Introduction

The right to life and right to personal liberty in India has been guaranteed by a Constitutional provision, which has received a widest possible interpretation under the canopy(ceiling) of Article 21 of the Constitution. So many rights have been found shelter, growth and nourishment. An intelligent citizen would like to be aware of the development in this regard, as they have evolved from judicial decisions.

It has been now accepted that right to life does not mean mere animal existence, but it means right to live with human dignity. It ensures all freedom and advantages that would go to make life agreeable.

Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Art 21 :  Protection of life and personal liberty :-

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Safety of life and liberty of person are the two most essential things in an ordered society. The Constitution assures them not only to Indian citizens but to all persons in India.

It has not been left to the whim of the executive to rob a person of his personal liberty and put him in detention. As person may be put in custody, if the law warrants and when he is so put, it should be in conformity with the procedure established by law.

All the safeguards that the law prescribes to protect the liberty of person from being jeopardised (put at risk) should be available to a person before he is put in detention.

Personal Liberty

The word “personal Liberty” under Article 21, imports wide interpretation. Immediately after the commencement of the Constitution, the question of interpretation of these words arose in famous case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1960), In that case, the petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, acommunist leader was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. “Personal Liberty” was held to mean “Liberty of the physical body, e.g., freedom from arrest and detention from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement.” It was said that the expression “Personal Liberty” was antithesis of physical restraint and preventive detention. But this restrictive meaning has not been accepted in the subsequent case.

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., (1963), it was held that the expression “life” was not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to person only but something more than mere animal existence. In this case the petitioner, Kharak Singh was charged in a dacoity case but was released as there was no evidence against him. The Police opened a history-sheet against him and he was kept in Police surveillance which included secret picketing of his house by the police, domicillary visits at nights and unification of his movement and activities.

The Supreme Court held that the domicillary visits by the police were an invasion on the petitioner’s personal liberty. By the term, “Life” as used here, means something more than mere existence. The inhibition against its deprivation; extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The Court held that the unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him, is the violation of the personal liberty of an individual.

Hence the Police Regulation authorising domicillary visits was plainly violative of Article 21 as there was no law on which it could be justified and it must be struck down as unconstitutional.

In Satwant Singh v. Asstt. Passport Officer, New Delhi, (1967) the Supreme Court further extended the scope of this Article and held that “right to travel abroad”, was part of a person’s personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In this case the petitioner who was a citizen of India, had to travel frequently for business purposes. The Government ordered him to surrender the passport but the petitioner challenged it on the ground that the right to travel abroad and return to India, was part of his personal liberty. The Supreme Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the right to travel aboard was part of a person’s personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 and therefore no person can be deprived of his right to travel abroad except according to procedure established by law. In fact there was no law on which the government could justify its action.

In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Supreme Court has not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has widened the scope of the words ‘personal liberty’ considerably. The Court laid down number of propositions to make Art. 21 much more meaningful.

(1) The Court said that Arts. 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. A nexus has been established between these three articles. A law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to meet the requirement of Art. 19. Also the procedure established by law in Art. 21 must answer the requirement of Art. 14 as well.

(2) The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable. It must not be fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.

(3) The word ‘law’ in Art. 21 does not mean merely an enacted piece of law, but it must incorporate principles of natural justice.

Thus, by the virtue of Menaka’s case Art. 21 requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a person is deprived of his personal liberty.

(1) There must be a law.

(2) The law must provide a procedure.

(3) The procedure must just fair and reasonable.

(4) The law must satisfy the requirements of Arts. 14 and 19

i.e. it must be reasonable.

Expanding Horizons of Article 21

Menaka Gandhi’s case is a landmark case of the post-emergency period. This case shows how liberal tendencies have influenced by the Supreme Court in the matter of interpreting fundamental rights, particularly Art. 21. A great transformation has come about in the judicial attitude towards the protection of liberty after the traumatic experience of the emergency during 1975-77 when personal liberty has reached to its nadir. Since then, the Supreme Court has shown great sensitivity to the promotion of life and personal liberty.

1. Right to Privacy :

The Constitution does not grant in specific and express terms any right to privacy as such. Right to privacy is not mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, such a right has been called by the Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the Constitution read with directive principles of state policy.

In State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain, (1991), Court held that even a woman of easy virtue was entitled to rightto privacy under Art 21 and that no one could invade her privacy asand when he liked. Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution.

2. Right to go abroad

Now it is clear that, there is close nexus between Arts. 21 and 19 of the Constitution. So, Supreme Court has taken into consideration Art. 19 at the time of interpreting Art. 21 of the Constitution.

