Right to life and Personal Liberty under the Indian Constitution

Part III Fundamental Right

Article 21

Right to life and Personal Liberty

Constitutional Law Series 01:(Part1)

Introduction

It is very apparent that the Indian judiciary has moved way along from the traditional approach of being a positive institution to a creative and innovative institution. 
Using this creativity the Judiciary had evolved many new fundamental rights from article 21 making it the fountain of dynamic rights. These new rights are not only the result of judicial activism but also judicial innovation and creativity.

This blog contains all one need to know about Article 21 and the all-new fundamental rights making article 21 the spring of dynamic fundamental rights.

Part III of the Indian Constitution deals with the fundamental right which is provided to the citizen and some to even non citizens.

Part III consists of Article numbered from Article 12- 35.

One of the most important of these is Article 21 which enshrines to the Citizen and Non-Citizen Right to life and Personal Liberty.

Article 21 of the Indian constitution is inspired by the 5^th Amendment of the American Constitution which says; “No one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to due process of Law”

Article 21 states of the Indian Constitution; “No one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law.”

Thus there are 3 major keywords enshrined under Article 21 i.e.,

So we shall be discussing Article 21 within the periphery of these 3 terms.

Life:

For the first time Justice Field explained the meaning of the word ‘life’ in the English case of Munn v. Illinois 1877

By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhabitation against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.

Again Justice Bhagwati in Francis Coralie v Delhi AIR 1981 SC said We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter.

Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence but embraces something more.

The Right to life under article 21 includes Right to food, clothing, decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live. The difference between the need for an animal and a human being for the shelter has to be kept in view for the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be suitable accommodation which allows him to grow in all aspect physical, mental, intellectual

Personal Liberty:

(Old/Narrow Interpretation)

A k Gopalan v.s The State of Madras 1950 SC

The plaintiff was a communist leader who was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the said act under the ground that it was violative of his right to freedom/movement under Article 19(1)(d) which is very essence of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.

Supreme Court held: The expression of personal liberty did not include all that was implied in the term liberty So personal liberty meant nothing more  than the liberty of the physical body i.e., freedom from arrest and detention from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement.

Supreme Court also interpreted the word ‘Law’ ‘The state made Laws’ and rejected the plea that by the term law in Article 21 meant not the State made laws but jus natural(Principle of Natural justice)

Fazal Ali J; gave a dissenting judgment, he gave a wide and comprehensive meaning to the word Personal liberty as consisting of freedom of movement.

Article 21 and Article 19 are exclusive of each other.

Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P (1963) SC

Night domiciliary visits by police constitute an infringement of personal liberty of an individual enshrined in Article 21

Subba Rao J dissenting /minority view, he differs from the majority vide that Article 21 excludes what was guaranteed by Article 19. He pleaded for an overlapping approach i.e., both Article 21 and Article 19 are not  exclusive but overlap each other.

In the course of time, the view of Subba Rao J has become an accepted view.

(New approach/Widest Possible interpretation)

Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India AIR 1978

Petitioner’s passport was impounded by the central government under section 10(3) (c ) of the passport act 1967. The act authorized the govt. to do so if it was necessary for the interest of the general public.

Supreme Court held that the government was not justified in withholding the reason for impounding the passport.

Agreeing with the approach of the minority in Kharak Singh Case.

Bhagwati J observed; the expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status if distinct fundamental Right and given additional protection under article 19.

After this case, there was no difference between due process and procedure established by Law.

 A law depriving a person of personal liberty has not only to stand the test of Article 21 but it must stand the test of Article 19 and Article 14 of the constitution.

 Procedure Established by Law:

V^th Amendment of the US Constitution:

Due process of law also called the due process clause is the single source of judicial review in the United States.

The word ‘due’ means just, proper or reasonable.

Substantial due process; The provision of law should be reasonable and not arbitrary.

Procedural Due process; envisages a reasonable procedure i.e., the person affected should have fair right of hearing.

In due process of law both arbitrary executive action, as well as arbitrary legislative action, can be questioned if they failed to pass the test of reasonableness (i.e., Just, fair, reasonable)

But

In Procedure established by law(until 19780 only arbitrary executive action(i.e., procedural law ) can be questioned  if they fail to pass the test of reasonableness but the position got changes after Maneka Gandhi case and now arbitrary legislative actions can also be questioned.

Procedure(what procedure to be followed U/A.21)

It is now after Maneka Gandhi that procedure for Article 21 has to be reasonable, fair and just

Supreme Court in Kartar Singh vs. the State of Punjab held that:

The procedure under article 21 must be  right, just and fair not arbitrary, fanciful oppressive.

In order that the procedure be right, just and fair, it must confer to natural justice.


Dynamic fundamental  right impliedly enshrined under Article 21: 

There are various case law related to Article 21 which gave rise to new fundamental right impliedly enshrined under article 21, though the article 21 is stated in just two lines but it confer a plethora of  rights on the individual to live life with dignity and integrity.

 Personal Liberty related cases:

• Right to food
• Right to Water
• Right to Shelter
• Right to Education
• Right to work
• Right to Livelihood
• Right to live in a clean environment
• Right to Sleep
• Right to Privacy
• Right to Marriage
• Right to travel abroad
• Right to Reproductive Choice
• Right to die with dignity

 Criminal Justice cases:

 Medico Legal Cases:

**(These rights and cases have been discussed in the 2nd Part of Constitutional Law series 01.)

Click the link below to visit 2nd Part of Constitutional Law series 01
https://legalimpulse.blogspot.com/2020/02/dynamic-fundamental-right-implidely.html