ARTICLE 21

Introduction:
The sanctity of human life is probably the most fundamental of human social values. It is
recognised in all civilized societies and their legal systems, as well as in internationally
recognized statements of human rights. Every person is entitled to live their life on their
own terms, with no unfair interference from others. A successful democracy can only be one
that guarantees its citizens the right to protect their own life and liberty.

In India, the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty is a Fundamental Right granted to
citizens under Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950. These Fundamental Rights
represent the foundational values cherished by the people and are granted against actions
of the state, meaning that no act of any state authority can violate any such right of a citizen
except according to the procedure established by law.

Article 21 is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India under Part III, which
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. It serves as a cornerstone of individual
freedoms and human rights in India.

Personal liberty refers to the freedom and autonomy of individuals to make choices and
decisions regarding their own lives, bodies, and personal affairs. It includes freedom from
arbitrary arrest, detention, or imprisonment without due process of law.

In essence, the right to life and personal liberty forms the foundation of a just and
democratic society, ensuring that individuals have the freedom, dignity, and protection
necessary to lead fulfilling lives and participate fully in society.

Overall, Article 21 is a foundational pillar of the Indian Constitution, upholding the principles
of human dignity, justice, and equality. Its comprehensive interpretation by the judiciary
reflects the dynamic nature of fundamental rights in adapting to the evolving needs and
challenges of society.

Right to life and Personal Liberty:

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is assured by the Indian Constitution under Article 21.
This is a very important and wide topic and has several implications for the citizens of India.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the fundamental right to life and personal
liberty, and its interpretation by the Indian judiciary has significantly impacted the
protection of individual rights in India.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that provides for the fundamental
right to life and personal liberty. This right is considered the most basic of all human rights
and has been recognized as such by the United Nations. In India, the interpretation of Article
21 has evolved over time, and its application has had a significant impact on the protection
of individual rights in the country.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stands as a testament to the country’s commitment to

upholding human dignity and fundamental rights. Protecting the right to life and personal
liberty, this article resonates with the ethos of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
embodying the principles of justice and equality. Its dynamic interpretation over the years
by the judiciary has profoundly shaped the legal landscape in India, making it a cornerstone
of human rights jurisprudence.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” This provision has
been interpreted broadly by the Indian judiciary to include various aspects of human life
that go beyond mere physical existence. The Supreme Court of India has held that the right
to life includes the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to a
clean environment, the right to health, and the right to privacy.

Historical Background:

Tracing its roots to the global human rights movement post-World War II, Article 21’s
evolution reflects India’s journey towards a more inclusive and just society. Initially
interpreted narrowly, it has expanded over time to include various dimensions of dignity
and personal freedom, influenced by landmark judgments and changing societal values. The
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has
its roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1948. The declaration recognized the inherent dignity and
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and affirmed the right to
life and liberty.

The right to life and personal liberty was first included in the Indian Constitution in its
original form in 1950. It has since been subject to numerous interpretations by the Indian
judiciary, and its scope has been expanded to include various aspects of human life.

Scope of Article 21:

The scope of Article 21 has been interpreted broadly by the Indian judiciary to include not
only the right to physical existence but also the right to lead a meaningful life. The Supreme
Court has held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live with
dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to a clean environment, the right to health, and the
right to privacy.
Right to live with human dignity

It is not enough to ensure that a person has a Right to Live. An essential element of life is
one’s dignity and respect; therefore, each person has been guaranteed the right to live with
dignity – which means having access to the necessities of human life as well as having
autonomy over one’s personal decisions.

Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014)

Facts

In this case, a non-profit organization filed a petition seeking guidelines for occupational
safety and health conditions in various industries, especially thermal power plants. This was
in view of the various skin diseases, lung abnormalities, etc. suffered by their workers due to
unhealthy working conditions. It also called for compensation to victims of occupational
health disorders.

Judgement

The court recognised the State’s duty to protect workers from dangerous or unhygienic
working conditions and remanded the matter to various High Courts to check the issue of
thermal power plants in their respective states. Thus, in this case, the protection of health
and strength of workers and their access to just and humane conditions of work were taken
as essential conditions to live with human dignity.

Right to livelihood
To survive, a person requires access to financial and material resources to fulfill his various
needs. The law recognises that every person, whether man or woman, has an equal right to
livelihood so that he or she may acquire the necessary resources like food, water, shelter,
clothes and more. No person deserves to live in poverty and squalor because of being
deprived of the chance to earn for himself.

Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986)

Facts

The petitioners, in this case, were slum and pavement dwellers in the city of Bombay. They
filed a writ petition against an earlier decision of the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay
Municipal Corporation to forcibly evict dwellers and deport them, which led to the
demolition of certain dwellings. They challenged these actions on the grounds that evicting
a person from his pavement dwelling or slum meant depriving him of his right to livelihood,
which should be considered a part of his constitutional right to life.

Judgement

The court concluded that though the slum and pavement dwellers were deprived of their
Right to Livelihood, the government was justified in evicting them as they were making use
of the public property for private purposes. However, they should not be considered
trespassers as they occupied the filthy places out of sheer helplessness. It was ordered that
any evictions would take place only after the approaching monsoon season and the persons
who were censused before 1976 would be entitled to resettlement.

While the case failed to bring successful resettlement to the dwellers and, in fact, is
sometimes cited as justification for eviction of people by the State, it did play its part in
establishing the Right to Livelihood as part of the Fundamental Right to Life.

Right to shelter

Chameli Singh v. State Of U.P (1995)

Facts

In this case, the appellants were the landowners of the land that was being acquired by the
government for providing houses to Scheduled Castes. It was contended that the appellants
will be deprived of their lands, which was the only source of their livelihood, violating Article
21 of the Constitution.

Judgement

Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter
to enjoy the meaningful right to life. Right to live as guaranteed in any civilized society
implies the basic human rights to food, water, a decent environment, education, medical
care, and shelter. Further, the right to shelter includes within itself adequate living space, a
safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and
water, electricity, sanitation, and other civic amenities like roads, etc., so as to have easy
access to his daily avocation. Court held that to bring the Dalits and Tribes into the
mainstream of national life by providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the
duty of the State as they are their fundamental and constitutional rights. Thus, in every
acquisition, by its very compulsory nature for public purposes, the owner may be deprived
of the land, the means of his livelihood.
Right to go abroad

Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)

Facts

In this case, the petitioner carrying out the business of import, export, and manufacture of
automobile parts was asked to surrender his passports when it was necessary for him to
travel abroad. He filed a petition under Article 32 against infringement of his rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment

A person living in India has a fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the
Constitution and cannot be denied a passport because, factually, a passport is a
necessary condition for traveling abroad, and by withholding the passport, the Government
can effectively deprive him of his right.

Right against illegal detention

Meera Nireshwalia v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991)

Facts

In this case, a woman was allegedly illegally detained by the policemen while she was
complaining about some miscreants who tried to damage the structure of her house. It was
also alleged that she was denied food or water and even information about the grounds on
which she was detained. She was also taken to a mental hospital without letting anything
known to her family.

Judgment

In its judgment, the court ordered the State of Tamil Nadu to pay her compensation of Rs
50,000 as she was illegally detained, depriving her of her right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held that one of the ways in which
the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the
mandate of Article 21 secured is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary
compensation.
Right to privacy
Right to Privacy sounds like a very basic and obvious right to possess, but for a long time, it
was not recognised as a distinct right by the Government because of not being mentioned
explicitly by the drafters in the Constitution of India. Over time, there has been a growing
recognition of a person’s autonomy over his or her personal body, mind and information
which has been given due emphasis by the courts in various judgements. The Right to
Privacy first saw mention in the following case.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Facts

In this case, a person convicted of murder wrote his autobiography, in which he also
disclosed his relationship with the prison officials, some of whom were his partners in crime.
His wife sent it for publishing to the Tamil magazine ‘Nakkheeran’, but the prison officials
interfered in the publication. The editors of the magazine filed a petition to restrain the
government or the prison authorities from stopping the publication of the autobiography.

Judgement

The court held that it was the right of the criminal Auto Shankar to do whatever he wanted
with his private information. Thus, the magazine could not be stopped from publishing what
it called the “autobiography” of the criminal.

This case set the stage for future judgements regarding the Right to Privacy and paved the
path for it to be established as a part of the Fundamental Rights granted under Part III of the
Constitution.

