Dimensions Of Article 21 Under The Indian Constitution
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
DIMENSIONS OF ARTICLE 21 UNDER THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION Ayush Shukla, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida Ayush Dubey, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida
ABSTRACT
Article 211 of the Indian Constitution is the cornerstone of the constitutional framework of the country and guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty. This provision was first taken narrowly, but a remarkable transformation of the judiciary’s dynamic interpretation made it. In its early years, Article 21 was considered as a mere right to bodily existence and the state compliance with a validly enacted law. That mark was set however when the judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2 the Court broadened the scope of Article 21 by linking it with Articles 14 and 19 and held that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. Article 21 has become an umbrella provision over the decades to cover a wide range of substantive rights essential for a dignified life.
They include the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to health and medical care, the right to education, the right to a clean environment and much more recently, the right to privacy. Article 21 has always been used by the Supreme Court as a tool of social justice and it has always been ensured that every citizen, irrespective of his socio economic status, has basic human rights. This paper examines the expansion of the contours of Article 21 through landmark judgments and doctrinal shifts in order to understand how this single constitutional provision has become a symbol of the living soul of the Indian Constitution. Further, it assesses the challenges and critiques in courts that can be characterized as judicial activism in this context. Keywords: Right to Life, Judicial Interpretation, Human Dignity, Fundamental Rights, Social Justice
1 India, Constitution of India, art. 21.
2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
Introduction
Part III of the Indian Constitution enshrines the fundamental rights which are the bedrock of the Indian democracy to protect individual liberties and ensure human dignity. Article 21 has since become one of the most significant as well as the most transformative rights among these rights. In short, it says, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except in the manner provided by law. At first glance, the wording is minimal but over the decades, it has been the most interpreted and expanded right through judicial innovation and constitutional interpretation. For instance, the judiciary adopted a narrow and literal interpretation of Article 21 in A. K. Gopalan v. Supreme Court of State of Madras3 (1950), whereby it was held that any procedure, even if arbitrary or unjust, which is established by law, and is enacted by the legislature, is valid.
This approach bound protection under Article 21, while sparing the State the greatest degree of restraints to the exercise of its power to restrict personal liberty4. Nevertheless, that was to change dramatically with the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Court defined the phrase “procedure established by law” to mean that such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. It was the start of a new era of judicial activism, when Article 21 began to be read in conjunction with Articles 145 and 19. Since then, Article 21 has been a dynamic source of several implied rights which are necessary for leading a dignified human life. Historical Background and Evolution In A. K. Gopalan v.
State of Madras (1950) The Supreme Court adopted a restricted literal reading of Article 21 to define the “procedure established by law” as any legitimate procedure enacted through valid legislation. The Court analyzed Article 21 independently which permitted laws that could take away life or personal liberty through unjust or oppressive procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the need for laws to maintain parallel consistency with the fundamental rights mentioned in Articles 14 and 196. The court allowed strict state
3 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
4 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th edn., LexisNexis 2014) 1152.
5 India, Constitution of India, art. 14.
6 India, Constitution of India, art. 19.
governance through formal legislative procedures. 7 The concept of limiting judicial oversight over personal freedom started to change through the influential Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) decision. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment altered the entire structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case discarded the earlier A. K. Gopalan decision by establishing a fundamental connection between Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court established that all laws enabling life or liberty deprivation requirements must follow both proper procedures and maintain “just, fair and reasonable” standards. Substantive due process became a key concept in Indian constitutional law when this ruling established new trends for interpreting the Constitution with added respect for human rights values.
Through this decision the judiciary gained authority to expand the scope of Article 21 which allowed them to identify fundamental rights that ensure dignified living. Expanding Dimensions of Article 218 • Right to Live with Human Dignity In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi9 (1981) The Supreme Court established fundamental principles about life rights in its ruling. According to the Supreme Court the right to life surpasses basic animal survival to encompass human dignity alongside appropriate nutrition, suitable clothing, shelter provisions and freedom of expression. Any deprivation of these elements by the state authorities would violate Article 21 according to this judgment. • Right to Livelihood The right to livelihood emerged as part of the right to life during the historic Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation10 (1985) case.