In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978), the SC held that a person is having right to go abroad and if this right is to be restricted and limited, then the procedure contemplated in Art. 21 could not be arbitrary, unfair or unreal.

3. Right to livelihood

To begin with, Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include livelihood. But then the view of the Court underwent a change. With the defining of the word ‘life’ in Art. 21, in a broad and expansive manner, the Court came to hold that the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 includes right to livelihood.

In D.K. YADAV v. J.M.A. Industries, the SC has held that, the right to life enshrined under Art 21 includes the right to livelihood and therefore, termination of the service of worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1986), This case is also popularly known as ‘pavement dwellers case’. The SC held that right to livelihood is born out of right to life, as no person  can live without the means of living, that is the means of livelihood.

4. Right to live with Dignity

Supreme Court has used Art. 21 in very creative manner to improve the quality of life and to imply therefrom a bundle of rights for the people. A grand step was taken by the Court in expanding the scope of Art. 21 when it argued that life in Art. 21 does not mean mere animal existence, but it means right to live with human dignity. The Court has thus given very extensive parameters to Art. 21.

Thus, in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, (1981), the SC held that the right to life includes right to live withhuman dignity and all that goes along with it. i.e. the bare necessitiesof life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter.

5. Bonded Labour System

The Bounded Labour System is designed to enable a few socially and economically powerful person to exploit weaker section of the society. Now Court has ruled out that bonded labour is unconstitutional under Art. 23 as it can be regarded as a form of forced labour.

In Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984),

Supreme Court issued order to release large number of labourers who were working in stone quarries in the state of Haryana. The Court directed the State Government to draw up a scheme for a better and more meaningful rehabilitation of the freed labourers.

6. Capital Punishment

Even though Supreme Court has upheld the validity of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder, it has emphasized that the death penalty is an exception rather than a rule and it oughtto be imposed only in rarest of rare case.

Thus, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980), The Supreme Court held that death penalty should be awarded in rarest of rare case.Section 302 of IPC which provides for death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder is not unreasonable and is in public interest.

7. Right to Compensation

A new judicial trend has been evolved in the area of personal liberty. Here the attempt of Supreme Court is to keep the flag of humanity waving all the time in India. Now, it has been settled that an aggrieved person can claim compensation under Art. 21, as a fundamental right.In Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa, (1993), awarding compensation in a case of police custodial death, theSupreme Court has held that, right to compensation is a fundamentalright under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Court awardedcompensation of 1,50,000/- to the petitioner, who was the mother ofvictim.

8. Right to Medical Help

Now Court has ruled out that in a welfare State like India, it is the primary duty of the government to provide adequate medical facilities to the people. The government has to discharge this obligation by running hospitals and health centres to provide medical care to those who need them.

In Permanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989), the SC said that every doctor whether at a government hospital, or otherwise, has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. Art 21 casts on the State an obligation to preserve the life. Preservation of life is paramount.Without waiting for the completion of legal formalities, immediatemedical help should be given to the victim.

9. Right to Shelter

In Chameli Singh v. State of UP,(1996), it has been held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Art 21. The Court held that, it is the duty of the State to provide housing facilities to Dalits and Tribes to enable them to come into the mainstream of national life. The right to shelter does not means a mere right to roof over one’s head but also right to safe and decent structure like clean environment, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads, etc.

10. Right to Education

According to Supreme Court, the word ‘life’ includes education because education promotes good and dignified life. Hence, Supreme Court has implied right to education as a fundamental right under Art.21. Now, by the amendment of 2002, Art. 21(A) has been newly inserted.

11.Ban on Smoking in Public Places

In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, 2002 the petitioner filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeking order for banning smoking in public places. The Court, considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and other persons directed Central, State Governments and Union Territories to immediately issue orders banning smoking in public places like hospitals, health institutes, public offices, public transport including railways, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries and auditoriums. Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, inter alia provides that non-smoker shall not be deprived of his life without due process of law.

Prevention of sexual harassment of working women – In a landmark judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997, the Supreme Court has laid down exhaustive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of working women in places of their work until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. The Court held that it is the duty of the employer or other responsible person in work- places or other institutions, whether public or private, to prevent sexual harassment of working women. – THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013

12.Protection against illegal arrest detentions and Custodial Death –

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994), the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines governing arrest of a person during investigation. This has been done with a view to strike a balance between the needs of police on the one hand and the protection of human rights of citizens from oppression and injustice at the hands of law enforcing agencies. The Court has held that a person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the police officer effecting the arrest that such arrest was necessary and justified.

Following are the guidelines laid down by the Court :-

(1) An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to have an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where is being detained.

(2) Police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.

(3) An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

These protections from power flow from Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and therefore they must be enforced strictly.