Telephone-tapping : an invasion of right to privacy

In today’s digital world, Right to Privacy has acquired a new meaning. In a world where your
finger controls everything you put out for everyone to see, can you imagine your personal
information being secretly spied on by someone? In the 90s, telephone-tapping of private
conversations by the State became a much-talked-about issue in the case of People’s Union
for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997). Let us take a look at the facts of the case.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997)

Facts

In this case the petitioner, a voluntary organisation, challenged the constitutional validity of
Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which empowered the Central or State
government or its authorised officer to intercept and record messages in case of public
emergency or in public interest. This came in the wake of the report on telephone-tapping
of politicians which showed that many interceptions were not backed by proper
authorizations and in many cases, no proper records or logs of the same were maintained.

Judgement

The court held that interception can be made only by specific top government officials, only
when it is necessary, and it should not exceed a total of six months. The copies of such
intercepted messages should be destroyed as soon as they are no longer useful. Recognizing
a person’s Right to Privacy, it ordered the formation of a Review Committee to check that
such interception was not in contravention of Section 5(2) and if it was, the messages shall
be destroyed immediately.

Right to privacy and Aadhaar Card

One of the most important judgements related to Right to Privacy came in the case of
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2015). This case established the Right to
Privacy as a Fundamental Right granted to the citizens by the Constitution.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2015)

Facts

The case was brought by a retired Karnataka High Court Justice before a nine-judge
Constitutional bench, challenging the government’s scheme of making the Aadhaar card (a
uniform system of biometrics-based identity card) for all citizens. He claimed that it was a
violation of the Right to Privacy, and the fact that there were no strict data protection laws
in India meant that people’s personal information could be misused. The Attorney General
argued that the Constitution did not guarantee a separate Right to Privacy.

Judgement

The bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy was a part of one’s Right to Life granted
by Article 21 and included the right to keep personal information private. While it upheld
the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Card, it struck down certain provisions of the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act,
2016.
Right to sleep
All of us love sleeping, right? But many are not aware that the Right to Sleep is a distinct
part of one’s Fundamental Rights, which protects against any actions of the State leading to
the unlawful deprivation of a person’s sleep.

Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012) was the case which led to the
establishment of this Right.

Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012)

Facts

In this case, a Yoga training camp was to be held in Ramlila Maidan during June, 2011 but on
4th June it turned into a hunger strike against black money and corruption led by Baba
Ramdev. The protests took place all day and at 12:30 at night, when all the protestors were
sleeping, a large number of CRPF, Delhi Police force and Rapid Action Force personnel
reached the venue to bring the sadhu out. A scuffle ensued between the personnel and the
sadhu’s supporters which ended in throwing teargas shells on the people.

Judgement

The court acknowledged that sleep is an essential part of a healthy life and a necessity for
the maintenance of individual peace. Thus, it held that every person is entitled to sleep as
comfortably and freely as he breathes. If any person’s sleep is disturbed without any
reasonable justification, it amounts to torture and is a violation of his human rights.
Therefore, making the sleeping persons flee and causing mayhem at the location was held
as unlawful, since there was no illegal activity taking place there.

Right to die
The Right to Life confers upon the person the right to live a full life and dictates that the
State cannot interfere in this right except through procedure established by law. But, what if
a person chooses to end his own life? Can he interfere in his own Right to Life?

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalises attempt to suicide, with the
convicted person facing up to two years of imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Section 306,
meanwhile, criminalises the abetment to suicide i.e., the assistance given by a person in the
process of the commitment of suicide by another.

We might say that such a view is inhumane because a person, especially one who is
depressed or frustrated to the point of wanting to die, should not be criminalised for
attempting suicide. A person has the Right to Life which should naturally imply the Right to
end his life too. Such a view was taken by the court in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of
India (1994).

P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)- Right to Die

Facts

In this case, two petitions were filed challenging Section 309 of the IPC on the grounds that
it stood in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgement

Keeping Article 21 as well as the principles of natural justice in mind, the two-judge bench
ruled that Right to Life also included the right to not live a forced life. Therefore, Section 309
of the Indian Penal Code was declared void.

However, the court then changed its position in the subsequent case of Smt. Gian Kaur v.
State of Punjab (1996).

Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

Facts

In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under Section 306 of
the IPC due to abetment to the suicide of Kulwant Kaur. Subsequently, the constitutional
validity of Sections 306 and 309 was challenged.

Judgement

Here, the judgement given in the previously-mentioned case was overruled and it was held
that Section 309 of the IPC was not unconstitutional and that Section 306, criminalising
abetment to suicide, was Constitutional. The court concluded that suicide being an
unnatural termination of life, it was against the concept of Right to Life.

