ALI

GARHMUSLI
M UNI
VERSI
TY
MALAPPURAM CENTER

TOPI
C:-Pr
otect
ionofl
if
e&Per
sonalLi
ber
ty(
Art
.21)
SUB:
-CONSTI
TUTI
ONALLAW -I
I

SUBMI
TTEDBY:
- SUBMI
TTEDTO:
-
MohdNat
iqKhan Mr
.MohdShaki
lAhmad
GI
0153 Assi
stantPr
ofessor
18BALLB78 Depar
tmentofLaw
I
IndYear(
IVsem)
CONTENT
I
NTRODUCTI
ON
RI
GHTTOLI
FE
 Ri
ghtt
oli
fewi
thHumandi
gni
ty

 Ri
ghtt
oReput
ati
on

 Ri
ghtagai
nstSexual
Har
assmentatWor
kpl
ace

 Ri
ghtt
oLi
vel
i
hood

 Ri
ghtt
oShel
ter

 Ri
ghtt
oCl
eanEnv
ironment

 Ri
ghtt
oEducat
ion

 Ri
ghtt
oHeal
th&Medi
cal
Aid

 NoRi
ghtt
oDi
eorCommi
tSui
cide

 Deat
hPenal
ty

 Ri
ghtt
oPer
sonal
Liber
ty

 Ri
ghtt
oPr
ivacy

ARTI
CLE21&PRI
SONERRI
GHTS
 Ri
ghtt
oBai
l

 Ri
ghtt
oFai
rTr
ial

 Ri
ghtagai
nstHandcuf
fi
ng

 Ri
ghtagai
nstCust
odi
alVi
olence
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Iwoul dli
ket oexpr
essmyspeci althanksofgr at
it
udetomy
teacherMr .MohdShaki lAhmad, whogav emethegolden
oppor t
unit
yt odothiswonderful projectofConsti
tut
ionalLaw-
II
"Protecti
onofl i
fe&Personalliber t
y( Art
icle21)
",Whoalso
helpedmei ncompleti
ngmypr oj ect.Icamet oknowaboutso
manynewt hi
ngsIam reall
ythankf ul t
othem.

Secondl
yiwoul
dal
soli
ketothankmypar
entsandfr
iendswho
hel
pedmealoti
nfi
nal
i
singthi
sproj
ectwi
thi
nthel
imitedt
ime
fr
ame.
I
NTRODUCTI
ON
“Nopersonshallbedepr
ivedofhi
sli
feorper
sonall
iber
tyexceptaccor
dingt
oa
procedur
eestabli
shedbylaw.
”

AccordingtoBhagwati,J.
,Arti
cle21“embodi esaconsti
tut
ionalv
alueofsupr
eme
i
mpor tanceinademocr ati
csociety
.”Iyer,
J.,
hascharacter
izedArt
icl
e21as“the
proceduralmagnacartaprotect
iveofli
f eandli
ber
ty.
Thisri
ghthasbeenheldtobet
he
heartoftheConsti
tut
ion,themostor ganicandprogr
essiveprovi
sioni
nourli
vi
ng
consti
tuti
on,thef
oundat i
onofourlaws.

Arti
cle21canonlybeclai
medwhenaper soni
sdeprivedofhi
s“li
fe”or“
personal
l
ibert
y”bythe“St
ate”asdefi
nedinArt
icl
e12.Vi
olat
ionoftheri
ghtbyapriv
ateindi
vi
dual
i
snotwi t
hintheprev
iewofArti
cle21.
Art
icl
e21securestwori
ghts:

a)Ri
ghtt
oli
fe;
and

b)Ri
ghtt
oper
sonal
li
ber
ty.

TheAr
ticl
epr
ohibi
tst
hedepr
ivat
ionoft
heabov
eri
ght
sexceptaccor
dingt
oapr
ocedur
e
est
abl
i
shedbylaw.

Arti
cle21corr
espondstotheMagnaCartaof1215,t
heFi
ft
hAmendmenttothe
Amer i
canConsti
tut
ion,
Art
icl
e40(4)oft
heConstit
uti
onofEi
re1937,
andAr
ti
cleXXXIof
theConsti
tut
ionofJapan,
1946.

