Vaquill is a legal publication house that simplifies legal information and publishes content in multiple Indian languages.

What languages does Vaquill publish in?

Vaquill publishes content in English, Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, and Bangla.

Article 21

Article 21 comes under Part III of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the fundamental rights of the citizens of India. It guarantees Right to life and personal liberty. This right is extended to non-citizens also, which means even a foreigner can exercise it. It states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

The term ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ consists of different aspects of rights which have been recognised by the judiciary from time to time. It prohibits the deprivation(taking away or violating the right without any lawful reason) of these rights except procedure established by law.

What is the procedure established by law?

The procedure established by law means that a law made by parliament or any concerned body is valid only if it follows the correct procedure as laid down. Therefore, the fundamental right under article 21 can be taken away and such an act will not result in violation of the fundamental right if it follows the procedures which have been laid down in the statute.

While examining whether the law is valid or not, the court will be concerned only with the question of whether the body making the law has the authority or not. It will not look for whether such law is valid or not.

Earlier, it was only limited to the substantive aspect (dealing only whether the authority has the right to make laws or not) without questioning whether the law is just, fair and reasonable or not.

The Supreme Court through various judgments stressed on the importance of due process of law and its integration with the procedure established by law. Due process of law means that whatever law is being made it should not only follow the procedures but also must be just, fair, and reasonable in nature. There should not be any arbitrariness in making any law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court laid down that the law should not only follow the correct procedure but it should be just, fair and reasonable otherwise it would be deemed unconstitutional. In one of the landmark judgments in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the SC observed that no one should be deprived of his life without the due process of law.

Different aspects of Article 21

Article 21 carries a large number of rights within it which has been recognised by the Supreme court through its judgements and has got the face of law. Following are some of the rights which are there-

Right to live with human dignity

Right to life does not only mean to have only a mere animal existence but such right extends to live with human dignity which includes to live with basic necessities like clothing, food, shelter. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.

In People Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, the Supreme court held that non-payment of the wages to the workers was denial of their right to live with basic human dignity and violates right under article 21.

Right to livelihood

Initially in the case of Re Sant Ram, the court didn’t include the right to livelihood within the meaning of Article 21. The court was of the view that it can be included under the freedom given under article 19 and 16 but that also to a limited extent, but the meaning of life under article 21 cannot be extended to ‘livelihood’.

But, Olga Tellis v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation judgment led to a shift in the earlier position of the court and held that the right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life as no person can live a dignified human life without having means of livelihood.

If the right to livelihood is affected by the process established by law which is just, fair and reasonable, then it is not a violation of the right to livelihood as it was held in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Right to clean environment

Right to life under article 21 also includes the right to live in a humane condition. A Humane condition means such a condition where all human beings are given all those basic requirements which are important for their overall development. In a number of cases the court has held that the right to clean the environment is an essential part of the right to life.

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water and air. It was reinforced in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, where the relation between the environment and the fundamental rights were laid down.

Right to privacy

It is recognized as a fundamental right under article 21 and it has been shaped by the judicial interpretation. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court clearly laid down that the right to privacy is an inherent part of article 21 and to live a dignified life a person should have privacy right.

Moreover, the relation between privacy and article 21 was also established in the earlier case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu where individuals were given the right to live alone and have private affairs of their own. But this right is not absolute in nature, and can be subject to limitations based on public order, national security and state interest.

In PUCL v. Union of India, the court held that unauthorized phone-tapping is violation of the fundamental right of privacy unless done under legal procedure.

Right to health and medical assistance

One of the primary ways to live a good and dignified life is to have good health and it is the duty of the government to secure the welfare of the people and provide adequate medical facilities. Health is also recognised as one of the aspects of the right to life and because of some legal requirements involving police formalities, no one should be deprived of medical assistance by the professionals.

In Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, the court held that every doctor or medical professional whether at a governmental hospital or others has the professional obligation to extend his service with due expertise for protecting life.