The legal challenge against evicting pavement dwellers in Mumbai took place in this court case. The Court established that the right to livelihood represents a fundamental component of right to life since all human beings need 7 H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, (4th edn. , Universal Law Publishing Co. 2013) 479. 8 P. Ishwara Bhat, Fundamental Rights: A Study of their Interrelationship, (Eastern Book Co. 2004) 208.
9 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
10 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
sustenance to survive. Living without income earning opportunities represents a violation which equals life deprivation. • Right to Privacy In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) v. Union of India11 (2017). The Supreme Court through its nine-judge bench in declared privacy as an essential right protected under Article 21. The Court stated that privacy functions as an inalienable right which defends life and liberty because it constitutes the essential core of individual dignity and freedom. The decision overturned prior court decisions which had denied privacy rights because it established the basis for enforcing privacy protection against surveillance constraints. 12 • Right to Health and Medical Care In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v.
State of West Bengal13 (1996), The Court established a fundamental constitutional requirement for states to offer enough medical facilities to their citizens. The medical crisis occurred when victims with serious head injuries encountered multiple government hospital refusals since the institutions lacked proper facilities for treatment. According to the Court any delay by the government in delivering medical care to someone needing assistance would violate Article 21. The legal decision broadened the protection of the right to life by establishing that people must obtain quick medical care and important public services in a timely way. • Right to Education In the absence of Article 21A which came through the 86th Constitutional Amendment the Supreme Court had previously determined that education rights could be found within Article
21. In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka14 (1992) The Court made a ruling that education rights
directly support both life preservation and human dignity protection. A scheme was established in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh15 (1993) for free and compulsory education up to 14 years to protect education under Article 21 because the Court declared that education
11 K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
12 A. Chandrachud, “The Informational Autonomy of the Individual and the Right to Privacy,” (2014) 10 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 1.
13 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 2426
14 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858.
15 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178.
forms the basis of meaningful existence. • Right to Environment In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar16 (1991) established that the guarantee of right to life extends to include access to a wholesome environment. Industrial pollution created environmental problems both regarding water quality and public wellness in this particular case. The Court established that living encompassed the freedom to use uncontaminated water and air thus Article 21 protects against environmental harm. This ruling shaped the growth of environmental jurisprudence throughout India and still affects both environmental policies and court procedures at present.
Article 21 and Procedural Safeguards In its original interpretation of the phrase “procedure established by law” in Article 21 the Court maintained a strict literal meaning allowing legislative procedures regardless of their justice or fairness to deprive a person of life or personal liberty. A. K. Gopalan v The State of Madras the court implemented this particular interpretation of the law. decision vested legislative power to restrict personal freedoms as long as it completed the necessary formalities of lawmaking processes. 17 The rigid interpretation of Article 21 experienced an essential transformation through the historical judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). In its assessment of Article 21 the Supreme Court recognized the need to understand its meanings by integrating its interpretation with Articles 14 and 19.
The Court hypothesized about the due process doctrine to establish a requirement that a law-made procedural framework must be both “just, fair, and reasonable” while lacking arbitrariness or fanciful or oppressive elements. The new interpretation of the article represented an essential transformation in legal doctrine. This judicial reinterpretation required legislative and executive powers to meet fairness and reasonableness requirements before affecting life and liberty. The Supreme Court gained the authority to assess both the presence of laws and the way they are executed and interpreted.
16 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
17 R. Dhavan, “The Supreme Court of India and Parliamentary Sovereignty
A Critique of its Approach to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty,” (1980) 22 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 1, 28.
The altered interpretation restricted arbitrary state conducts thus creating a crucial foundation to extend personal liberties protected under Article 21. Judicial Activism and Article 21 Article 21 achieved transformative expansion through judicial activism performed by Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Since the Supreme Court and Indian judiciary started their active interpretation of Article 21 right to life and personal liberty they expanded its scope to include numerous unremunerated basic rights which enable dignified living. PIL served as an instrument that gives voice to unprotected citizens through court representation from people who want to protect fundamental rights of individuals whose rights are damaged. The case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan represents a major instance of using fundamental rights in educational institutions.