Arti
cle21Appliestonaturalper
sons.Therightisavail
abletoeveryper
son,ci
ti
zenor
ali
en.Thus,
ev enaf or
eignercancl
aimt hi
sr i
ght.I
t,howev er,
doesnotent
it
leaforei
gner
theri
ghttoresideandset t
leinI
ndia,
asment i
onedinAr t
icle19(1)(
e).
RI
GHTTOLI
FE
Theterm“li
fe”asmentionedintheArt
icl
ehasbeengivenabroadmeani ngbythe
SupremeCour t
.Rightt
oLifedoesnotmer el
ymeantheconti
nuanceofaper son‟s
animalexi
stencebutaquali
tyoflif
e.I
nthecaseofKharakSi
nghv .St
ateofUt t
ar
Pradesh,t
heSupremeCour tquotedwit
happroval
Fiel
d,J.
‟sobservat
ioninMunnv .
Il
l
inois,
andheld:

Bytheterm“ li
fe”ashereusedsomet hi
ngmor eismeantt hanmer eanimalexist
ence.
Theinhi
bi t
ionagainsti
tsdepri
vati
onextendstoallt
hosel imbsandf acul
ti
esbywhi ch
l
if
eisenj oyed.Theprovi
sionequall
yprohibi
tst
hemut i
lat i
onoft hebodybyamput ati
on
ofanarm orl egorthepull
ingoutofaney e,
orthedestructionofanyotherorganofthe
bodythroughwhi chthesoulcommuni cat
eswiththeout erworld.‟

InSuni lBatr
av .DelhiAdministr
ation,theSupremeCour treit
eratedwi tht heappr
ovalthe
aboveobser vati
onsandhel dthatt he“ri
ghttoli
fe”incl
udedther ighttol eadahealt
hy
l
ifesoast oenjoyallfacul
tiesofthehumanbodyi nthei
rprimecondi t
ions.Itwould
eveni ncludetherighttoprotecti
onofaper son‟str
aditi
on,cult
ure, her
itageandallthat
givesmeani ngt oaman‟ slife.I
tincludesther i
ghttoli
veinpeace, tosl eepinpeaceand
therightt oreposeandheal th.

I
nP.Rat
hinam v
.Uni
onofI
ndi
a,t
heSupr
emeCour
tdef
ined“
Lif
e”asf
oll
ows:

“t
her i
ghtt
ol i
vewithhumandi gni
tyandt
hesamedoesnotconnotecont
inueddr
udger
y.
I
ttakeswithinit
sfoldsomeoft hefi
negr
acesofci
vi
li
zat
ionwhichmakeslif
eworth
l
ivi
ngandt hattheexpandedconceptofl
i
fewouldmeanthet
radit
ion,
cul
tureand
heri
tageofthepersonconcerned.”

Ri
ghtt
oLi
fewi
thHumanDi
gni
ty
Asal
readydiscussedRi
ghttoLif
eisnotonl
yconf
inedtophysi
cal
exi
stencebut
i
ncl
udeswithinit
sambittheri
ghttol
iv
ewithhumandigni
ty.

I
nFr anci
sCor ali
ev .UnionTer r
itor
yofDelhi
16theSupr emeCourtstruckdownSect i
on3
oftheConser vat
ionofFor eignExchangeandPr eventi
onofSmugglingActivi
ti
esAct ,
1974,asv i
olati
onofAr ticl
e14and21.Thei mpugnedSect i
on3providedthata
detenucoul
dhav einterviewwi thhisl
egaladvi
seronlyonetimeinamont handt hattoo
onlyaft
erobt ai
ningpriorpermi ssi
onofthedist
ri
ctmagi st
rat
e,Del
hiandt otakeplacein
thepresenceofcust omsof ficer.
InPeopl esUni onforDemocr aticRight sv.UnionofI ndia,heldt hatnon- pay mentof
mi nimum wagest othewor kersempl oy edinvar i
ousAsi adPr ojectsi nDel hiwasa
deni altothem oft heirrighttol i
vewi thbasichumandi gnityandv iol
at i
veofAr ti
cle21of
theConst it
ution.Bhagwat i
,J.,speakingf orthemaj ori
tyhel dthatt her i
ght sandbenef i
ts
conf erredont hewor kmenempl oy edbyacont ractorunderv ar i
ousl abourl awsare
“clearlyintendedt oensur ethebasi chumandi gnit
ytowor kmenandoft hewor kmen
violatear edepr i
vedofanyoft heser i
ght sandbenef it
s,thatwoul dclearlybyav i
olati
on
ofAr t
icle21.”Hehel dt hatthenon- i
mpl ementationbyt hepr ivatecont r
act orsandnon-
enf orcementbyt heSt ateAut horit
iesoft heprov i
sionsofv ariousl abourl awsv i
olated
thef undament alri
ghtoft hewor kers“tol i
vewithhumandi gnity.
”

