By G. HARINI
Introduction
A successful democracy can only be one that guarantees its citizens the right to protect their own life and liberty. The sanctity of human life is arguably the most fundamental of human social values. It is recognized in all civilized societies and their legal systems, as well as in internationally recognized statements of human rights. Every individual has the right to live their life on their own terms, free from unfair interference from others.
Part III of the Constitution of 1950 grants citizens in India the protection of their personal liberty and their right to life, which together constitute the fundamental values upheld by the populace and are protected from state action. This means that no act of state authority can violate a citizen's right to life or liberty unless it does so in accordance with the legal process. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is defined as "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law," which is stated in Article 21 of this part[1].
Understanding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 grants everyone, including foreigners, the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even though it does so in a negative manner. The courts have placed great emphasis on these two rights, which have a fundamental precedence over all other aspects of the political and social order. As a result, the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary are more attentive to these rights than they are to the other aspects of day-to-day Life. Furthermore, even though the term "person" designates an individual, Article 21 has come to enforce the collective rights of the people through "Public Interest Litigation" under Articles 32 and 226. Initially, Article 21 was interpreted "literally," but over time, "liberal interpretation" of the article's components in accordance with pertinent international understanding has expanded the Article's scope of application[2].
Therefore, protection against the arbitrary deprivation of "life" would encompass all these aspects of life that contribute to a man's meaningful and worthwhile existence and would go beyond protection against physical harm or death. In fact, citizens who are incarcerated as suspects or under trial are also entitled to the benefits of the guarantee, subject to reasonable restriction. While the protection of Article 21 is extended to foreigners as well, it is limited to the article for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside or stay in India. It must also be noted that the state cannot violate someone's rights simply because they are a prisoner or a person who has been found guilty of a crime. In the Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005)[3] case, it was decided that the Indian Constitution contains no clause restricting the government's discretion to expel foreign nationals when necessary[4].
Important cases to understand basic evolution of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
As a result of the courts' evolving interpretation of Article 21 over time, the terms "life" and "personal liberty" have come to refer to a wide range of human rights. Before we delve into the specifics of this Fundamental Right, it is crucial to consider the jurisprudential development of this idea and the significance of the most well-known cases pertaining to it.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)[5]: Prevention Detention
Facts:
This case concerned a communist leader who was being held under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner argued that the detention was unlawful because it violated his personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and his freedom of movement as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution.
Judgement:
Personal liberty was interpreted to include certain rights like the right to sleep, the right to eat, and so on, while the right to move freely was considered relatively minor and was not included in one's "personal" liberty. The court stated that personal liberty meant liberty of the physical body and thus did not include the rights given under Article 19(1).
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964): Personal Liberty Curtailed[6]
Facts
In this case, the petitioner was charged with dacoity but was later freed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him. The Uttar Pradesh Police then started monitoring him, which included nighttime domiciliary visits, regular inquiries, movement verification, and other similar measures. The petitioner then filed a writ petition contesting the constitutionality of this State action.
Judgement
As a result, personal liberty was interpreted to include all remaining freedoms of an individual not covered by Article 19(1). It was decided that the right to personal liberty encompasses both the freedom from restrictions on one's movements and the freedom from intrusions into one's private life[7].
Scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution : Right to Life and Personal Liberty
This part discusses various case laws to examine the various aspects of Right to Life and Personal Liberty after clarifying the expansion of purview of Article 21. It is important to understand the wide range of different rights and privileges this single right holds as per its meaning in the modern era.
Right to live with human dignity
It is insufficient to guarantee someone the right to live. Since respect and dignity are fundamental components of life, everyone has the right to live with dignity, which entails having access to basic necessities and having the freedom to make their own decisions.
Right over one’s intimate relations
The Supreme Court stated that the right to "full personhood" and "includes the right to carry such functions and activities as would constitute the meaningful expression of the human self" in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). In this case, a crucial component of human dignity was discussed, namely the right to control one's own intimate relationships.
Right to livelihood
A person needs material and financial resources to meet his or her needs in order to survive. The law acknowledges that all people, male or female, have an equal right to a means of subsistence so that they can obtain the supplies they need, such as food, water, shelter, clothing, and other necessities. No one should be forced to live in destitution and poverty because they are not given the opportunity to support themselves.
Right to privacy
The right to privacy may seem like a very fundamental and obvious right, but for a long time, the government did not recognize it as a separate right because it was not specifically mentioned by the Indian Constitution's drafters. Nevertheless, as time has gone on, the importance of a person's autonomy over their own body, mind, and information has grown, and the courts have made reference to this right in a number of rulings.
Right to health and medical assistance
The most fundamental requirement for living a full life is access to proper health and medical assistance, which is obviously necessary for the upholding of the Right to Life. Nevertheless, physicians and medical institutions occasionally refuse to treat the sick out of concern for drawn-out legal procedures and other complications, particularly in medico-legal cases.
Right to die
The right to life bestows upon every individual the prerogative to live a complete life and stipulates that the State may not impede this right save through legally prescribed procedures. However, what happens if an individual decides to take his own life? Can he impede his own right to life.
Right to sleep
We all love to sleep, don't we? However, many people are unaware that the Right to Sleep is a separate component of one's Fundamental Rights, protecting against any State action that results in an unlawful deprivation of one's sleep. The case that gave rise to the establishment of this Right was Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012).
According to Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, attempting suicide is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison, a fine, or both. On the other hand, Section 306 of the same code makes it illegal to aid someone in committing suicide.
Such a view may be considered inhumane, as the court held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) that an individual has the right to life, which should logically imply the right to end one's own life. This is especially true for those who are so depressed or frustrated that they want to commit suicide.
Right to a healthy environment
A clean, healthy, and harmonious environment is one of the necessities for the true enjoyment of life, so it comes as no surprise that our right to live in a pollution-free environment is included in the expansive Right to Life. Since nature has bestowed upon us its gifts since the beginning of time, these resources and gifts serve as the foundation of human existence.
But the centuries-long, exponential growth of technology, which started with the Industrial Revolution and has continued unabated, has not been good for the environment at all. As new industries are established and the demand for the products these industries make rises, so does the amount of waste these industries produce, and all of that waste ends up in the air, water, and land.
Right to education : Fundamental Right under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution
The Constitution (Eighty-sixth) Amendment Act, 2002 added the Right to Education in India under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which provides free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years (6–14) as a Fundamental Right. Education broadens a person's horizons and makes him capable of not only earning a livelihood but also of achieving happiness and respect and making a mark for himself in the World[8].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has referred to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as the "heart and soul" of the Indian Constitution, and it is undeniably true that this right encompasses the most fundamental needs for human life. Awareness of the various aspects of an individual's life that they are entitled to control and which would, therefore, facilitate the enhancement of their quality of life has grown over time[9].
[1] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
[2] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
[3] Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005)
[4] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
[5] A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras(1950)
[6] Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964)
[7] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
[8] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
[9] Asthana S, “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” (iPleaders, July 29, 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
Comments