAINST POLICE ATROCITIES IS ASSURED BY ARTICLE 21 Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which stipulates that "Anyone who is who has been victimized because of unlawful arrest or detention shall

11 Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979) 3 SCC 646

12 Machhi Singh And Others Vs The State Of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957

have a legal entitlement of compensation," was reserved for India when the nation ratified the political covenant in June 1978. According to the Indian government, courts aren't permitted to compensate people for the torturous actions of state officials, such as erroneous arrest or detention orders. However, the Indian Supreme Court has frequently issued and enforced ad hoc compensation verdicts (in significant amounts) against State officials for unlawful violations of an individual's personal freedom.

CONCLUSION

The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental privilege. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and personal safety. Life itself is essential for the enjoyment of all other rights, which serve to enhance this primary right. Since only living beings can possess human rights, one could argue that the right to life holds a unique significance; without it, the other rights would be meaningless. Legal positivism and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution were often overlooked in favor of interpretations that ensure the laws remain just and fair. This implies that the legal system must adhere to these core principles. Legislation is crucial for liberty, serving as a pathway for personal development. Without a governing body, nothing could function effectively.

While some restrictions are necessary for the common good, they must be applied fairly, and the public should trust in their rationale. Part III of the Indian Constitution, which details the Fundamental Rights (Articles 12–32), is often referred to as the nation's "Magna Carta. " Although fundamental rights may face certain limitations, these restrictions must ultimately ensure that all citizens are treated fairly and equally. REFERENCE

Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India 47thEd., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 269 • Kumar, Narender, The Constitutional Law of India, 1stEd., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009, p-158 • Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEd., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010, p.1200 • Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution v. Union Of India &Anr, AIR 2005

SC 3136 : (2005) 5 SCC 439

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003), p. 1315. • J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42nd Ed. (2005), p. 222