I
nChandr aRaj aKumarv .Pol
iceCommi ssionerHy derabad,i
thasbeenhel dt hatthe
ri
ghttolif
ei ncl
udesri
ghttoli
fewi t
hhumandi gni
tyanddecencyand, t
herefore,holdi
ng
ofbeautycont esti
srepugnanttodigni
tyordecencyofwomenandof f
endsAr ti
cle21of
theConstituti
ononlyift
hesamei sgrosslyindecent,scurri
l
ous,obsceneori ntendedfor
blackmail
ing.Thegov er
nmentisempower edtoprohibitthecontestasobject i
onable
performanceunderSect i
on3oft heAndhraPr adeshObj ecti
onablePerf
ormances
Prohibi
ti
onAct ,1956.

I
nSt at
eofMaharashtrav
.Chandr abhan,theCourtstr
uckdownapr ovi
sionofBombay
Civi
lServi
ceRul
es,1959,
whichpr ovidedforpaymentofonlyanominalsubsi
stence
al
lowanceofRe.1permont htoasuspendedGov ernmentServ
antuponhisconv i
ction
duri
ngthependencyofhi
sappeal asunconsti
tut
ionalont
hegroundthatitwasv i
olati
ve
ofArti
cle21oft
heConstit
ution.

Ri
ghtt
oReput
ati
on
TheSupr emeCour treferri
ngtoD. F.Mar ionv.MinnieDav is,inSmt .Kir
anBedi v.
Commi tt
eeofI nquiry, heldt
hatgoodr eputati
onwasanel ementofper sonalsecuri
ty
andwaspr otectivebyt heConst i
tution,equallywithther i
ghtt otheenjoymentoflif
e,
l
ibertyandpr operty.Thecour taffirmedt hatther i
ghttoenj oy mentoflif
e,li
ber
tyand
proper t
y.Thecour taf fir
medt hatt her i
ghtt oenj
oy mentofpr i
v at
ereputati
onwasof
ancientor i
ginandwasnecessar ytohumansoci ety.ThesameAmer i
canDecisi
onhas
alsobeenr eferredt oint hecaseofSt ateofMahar ashtrav .PublicConcernof
Gov ernanceTrust ,
wher ethecour theldt hatgoodr eputati
onwasanel ementofpersonal
securityandwaspr otectedbyt heconst i
tuti
on,equallywitht herightt
ot heenj
oymentof
l
ife,li
bertyandpr oper ty.
InSt ateofBi harv .LalKrishnaAdv ani,at womembercommi ssionofi nquiryappointed
toinqui r
ei ntothecommunal di
sturbancesi nBhagl apurdi str
icton24t hOct ober,1989,
madesomer emar ksintheirreport,whichi mpi ngedupont her eputati
onoft he
respondentasapubl icman, withoutaf f
or dinghim anoppor t
unityofbei nghear d.The
apexcour truledthati twasampl ycleart hatonewasent itl
edt ohav eandpr eserve
one‟ sreput ati
onandoneal sohadt her ightt oprotecti t
.Thecour tfurt
hersai dthatin
caseanyaut horit
y, indischargeofi t
sdut i
esf asteneduponi tundert hel aw, t
ransverse
i
ntot herealm ofper sonal reputati
onadv erselyaffectinghi m,itmustpr ov i
deachance
tohi mt ohav ehi ssayi nthemat t
er.Thecour tobser vedt hatthepr i
ncipleofnat ural
j
usticemadei tincumbentupont heaut hor i
tytogi veanoppor tunit
yt otheper son,
befor eanycommentwasmadeoropi nionwasexpr essedwhi chwasl ikelyto
prejudici
allyaf f
ectt hatperson.