The Supreme Court seized upon the opportunity in State of Rajasthan (1997) to resolve the vacancy of regulations for workplace sexual harassment prevention. Bhanwari Devi who worked as a social worker struggled to prevent an child marriage before offenders gang-raped her in Rajasthan. In response to the missing legal framework the Court implemented the Vishaka Guidelines because they needed legislative approval for permanent adoption. The guidelines derived their authority from Article 21 fundamental right to life and dignity and the equality guarantee through Articles 14 and 1518. The court implemented Article 21 to create socio-legal norms which adapted to fundamental societal challenges through this particular judgment.
Through this decision the Court showcased its dedication toward gender justice while establishing judicial creativity as a means to create practical solutions out of constitutional rights when legislative action fails to act. Criticism and Challenges Public Interest Litigation (PIL) operated as a judicial tool that serves as a catalyst for expanding the scope of Article 21 thanks to judicial activism. Through its active interpretation of Article
21 the Supreme Court of India has added multiple unlisted rights which people need to live
with dignity. PIL emerged as an instrument for justice which enabled concerned parties to represent those who faced fundamental rights violations.
18 India, Constitution of India, art. 15.
The judiciary established Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan19 as an influential case in advancing progress in judicial philosophy toward unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court handled the situation in State of Rajasthan (1997) because the government had not established any legislation to stop sexual harassment in working environments. After Bhanwari Devi faced a brutal gang rape while working as a social worker in Rajasthan for attempting to prevent child marriage the case developed. The Court took action by establishing the Vishaka Guidelines because they identified a lack of legal provisions and made them enforceable until proper legislation passed. The guidelines derived their authority from two fundamental rights under Article 21 regarding life and dignity as well as Articles 14 and 15 which protect equality and ensure nondiscrimination.
The court demonstrated through this decision that Article 21 enabled judicial development of new socio-legal standards to address urgent social matters. Through this case the Court exhibited strong dedication to gender equality as it displayed innovative judicial powers to convert constitutional rights into enforceable remedies that replace inactive legislative measures. 20 Conclusion The essence of the Indian Constitution lies within Article 21 because it outlines the State's dedication to safeguard human dignity together with liberty and justice. Indian society's developing hopes throughout the years have reflected in the way Article 21 has been interpreted. The courts have expanded Article 21 through judicial interpretation such that now includes several derivative rights beyond physical liberty like privacy, education, health, livelihood and environmental cleanliness.
Through this evolution the Constitution has become a living document that adapts to modern threats and addresses developing needs of the diverse people across India. Judicial rights-affirming interpretation needs to acquire superior implementation systems for it to become effective. Various rights protected under Article 21 face a substantial divide between authorized principles and what occurs in practical terms across the country. The delivery of quality health services along with proper education and environmental cleanliness remains
19 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
20 Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics, (Eastern Book Company, 1980).
elusive to the many who belong to disadvantaged communities. The actual achievement of human rights faces barriers because of structural inefficiencies together with bureaucratic inertia and inadequate forms of accountability. The complete realization of Article 21 needs supportive proactive governance together with inclusive policymaking and strong institutional frameworks combined with public awareness efforts. These judicially recognized rights can only become concrete outcomes through simultaneous support from the legislature and administration as well as participation from civil society. Article 21 transforms from paper promises to living guarantees of dignity and liberty for Indian citizens when all necessary support is in place.
Bibliography
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th edn., LexisNexis 2014) 1152.
2. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, (4th edn., Universal Law Publishing
Co. 2013) 479.
3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
5 P. Ishwara Bhat, Fundamental Rights
A Study of their Interrelationship, (Eastern Book Co. 2004) 208.
6. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
7 R. Dhavan, “The Supreme Court of India and Parliamentary Sovereignty
A Critique of its Approach to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty,” (1980) 22 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 1, 28.
8. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
9. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
10. A. Chandrachud, “The Informational Autonomy of the Individual and the Right to
Privacy,” (2014) 10 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 1.
11. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 2426.
12. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858
13. Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 2178.
14. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
15. Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics, (Eastern Book Company, 1980).