Euthanasia
The term euthanasia comes from two Greek words – eu meaning ‘good’ and thantos
meaning ‘death’. Thus, it essentially means ‘good death’. It is the practice of ending the life
of a person suffering from an incurable disease but still breathing, thus undergoing great
agony and distress. It helps him or her go through a gentle and painless death instead, by
either an act or omission upon his or her body. It is, thus, also known as “mercy killing” or
“assisted suicide”.

There may be two types of euthanasia- active and passive.

1. Active Euthanasia involves doing something to a patient to end his or her life, with
their consent. For eg. giving an injection.
2. Passive Euthanasia involves withdrawing medical services with the intention to
end the patient’s life. In other words, it means not doing something to a patient,
which if done would have saved his or her life. For eg. stop feeding the patient.
In Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the court observed that euthanasia could be made
lawful only by legislation. The reasoning behind this was to prevent unscrupulous actions by
ill-intentioned people.

The landmark case in this matter, however, was Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union
of India (2018), which made passive euthanasia lawful.

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018)

Facts

In this case, an NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court to legalize living
will and passive euthanasia. It contended that a person’s right to life included the right to
have a dignified death as well, but modern technology enabled the unnecessary prolonging
of an incurable patient’s life, only causing pain and suffering to him and his family. Thus,
living will by the patient could authorize the family and the hospital to end his agony.

Judgement

A five-judge Constitution bench ruled that Right to Life also includes a person’s Right to Die
with dignity, and thus allowed passive euthanasia i.e. the will of patients to withdraw
medical support in case of slipping into an irreversible state of coma.

Thus, currently, active euthanasia is illegal in India, just as in most other countries. On the
other hand, passive euthanasia is legal in our country, subject to certain strict guidelines.

Right to a healthy environment

Nature has showered us with its gifts since the beginning of time, and these gifts and
resources act as the backbone of human existence. A clean, healthy and harmonious
environment is one of the necessities for the true enjoyment of life, and thus, it comes as no
surprise that our right to live in a pollution-free environment is included in the expansive
Right to Life.

The rapid growth of technology beginning with the Industrial Revolution and growing over
the centuries has, however, not helped the environment at all. The establishment of more
and more industries and a rise in the demand for products manufactured by them has
increased the waste churned out by them. Where does all this waste go? Unfortunately, it
ends up in the land, water, and air.

Several court judgements have led to the establishment of our right to a healthy
environment and the measures to curb the pollution of the Earth.

Right to get pollution-free water and air

Without clean drinking water, we can’t last half a week, and without air, we can’t even last
half an hour. It is very important to have access to pollution-free water and air for a sound
mind and body. The case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) emphasized this right as
a part of Article 21.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Facts

In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against two iron and steel companies
alleging that they were polluting the nearby river Bokaro by dumping waste into it. The
petitioner pointed fingers at the State Pollution Control Board for failing to prevent this and
offered to collect the waste and sludge himself.

Judgement

The court confirmed that the Fundamental Right to Life includes the right to enjoy pollution-
free water and air, and if anything endangers the quality of water and air then a citizen can
file a petition in court.

However, this particular PIL was dismissed on the grounds that it had been filed in personal
interest for the petitioner’s own gains, and that it lacked any basis as the State Pollution
Control Board had taken appropriate measures to control pollution.

Protection of ecology and environmental pollution

Nature needs to be protected not just for our own eating, drinking and breathing, but also
to preserve the entire ecosystem which maintains the ecological balance on Earth. Let’s
examine the cases below to understand some of the judgements which have contributed
towards greater protection of the environment.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) or the Dehradun Valley

Litigation

Facts

In this case, an NGO filed a petition against the limestone quarries in the Dehradun-
Mussoorie area, alleging that their work was unauthorised and was leading to ecological
imbalance in the surroundings due to the landslides caused.

Judgement

The court only allowed a few mines to remain open while all the others, which were causing
harm, were shut down. The Valley was declared as an ecologically sensitive area and
measures were taken for its restoration. Most importantly, this case led to the enactment of
the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India (1987) or the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Case

Facts

In this case, the chemical plant Shriram Food and Fertilizer Ltd. in Delhi suffered a major
leakage of the deadly oleum gas in October 1986 and faced another minor leakage two days
later. This incident affected almost two lakh people in the near radius.

