Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty.
Article 21 is one of the most important fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
- This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
- Article 21 provides two rights:
- Right to life
- Right to personal liberty
- The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that the Constitution guarantees.
- The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’.
- The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only. State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
- Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be under Article 226 or under general law.
- The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.
‘Right To Life’ of Article 21 of Indian Constitution covers a broader aspect of ‘life’ as it goes beyond the physical act of breathing or connotes mere animal existence. It includes the Right to live life with dignity, Right to Privacy, Right to livelihood, Right against Arbitrary Detention, Right to Health and Medical facilities, Right to Pollution-free air, etc.
Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21): It says that no one can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
This right includes various other rights such as the right to privacy,the Right to a clean environment etc….
Right To Personal Liberty of Article 21 of Indian Constitutioncovers all important aspects of protection extended to individuals from arbitrary exercise of power. It ensures that the laws are applied impartially and provides a forum for individuals to seek redress for their grievances
A few important cases concerned with Article 21:
- AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’.
- Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. Here, the SC said that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. Read the Maneka Gandhi case in detail in the linked article.
- Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): In this case, the court held that any procedure for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.
- Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case reiterated the stand taken earlier that any procedure that would deprive a person’s fundamental rights should conform to the norms of fair play and justice.
- Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life.
