Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

ARTICLE 21
(Target For IQ – 7500110314)

▪ Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal

liberty except according to procedure established by law. This right is available
to both citizens and non-citizens.
▪ In the famous Gopalan case (1950), the Supreme Court has taken a narrow
interpreta- tion of the Article 21. It held that the protection under Article 21 is
available only against arbi-trary executive action and not from arbitrary
legislative action.
▪ This means that the State can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a
person based on a law. This is because of the expression 'procedure established
by law' in Article 21, which is different from the expression 'due process of law'
contained in the American Constitution.
▪ Hence, the validity of a law that has prescribed a procedure cannot be questioned
on the ground that the law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust. Secondly, the
Supreme Court held that the 'personal liberty' means only liberty relating to the
person or body of the individual.
▪ But, in Maneka case (1978), the Supreme Court overruled its judge- ment in the
Gopalan case by taking a wider interpretation of the Article 21. Therefore, it ruled
that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law
provided the procedure prescribed by that law is reason- able, fair and just and
not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In order that the procedure is reasonable, fair
and just, the procedure should conform to the principles of "natural justice".
▪ In other words, it has introduced the American expression 'due process of law'. In
effect, the protection under Article 21 should be available not only against
arbitrary executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action.
▪ Further, the court held that the 'right to life' as embodied in Article 21 is not merely
confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right
to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man's
life meaningful, complete and worth living.
1
▪ It also ruled that the expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest
amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal
liberties of a man.
▪ The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its judgement in the Maneka case in the sub-
sequent cases. It has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:
1. Right to live with human dignity.
2. Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and
protec-tion against hazardous industries.
3. Right to livelihood.
4. Right to privacy.
5. Right to shelter.
6. Right to health.
7. Right to free education up to 14 years of age.
8. Right to free legal aid.
9. Right against solitary confinement.
10. Right to speedy trial.
11. Right against handcuffing.
12. Right against inhuman treatment.
13. Right against delayed execution.
14. Right to travel abroad.
15. Right against bonded labour.
16. Right against custodial harassment.
17. Right to emergency medical aid (Right to Doctor's assistance).
18. Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital.
19. Right not to be driven out of a state.
20. Right to fair trial.
21. Right of prisoner to have necessities of life.
22. Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.
23. Right against public hanging.
24. Right to road in hilly areas.
25. Right to information.
26. Right to reputation.
27. Right of appeal from a judgement of conviction
2
 28. Right to family pension
29. Right to social and economic justice and empowerment
30. Right against bar fetters
31. Right to appropriate life insurance policy
32. Right to sleep
33. Right to freedom from noise pollution
34. Right to sustainable development
35. Right to opportunity.
36. Right to decent burial/cremation
37. Right to marry a person of one's choice
38. Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia)
The important cases relating to the expan-sion of the scope of Article 21 (Protection
of Life and Personal Liberty) are mentioned in Table 8.6.

Case (Year) Right declared by the Supreme Court

as an integral part of Article 21
1. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. Dr. Right to travel abroad
Ramaratnam, Assistant Passport
Officer (1967)
2. M.H. Hoskot vs. State of Right to free legal aid
Maharashtra (1978)
3. Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Right to speedy trial
Secretary, Bihar (1979)
4. Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Right to live with human dignity &
Administrator, Delhi (1981) Right of prisoner to have necessities of
life
5. Sheela Barse vs. State of Right against custodial harassment
Maharashtra (1983)
6. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Right to decent environment
Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1985)
7. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Right to livelihood
Corporation (1985)

3
 8. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of Right to emergency medical aid (Right
India (1989) to Doctor's assistance)
9. Shantistar Builders vs. N.K. Right to shelter
Totame (1990)
10. K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India Right to privacy
(2017)
11. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Right to die with dignity (Passive
vs. Union of India (2018) euthanasia)

Important Case Laws Related to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

(Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
Article 21 states:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law."
Over the years, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21, making
it one of the most comprehensive fundamental rights in India. Here are some
landmark judgments interpreting Article 21:

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27)

Facts: A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950. He challenged it, arguing that it violated Article 21.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 provides protection only
against arbitrary executive action, not against duly enacted laws, even if they
are harsh.
Significance: This narrow interpretation of Article 21 was later overruled in
Maneka Gandhi’s case.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)

Facts: The government confiscated Maneka Gandhi’s passport without
providing any reason.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that "procedure established by law"

4
must be fair, just, and reasonable. It linked Article 21 with Articles 14 (Equality)
and 19 (Freedom of Speech & Movement).
Significance: Expanded the scope of "personal liberty" and ensured that laws
affecting life and liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.

3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978 AIR 1675)

Facts: A prisoner complained of inhumane treatment and torture in jail.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that prisoners also have fundamental
rights and inhuman treatment violates Article 21.
Significance: Recognized prisoner rights and reinforced dignity as part of
the right to life.

4. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi (1981 AIR 746)

Facts: A foreigner detained under the Preventive Detention Act was denied
permission to meet her lawyer and family.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life includes the right
to live with dignity and access to legal aid and family is a part of personal
liberty.
Significance: Strengthened prisoners' rights under Article 21.

5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985 AIR 180)

Facts: The Bombay government planned to evict pavement dwellers without
any rehabilitation.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an essential
part of the right to life.
Significance: Established that "right to livelihood" falls under Article 21,
preventing arbitrary eviction of poor people.

5
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 AIR 3011)
Facts: A social worker was brutally gang-raped, highlighting the lack of
workplace harassment laws for women.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment at the workplace
violates Article 21 and introduced Vishaka Guidelines to prevent harassment.
Significance: Strengthened women’s rights and workplace safety under
Article 21.

7. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997 AIR 568)
Facts: The case challenged illegal phone tapping by the government.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is an essential
part of Article 21 and phone tapping without valid reasons violates this right.
Significance: Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under
Article 21.

8. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015 AIR SC 1523)

Facts: The case challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which allowed arrest
for "offensive" online posts.
Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, stating that freedom
of speech and right to life cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Significance: Protected free speech and digital rights under Article 21.

9. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 AIR SC 4161) – Right to

Privacy Case
Facts: The Aadhaar scheme was challenged as a violation of the right to
privacy.
Judgment: The Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right
under Article 21.

6
 Significance: Strengthened data protection and personal freedom under
Article 21.

10. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018 AIR SC 1665) – Right to Die with
Dignity
Facts: The case challenged the legality of passive euthanasia.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is a part
of Article 21 and allowed passive euthanasia and living wills.
Significance: Expanded Article 21 to include the right to die with dignity.