Judgement

The court held the industry liable for its negligence and ordered it to pay Rs 20 lakh as
compensation to the victims. It also ordered the establishment of an Expert Committee to
overlook the operation of the industry. It was directed for all workers to be properly trained,
and for loudspeakers to be installed in the premises to warn people in case of any leakage.

Thus, this proved to be a landmark case in environmental legislation as it established the

principle of absolute liability, which involves holding the industry dealing in hazardous
substances absolutely liable for all damages caused by its faulty operations.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2004)

Facts

The petition, in this case, was raised against mining activities 5 km away from the Delhi-
Haryana border and the Aravalli hills area, which was causing environmental pollution due
to the blasting operations involved.

Judgement

The court held that the Aravalli hill range had to be protected at any cost and so prohibited
any mining activities in the area. It appointed a Monitoring Committee to oversee the
restoration of the environment quality.

Freedom from noise pollution : another component of Article 21

In this fast-paced, chaotic urban world, the noise has become a major deterrent to a
peaceful and healthy lifestyle. The huge public loudspeakers, noisy firecrackers, and even
the incessant honks of vehicles on the road have become a source of great annoyance and
also of serious health hazards. In the Re: Noise Pollution case (2005), the court addressed
the issue of noise pollution and moved a step towards controlling it.

Prisoner’s rights and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Fundamental Rights form the basis of human existence and are not denied to anyone except
under special circumstances. A person convicted of a crime too, therefore, is not deprived of
his Fundamental Rights. Restrictions are usually placed on a criminal’s movement, the
practice of the profession, etc. but the Right to Life and Personal Liberty is one right that is
not snatched from him, except through procedure established by law (for eg. a death
sentence). What constitutes the Right to Life and Personal Liberty of a convict? We shall
examine that below.

Right to free legal aid

Article 39A of the Constitution provides that the State must secure a proper legal system
based on the equal opportunity by offering free legal services to people (in the form of
lawyers to represent them in a trial), in order to ensure that no one is denied justice due to
his economic weakness. This is in consonance with Article 14 which provides equal
protection before the law and Article 22(1) which states that every arrested person must get
the chance to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice.
Hence, this right helps to ensure one of the most essential elements of justice – that it is
made accessible to all.

Right to a speedy trial

Right to speedy trial means that the accused should be put under trial as soon as possible to
ascertain whether they are guilty or not. It safeguards against the accused being put into
prison for a long time with no foreseeable date in the near future to face trial. It is available
to the accused at all stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal etc. This right is
based on the principle which says that “justice delayed is justice denied.” This right was
discussed by the court in detail in the following case.

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)

Facts

In this case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by a number of undertrial
prisoners who were in jail in Bihar for years, awaiting their trial.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that though the right to a speedy trial is not specifically listed as a
Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, it is implicit in the broad scope of Article 21.
Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and hence, no procedure which does not
ensure a reasonably quick trial could be “reasonable, fair or just.” Thus, the Bihar
Government was ordered to start the trials of the prisoners as soon as possible.

Right to fair trial

A fair trial is a trial characterized by the complete impartiality and fairness of judges during
the hearings. What use is the trial for the accused if the people making the decisions are
inherently biased towards them?

Every person undergoing a trial should be given a fair chance, so as to ensure the application
of fundamental elements of human rights and proper administration of justice. It forms part
of International Law as well, given under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

The qualitative difference between a speedy trial and fair trial

Speedy trial and fair trial are alienable elements of the judicial process and must go hand-in-
hand for the best-possible administration of natural justice. Every party to a case has the
right to get a reasonably quick dispersion of justice as well as fair treatment and decision by
the court.

However, there does exist a qualitative difference between these two elements. Seen at
face-value, we can say that the principle of fair trial holds dearer value in the judicial
process, as its denial would mean a direct snatching of the person’s right to be properly
examined before being declared guilty. Justice must not only be done but also clearly
appear to be done, and hence, the principle of fair trial must be followed at all times.

Constitutionality of a death sentence

The death sentence is a type of punishment awarded to criminals who have committed the
grossest or serious offences. Oxford Dictionary defines it as the “legally authorized killing of
someone as punishment for a crime.” But, does that mean that the State can take the life of
a person as per its will? Doesn’t that completely nullify the person’s Right to Life?