Ri
ghtagai
nstSexualHar
assmentatWor
kpl
ace
TheSupremeCour thasmadeanov eluseofAr
ti
cle21toensurethatthefemale
worker
sarenotsexuallyharassedbythei
rmaleco-wor
ker
sattheirplacesofworkas
sexual
viol
ence,apartf
rom beingadehumanisi
ngact,i
sanunlawfulintr
usiononthe
ri
ghtofpri
vacyandsanct i
tyofafemale.I
tisaser
iousbl
owt ohersupremehonourand
off
endsherself
-esteem anddigni
ty.

InVi
shakhav.Stat
eofRaj
ast
han,t
heSupremeCour thasdeclaredsexualhar
assment
ofaworkingwomanatherworkasamounti
ngtov i
olat
ionofrightsofgenderequal
i
ty
andri
ghtstoli
feandl
i
bert
ywhichiscl
earvi
olat
ionofArti
cles14,15and21oft he
Const
it
ution.

I
nAppar elExportPromot i
onCouncilv.A.
K.Chopr
a,theSupremeCourttookaseri
ous
noteoftheinci
dent sofsexualharassmentofwomenatworkplaces.Suchaninci
dent,
theCourtsaid,r
esultedinviol
ati
onoftheFundamentalRi
ghttoGenderEqual
it
yandt he
Rightt
oLifeandLi bert
y–t hetwomostpr eci
ousFundamentalRi
ghts.

Ri
ghtt
oLi
vel
ihood
Earl
iertheSupr
emeCourtt
ookthevi
ewt her
ighttol
i
fei
nArt
icl
e21wouldnoti
ncl
ude
l
ivel
ihood.I
nReSantRam,theSupr
emeCour trul
edt
hatt
heri
ghtt
oli
vel
i
hoodwouldnot
fal
lwithint
heexpr
essi
on“l
if
e”i
nArti
cle21.
Thisviewofthecourtunderwentachange.Wi ththedefi
ningoftheword“
li
fe”inAr
ti
cle
21inbr oadandexpansiv
emanner ,thecourtcamet ohol
dt hat“
theri
ghtt
olif
e”
guaranteedbyArti
cle21incl
udes„theri
ghttolivel
ihood‟
.TheSupremeCourtnow
i
mpl i
edt hat„
ri
ghttoli
vel
ihood‟outof“ri
ghttolif
e.”

I
nOlgaTel
l
isv.BombayMuni ci
pal
Cor por
ati
on, popular
lyknownasthe“
Pavement
Dwel
ler
sCase”afi
vejudgebenchoftheCour thasfinal
lyruledt
hatt
hewor
d“li
fe”i
n
Ar
ti
cle21i
ncl
udestherightt
oli
vel
ihoodalso.Thecour tsaid:

“I
tdoesnotmeanmer el
ythatli
fecannotbeexti
nguishedort akenawayas,forexample,
bytheimpositi
onandexecuti
onofdeat hsent
ence,exceptaccor di
ngtoprocedure
establi
shedbylaw.Thati
sbutoneaspectiftheri
ghtt ol
ife.Anequall
yimportantfacet
oftherightt
olif
eistheri
ghttoli
vel
ihoodbecausenoper soncanl i
vewit
houtthemeans
ofliv
eli
hood.”

Thecour
tfur
theropi
ned:

“i
ft herighttol
ivel
ihoodisnott r
eatedasapar tandpar celoftheconsti
tut
ionalrightto
l
ife, t
heeasiestwayofdepr iv
ingaper sonofhisrighttolif
ewoul dbetodeprivehi m of
hismeansofl i
veli
hoodt othepointofabrogati
on…t hestatemaynotbyaf fi
rmat ive
action,becompel l
edt oprovi
deadequat emeansofl i
veli
hoodorwor ktotheci t
izens.
But ,anypersonwhoi sdeprivedofhisrightt
oliveli
hoodexceptaccordingtojustand
fairprocedureestabli
shedbyl awcanchal l
engethedepr iv
ationasoffendi
ngt her i
ghtto
l
ifeconf err
edinAr ti
cle21.
”

InMXofBombayI ndianInhabit
antsv .M/s.ZYhel dt hatapersont estedpositi
veforHIV
couldnotber endered“medi cal
lyunfi
t”solelyont hatgroundsoast odenyhi mt he
empl oyment.Therighttoli
feincludesther i
ghttol i
veli
hood.Ther efore,r
ightt
o
l
iveli
hoodcannothangont ot hefanciesoft heindivi
dualsinauthority.Eventhoughthe
petit
ionermighthav ebeenanui sancetoot hersandconduct edt hemsel veseit
herina
disorderl
ywayorunbecomi ngont heirpr
of essi
onbut ,
thati
nitself,iti
snotsuffici
entf
or
theexecutiv
et otakeawayt heirsourceofliveli
hoodbyanexecut ivef i
at.