The supreme court in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home secretary and ors., held that the right to sleep is an essential part to have a healthy life and every person is entitled to have comfortable sleep, if it is disturbed without any reasonable justification then it is violation of the fundamental right.

Right to die

In earlier cases, the court interpreted article 21 in such way which included right to die as a part of it and the provisions like criminalisation of suicide was held to be unconstitutional. In State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal, the Bombay HC has recognised the right to die within the right given under article 21 and declared section 309 of IPC which criminalizes suicide to be unconstitutional.

This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in the P. Rathinam v. Union of India. A significant shift was seen on this matter in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, where the earlier decision was overruled and held that article 21 does not encompass or gives the right to die.

But with the changing nature of society and the non-exhaustive meaning of Right to live with dignity led the Supreme court to clarify that fundamental right under article 21 also includes the right to die with dignity and therefore passive euthanasia was allowed for terminally ill patients in Common Cause v. Union of India. Although active euthanasia remains illegal in India, passive is allowed under some specific conditions.

Right to Speedy trial

It has been recognised as the fundamental right under article 21 through various landmark judgements. It means that the accused should be put under trial quickly in order to determine his guilt.

In Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home secretary, State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is not expressly mentioned anywhere but is implicit within the meaning of Article 21. A speedy trial means that the accused is tried in the given case in the specified period of time without any delay.

Moreover, speedy trial represents fairness, justice, and reasonableness, which is an imperative part of Article 21. The same ruling was laid down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab.

Right to safe working condition

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, held that the right to safe and secure working environment is a fundamental right under article 21. It also laid down the guidelines to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces.

Golden relation between Article 14, 19 and 21

Article 14 and 19 are also fundamental rights listed under Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 deals with the right to equality which grants equality before law and equal protection of law to all of its citizens and non-citizens.

Equality before law means that every individual is subject to the same laws and everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Equal protection of law means individuals in similar circumstances will be treated similarly, like should be treated alike.

Article 19 deals with the several freedoms to all the citizens and these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court ruled that there exists a special kind of relationship between article 14, 19 and 21 and are not exclusive of each other.

Whether Article 21 is operational during an emergency?

Under Article 359 of the Constitution, the fundamental rights given under Part III of the constitution can be suspended except article 20 and 21.
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the court laid down that article 21 embodies fundamental rights and it can not be derogated even in times of crisis.
During the time of emergency all the fundamental rights are suspended and no right can be enforced in court by article 32. But the 44th amendment, 1978 clarified that Article 20 and 21 can not be suspended and the right to seek redressal under article 32 still remains intact for Article 20 and 21.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 is the heart of the fundamental rights without which other rights can not exist absolutely. Its expansive interpretation by plethora of cases by the judiciary has increased its scope and the inherent rights under it.

The Supreme Court has played the most significant role in re-interpreting the whole article in order to protect the rights which are inherent and important to the basic development of any person. The Supreme court’s role is the most significant one in protecting Article 21 from violation in the hand of legislation.

Frequently Asked Questions

[A] What are the rights included under Article 21?

Right to live with dignity
Right to livelihood
Right to privacy
Right to health and medical aid
Right to a clean environment
Right to travel abroad
Right against solitary confinement and custodial death

[B] Can Article 21 be suspended during an emergency?

No, Article 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during the national emergency.

[C] Does life mean only a mere existence under article 21?

No, the right to life under article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but it includes the right to live with dignity.

[D] Does Article 21 include ‘Right to Die’?

The Supreme Court has ruled that while there is no explicit right to die, passive euthanasia is permissible under certain conditions.

[E] How does Article 21 relate to Article 14 and 19?

These all articles together form the golden triangle as one right can not be exercised without the presence of the other, they are interdependent on each other for having full exercise of the fundamental rights for holistic development of the citizens.

[F] How ‘Procedure established by law’ is different from the ‘Due process of law’?

The procedure established by law means that a law enacted by parliament or any concerned body is valid only if it follows the correct procedure as laid down. On the other hand, Due process of law means that the law should not be made by valid procedure only but it should also align with the principle of equity, justice, and fairness.