The constitutional validity of a death sentence has been much discussed and debated, with
many arguing that it is inhumane, that it violates the Fundamental and Human Rights, or
that the ‘eye for an eye’ ideology behind it achieves no purpose in law and justice. Take a
look at this landmark case.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Facts

In this case, Bachan Singh was convicted of the murders of three people and sentenced to
death by the Sessions Judge, which was confirmed by the High Court. Bachan Singh
appealed whether the facts of the case fell in the category of “special reasons” to warrant
the death penalty.

Judgement

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty saying that it did not violate
Articles 14, 19 and 21, but reiterated that it could only be awarded in the “rarest of rare”
cases, and not as a substitute for life imprisonment.

Thus, while capital punishment is a very harsh punishment, it is essential in the grossest and
most serious cases like the murder of several persons, a brutal rape, etc. to properly
administer justice and act as a deterrent in society. Its constitutional validity has been
upheld by the Supreme Court. However, a high burden must be placed on the judge to duly
consider and be satisfied with the awarding of a death sentence.

Prevention of sexual harassment of working women

When we think of a good life, it probably includes living with respect in the community
without any unfavourable actions taken by others against you. However, in this patriarchal
society, women are often treated as sexual objects meant for the pleasure of men, and it
leads to unwanted sexual advances towards them.

Women’s safety outside their homes has been one of the reasons why even in the urban
areas in modern times, there is a dearth of women in the workspace. For a woman, the
Right to Life includes the right to not face any sexual harassment while they go out to earn a
living and achieve their professional goals – thereby enabling them to exercise their right of
practising any profession, occupation or trade.

Keeping this issue in mind, various provisions have been ordered by the Court and
implemented by the Government to prevent sexual harassment of women, which can be
mainly credited to the following landmark case.

Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997)

Facts

In this case, a writ petition was filed to prevent the hazards to the safety of working women
in the wake of an alleged gang rape of a social activist in a Rajasthani village. It contended
that sexual harassment faced by women in the workplace was in violation of the
Fundamental Rights granted in Articles 14, 15 and 21.

Judgement

The court defined sexual harassment and laid down certain guidelines for prevention of
sexual harassment in the workplace, which include (but are not limited to) the following-

1. Duty of employers and responsible people to prevent sexual harassment.

2. Duty of employers to provide a safe and appropriate working environment for
women.
3. Establishment of a complaint committee (headed by a woman) and a complaint
mechanism to redress grievances.
4. Rules for disciplinary actions to be taken against misconduct.
 5. Spread of awareness regarding the rights of working women.

Right to education : Fundamental Right under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution
Life without education remains to be a mere animal existence, as it is education that
broadens the horizons of a person’s mind, making him capable of not only earning a
livelihood but also of achieving happiness and respect and making a mark for himself in the
world. The Right to Education in India was added under Article 21A of the Indian
Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth) Amendment Act, 2002. This Article provides
free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years (6–
14) as a Fundamental Right.

Two cases had an important bearing on the establishment of the Right to Education. We
shall take a look at them below.

Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992)

Facts

In this case, a student of a Government Medical College in Karnataka was refused admission
as she could not afford to pay the Rs. 60,000 capitation fee which was charged from the
students not belonging to Karnataka. She filed a petition against this action.

Judgement

The High Court declared that it was illegal to charge capitation fees from students under any
circumstances. Moreover, it acknowledged that education was what ensured a life of dignity
and happiness to a person and not transforming the right to education mentioned
under Article 41 of Part IV of the Constitution into a Fundamental Right would defeat its
purpose and also keep all existing Fundamental Rights beyond the reach of the illiterate.
Thus, it declared that Right to Education is a part of the Fundamental Rights.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of A.P. and Ors.

Facts

The petition in this case was filed by certain educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu challenging the decision made by the court in the
above case of Mohini Jain v. the State of Karnataka (1992). They claimed that a person had
the right to open an educational institution with a profit motive and if that institution was
self-financed, then the quantum of fees charged by it would be at the discretion of the
institution and not the State.

Judgement

It was held that every Indian citizen has a Fundamental Right to Education. No person can
be deprived of his or her education by the State. This right includes free education until the
person attains 14 years of age and thereafter, it will depend on his or her personal economic
capacity as well as that of the State.

It is clear that the recognition of Right to Education as a Fundamental Right was mainly
brought about by the above-mentioned cases, which ultimately led to the Eighty-Sixth
Amendment.