CLASS- B.A. LL.B.

IVSEMESTER
SUBJECT- HUMAN RIGHTS
PAPER CODE- BL-4005

INCLUSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognizes such universally adopted principles

Protection of life and Personal Liberty- "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law".

Ray C.J. held: "Art.21 is the sole repository of rights to life and personal liberty against the State.
Any claim to a writ of habeas corpus is enforcement of Article 21 and is, therefore, barred by the
presidential order."

In Kharak Singh Vrs. State of U.P1. the Supreme Court took the opportunity to examine the
width, scope and content of expression 'personal liberty' and departed from the narrow
interpretation as stated above and observed: "... 'personal liberty' is used in the Article as a
compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the
'personal liberties' of man other than those dealt with in the several clauses of Art.19 (1). In other
words, while Art.l9(l) deals with particular species or attributes of that freedom, 'personal liberty'
in Art.21 takes in and comprises the residue".

In Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India2 the true meaning, scope and content of expression
personal liberty again came up for consideration and interpretation wherein the court observed:
"the expression'personal liberty' in Art.21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to
the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Art.19".

1
AIR1963 SC 1295
2
AIR 1978 SC
Further,,.if a law depriving a person of personal liberty and prescribing a procedure for that
purpose within the meaning of Art.21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental
rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex hypothesi it
must also be liable to be tested with reference toArt.14.

The meaning of life under Article 21 came for interpretation in Olga Tellis Vrs. Bombay
Municipal Corporation3, when the permanent and slum dwellers, who were eking out their living
in the pavement, leading a life of filth in the slum area of Bombay and life, shelter, occupation
and everything mean to them the pavement and the slum, were asked to be evicted with no place
to go and take shelter and no means and area to pursue to their avocation to feed their family.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil Batra Vrs. Delhi Administration4 marks the beginning of
new era in the annals of history of prison Administration. In this case the appeal court came
forward to safeguard the human rights of man behind the bars, to act as true sentinel on the qui
vive. The protagonistic, catalystic role of the Supreme Court in relation to fundamental rights of
man (prisoner) could seen when the Court applied the very sanctified rights of life and liberty
inside the prison honouring the dignity of the prisoners, as they too are human beings endowed
by the nature all the natural rights as that of free man, as the mere incarceration does not reduce
their quality of humanness.

In Unni Krishnan Vrs. State of A. P.5 the Supreme Court agreed with Mohini Jain decision and
held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21, as it directly flows from
the right to life, although the Court differed as to the content of the Mohini Jain decision and
held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 24
years.

The Supreme Court, in Paschim Banga Khet mazdoor Samity & othrs v.State of West Bengal &
others6 , while widening the scope of art 21 and the government's responsibility to provide
medical aid to every person in the country, held that in a welfare state, the primary duty of the
government is to secure the welfare of the people.

3
AIR 1986 SC 181
4
AIR 1978 SC 1675
5
AIR 1993 SC 2178
6
AIR 1996 SC 2426
Further in, State of Punjab and Others v. Mohinder Singh7 the Supreme Court held that “It is
now a settled law that right to health is integral to right to life. Government has a constitutional
obligation to provide health facilities.”
In L.K.Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan8 , the Rajasthan High Court observed that a citizens duty to
protect to protect the environment under Article. 51-A (g) of the Constitution bestows upon the
citizens the right to clean environment.

In Puttappa Honnappa Talavar v. Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad9 , the High Court has held
that the right to dig bore wells therefore can be restricted or regulated only by an Act of
legislature and that the right to life includes the right to have access to clean drinking water. The
Allahabad High court in S.K Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh10 , the right of water is part of the
right to life guaranteed by Article 21 and the use of agricultural land for aquaculture causes
pollution of underground water on the neibouring properties.

In Chameli Singh v. State of UP11 Hon’rable Supreme Court of India has reiterated in several of
its decisions that the Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21 of the constitution in its true meaning
includes the basic right to food, clothing and shelter.
In the case of Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana 12honorable Supreme Court observe that

“Article 21 protects the right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its
attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit,
the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of
air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions
would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution,
etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic
environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live
with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental
protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence.

7
AIR 1997 SC 1225
8
AIR 1988 Raj 2
9
AIR 1998 Kerala 10
10
(1998) 2 UPLBEC 1211
11
1996(2) SCC 549
12
1995(2) SCC 577
 Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole
comprising the man-made and the natural environment.”

In JP v. State of A.P13 Justice Unnikrishanan held that maintenance and improvement of public
health is the duty of the state to fulfill its constitutional obligation cast on it under article 21 of
the Constitution. The recognition that the right to health is essential for human existence and is,
therefore, an integral part of the Right to Life.

In case of People Union for civil liberties v. Union of India14 Supreme Court focus on the
importance of right to food and mention in its judgment that without food there is no meaning of
right to life and same time directed all state governments to ensure that all Public Distribution
Shops are kept open with regular supplies and fix the prime responsibility of the government to
prevent hunger and starvation by providing people access to food.

In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam v. Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control)
Authority15 the NGT while deciding a appeal held that “Citizens are entitled to breathe in fresh
air.” Adding to the above, tribunal held that,

Impugned action is an undoubted need for protection of environment and public health. If the
appellant cannot supply electricity, it is for the appellant to find out ways and means within the
purview of law. This cannot be ground to use DG sets in violation of air quality protection
norms. Citizens are entitled to breathe in fresh air. Thus, no interference is called for.

In Narmada Bacho Andolan Vrs. Union of India16 The Court held that the right to water is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Water is the basic need for the survival of
human beings and is part of right to life and human rights as enshrined Constitution of India and
can be served only by providing source of water where there is none."

In Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum Vrs. Union of India17, a writ petition by way of Public
Interest Litigation drew the attention of the Court how the tennaries and other industries are
discharging untreated affluent into agricultural fields, waterways, open lands and Rivers

13
AIR 1993 SC 2178
14
AIR 1997 SC 568
15
Appeal No. 88 of 2019
16
AIR 1999 SC 3345
17
AIR 1996 SC 2715
rendering the river water unfit for human consumption, contaminating the subsoil water and had
spoiled the physico-chemical properties of the soil making it unfit for agricultural purposes.

Article 21 does not say anything like 'right to life' or 'liberty', because such right are not at all
conferment of the State, neither they are created by the State, simply they are endowment of
nature and are basic human rights of man. So what Art.21 does is simply spell out the protective
mechanism to safeguard the right to life or personal liberty of man. As evidently the right to life
and liberty are inviolable, inalienable rights. But in a civil society, howsoever sacrosanct and
inviolate a right may be, it cannot be absolute or unfettered in nature, it is always subject to
certain limitations or restrictions as a part of the social/civil agreement. Such fetters are put and
permitted in a social compact by the Law or Constitution of the compact for the better enjoyment
of rights and liberties.

Apeksha Chaudhary
Contact No. -7465974497

E-mail- apekshalaw03@gmail.com