Introduction:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, a cornerstone of fundamental rights, reads:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law.” Its interpretation, especially through judicial
activism, has made it one of the most significant, dynamic, and far-reaching rights
in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Scope and Significance of Article 21
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty not just for citizens but also
for non-citizens. While brief in its wording, the Supreme Court has interpreted
“life” to mean the right to live with human dignity—not merely animal existence.
This expansion includes rights to shelter, health, clean environment, livelihood,
privacy, and more.
Initially, the scope of Article 21 was interpreted narrowly, merely protecting
against arbitrary deprivation. Over time, however, the judiciary’s liberal
interpretation, especially post-1978, has turned it into a shield guaranteeing
numerous unenumerated rights.
Right to Life
Encompasses living with dignity, including access to essentials such as food,
water, health, education, shelter, and a clean environment.
Rights derived from the dignity principle include the right to livelihood,
reputation, education, privacy, and even the right to die with dignity after
judicial acceptance of passive euthanasia.
Right to Personal Liberty
Personal liberty covers a broad spectrum of rights ranging from freedom
from arbitrary arrest and detention to freedoms of movement and privacy.
Article 21 ensures that no one can be deprived of this liberty except by a
just, fair, and reasonable procedure prescribed by law.
Evolution of Article 21: Judicial Interpretation
Initially, in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court upheld a
restrictive understanding: It was satisfied if a law existed, regardless of its fairness.
The turning point came in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the
Supreme Court held that laws depriving life or liberty must be just, fair, and
reasonable, aligning Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19—the “Golden Triangle” of
fundamental rights. This case revolutionized the protection granted by Article 21
and laid the foundation for its wide-ranging evolution.
Key Rights Protected Under Article 21
The Supreme Court has enumerated a wide range of rights under Article 21
through landmark judgments:
Right to Live with Dignity: Recognized in Francis Coralie Mullin v.
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the right comprises all
aspects necessary for a dignified existence.
Right to Livelihood: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(1985) declared the right to livelihood as an essential facet of the right to
life.
Right to Health: The state’s obligation to provide medical facilities was
recognized in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989).
Right to Education: Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1993) held education for children until age 14 as implicit under Article 21,
later reflected in Article 21A.
Right to Privacy: Most notably, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
(2017), the Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right under
Article 21.
Right to Clean Environment: The right to pollution-free water and air was
recognized in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991).
Right to Legal Aid: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) established
speedy trial and legal aid as fundamental components of Article 21.
Recent Landmark Judgments
Several recent decisions have further broadened the interpretation and enforcement
of Article 21:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Recognized the
right to privacy, including informational privacy, as intrinsic to Article 21.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court recognized
the right to die with dignity and legalized passive euthanasia.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality,
ruling that Section 377 of IPC violated the dignity and autonomy guaranteed
by Article 21.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): Upheld a person’s right to marry a
person of their choice as a crucial part of Article 21.
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
(2020): Reiterated the right to internet access as a component of the right to
free speech and life.
X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of NCT of
Delhi (2022): Recognized reproductive choice, including access to abortion,
as protected under Article 21.
Case Name & Year Principle/Evolution
Initial, narrow approach—literal
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) interpretation
Due process/fair procedure + linkage to Art.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 14, 19
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi
(1981) Right to live with dignity
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp (1985) Right to livelihood
Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1993) Right to education
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) Clean environment
Case Name & Year Principle/Evolution
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) Right to medical aid
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) Speedy trial and legal aid
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) Right to privacy
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) Right to die/passive euthanasia
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) Sexual orientation rights
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) Right to marry by choice
X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare
(2022) Reproductive choice (recent)
Interconnectedness With Other Rights
Article 21 must be read with Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom), collectively
called the “Golden Triangle”. Any deprivation of life or liberty must pass the tests
of fairness under all three articles, ensuring ‘due process’ and broader
constitutional protection.
Table: Important Supreme Court Cases Under Article 21
Conclusion
Article 21 is the bedrock of human rights protection in India, infusing the concept
of life with dignity, liberty, and equality into the constitutional fabric. From basic
requirements such as food, shelter, and health to nuanced issues like privacy,
reproductive choices, and environmental rights, its dynamic evolution ensures its
relevance to every generation. Judicial interpretations, particularly after Maneka
Gandhi, have liberated Article 21 from rigid literalism, making it the living soul of
the Constitution. Through both landmark and recent judgments, the judiciary has
continuously championed human dignity and liberty as non-negotiable guarantees
for all within Indian territory.