RighttoworkhasyetnotbeenrecognisedasaFundamentalRi
ght
.InSecr
etary
,Stat
e
ofKarnatakav.Umadevi
,theCourtrej
ectedt
hatri
ghttoemploy
mentatthepresent
pointoft
imecanbei ncl
udedunderRighttoLi
feunderArt
icl
e21.
Ri
ghtt
oShel
ter
InShanti
sarBuildersv .Naray anKhi mlalTotame, t
heSupremeCourthasruledthatthe
ri
ghttoli
feisguar anteedi nanyci vil
isedsociet
y.Thatwouldtakewit
hini
tssweept he
ri
ghttofood,therightt oclothing,ther i
ghttodescentenvi
ronmentandreasonable
accommodat iontol i
vei n.thedifferencebetweent heneedofananimalandhuman
beingi
thast obeasui tableaccommodat i
onwhi chwouldall
owhimt ogrowinev er
y
aspect–physical,ment alandi ntel
lectual.

Itwasstatedi
nU. P.AvasVikasPari
shadv .Fri
endsCoop.Housi
ngSocietyLi
mited,t
hat
theri
ghttoshelt
erisaf undamental
rightwhichspri
ngsfr
om ther
ighttoresi
dence
secur
edi nArt
icl
e19( 1)(e)andtheri
ghttolif
eguarant
eedunderArti
cle21.

I
nChamel iSi
nghv.Stat
eofUt t
arPradesh,
theSupremeCour
temphasisedonthe
i
mpor t
anceoftheri
ghttoshelt
erasoneoft hebasi
chumanri
ghtsdesi
gnedtoensur
e
al
lfaci
li
ti
estothemantodev el
ophimselfasamemberofacivil
i
sedsociet
y.

Ri
ghtt
oCl
eanEnv
ironment
The“ Rightt
oLif
e”underAr ti
cle21meansal if
eofdignit
ytobeliv
edi napr oper
envir
onmentf r
eef r
om t hedangersofdiseasesandinfecti
on.Maintenanceofheal t
h,
preservati
onofthesanitationandenvir
onmenthav ebeenheldtof allwi
thinthepurvi
ew
ofArticle21asitadverselyaffect
stheli
feofthecit
izensanditamount stosl ow
poisoningandreducingt heli
feofthecit
izensbecauseofthehazar dscreatedifnot
checked.

Thef
oll
owi
ngar
esomeoft
hewel
l
-knowncasesonenv
ironmentunderAr
ti
cle21:

I
nM.C.Mehtav.Uni
onofI
ndi
a,t
heSupr
emeCour
tor
der
edcl
osur
eoft
anner
ieswhi
ch
wer
epol
lut
ingwater
.

InM.C.Mehtav.UnionofIndi
a,t
heSupremeCourti
ssuedsev
eral
guidel
i
neand
dir
ecti
onsfort
heprotect
ionoftheTaj
Mahal,ananci
entmonument,
from
envir
onmental
degradati
on.

InVellor
eCi t
izensWel f
areForum v.Uni
onofIndi
a,t
heCour tt
ookcognizanceofthe
envir
onment al pr
oblemsbeingcausedbytanneri
eswhichwerepollut
ingthewater
resources,r
ivers,canal
s,undergr
oundwaterandagri
cult
urall
and.TheCourtissued
severaldir
ectionstodealwiththeprobl
em.
I
nMi lkMenColonyVi
kasSamitiv.Stat
eOfRaj ast
han,t
heSupremeCour
thel
dthatthe
„
righttol
i
fe‟meanscleansur
roundingwhichleadtohealt
hybodyandmi
nd.I
tincl
udes
r
ighttofr
eedom fr
om str
aycat
tl
eandani malsinurbanareas.

I
nM. C.Mehtav .UnionofIndi
a,t
heCour thel
dthattheblatantandlargescal
emisuseof
resi
denti
alpremisesforcommer ci
aluseinDelhi
,vi
olat
edt her i
ghtt
osalubri
ousand
decentenvi
ronment.Takingnoteoftheprobl
em theCour tissueddi
recti
vestot
he
Governmentont hesame.

InMurl
iS.Deorav.UnionofIndi
a,t
heper
sonsnoti
ndulgi
nginsmokingcannotbe
compell
edtoorsubjectedtopassi
vesmoki
ngonaccountofactofsmokers.Ri
ghtt
o
Lif
eunderArt
icl
e21i saffect
edasanon-
smokermaybecomeav i
cti
m ofsomeone
smoki
ngi napubli
cplace.

Noisepol l
utionhasalsobeendealtwithi
nt hepreviewofAr t
icle21byt heApexCourtin
Inre:
Noi sePol l
uti
on.Nobodycancl ai
m af undament alri
ghttocreatenoiseby
amplif
y i
ngt hesoundofhisspeechwi ththehelpofl oudspeakers.Whileonehasar i
ght
tospeech, other
shav eari
ghttolist
enort odeclinet olist
en.Ifanyoneincreasest
hehis
vol
umeofspeechandt hattoowiththeassi st
anceofar ti
fi
cialdevi
cessoast o
compul sori
lyexposeunwill
i
ngper sonstohearanoi ser ai
sedt ounpleasantor
obnoxiousl evel
sthenthepersonspeakingi svi
olatingt heri
ghtofother stoapeacef
ul,
comfortableandpol l
uti
onfreeli
feguaranteedinAr ticle21.

Ri
ghtt
oEducat
ion
TheSupremeCourti
nBandhuMuktiMorchav.UnionOfIndi
a,
whileint
erpr
eti
ngthe
scopeofthe“
ri
ghttol
if
e”underar
ti
cle21,hel
dthati
tincl
uded“educat
ionalf
aci
l
iti
es”
.

InMohi niJainv.StateofKarnataka,t
hecourtref
err
edtoBandhuMukt iMorchaCase
andhel dthat“r
ighttolif
e”wast hecompendiousexpressi
onf orall
thoser i
ghtswhi ch
thecour t
smustenf or
cebecauset heyarebasi
ctothedignif
iedenjoy mentofli
fe.The
courtfurt
herobserv edthattheri
ghttolif
eunderart
icl
e21andt hedignit
yofan
i
ndividualcouldnotbeassur edunlessitwasaccompaniedbyt herighttoeducation.
Thecour tthusdeclared:“t
herighttoeducat
ionfl
owsdi r
ect
lyf r
om righttoli
fe”
.

TheSupremeCourti
nUnniKri
shnanv.Stat
eofAndhr
aPradesh50heldthatt
herightto
educati
onwasafundament
alri
ghtunderArt
icl
e21andt
hat“itdi
rect
lyf
lowsfrom the
ri
ghttoli
fe.
”
Ri
ghtt
oHeal
th&Medi
calAi
d
Dut
ytoPr
eser
veLi
fe

Therighttol
ifeguarant
eedunderAr
ti
cle21i
ncl
udeswi
thi
nit
sambitt
her
ighttoheal
th
andmedi calcar
e,toprot
ectt
heheal
thandvi
gourofawor
kerwhi
l
einser
viceorpost
-
ret
ir
ement .

I
nPar manandaKat arav.UnionofIndia,itwashel dthati tisthepr ofessionalobligat
ion
ofalldoctors(governmentorpr i
vate)toext entmedi cal aidtot heinjuredimmedi atelyt
o
preserveli
fewithoutlegalf
or mali
ti
estobecompl iedwi tht hepolice.Ar t
icle21cast sthe
obli
gati
onont hest atetopreserveli
fe.Itistheobl i
gationoft hosewhoar einchar geof
thehealthofthecommuni t
yt opreservelifesot hatthei nnocentmaybepr otectedand
theguil
tymaybepuni shed.Nol aworst ateact i
oncani nt er
venet odel ayanddi scharge
thi
spar amountobl i
gati
onoft hemember soft hemedi cal profession.

Alsomor erecentl
yinthecaseofPoonam Shar mav.UnionofIndi
a,theCourthel
dt hat
i
tisthedutyoft hedoctortoaidtheinj
uredandnottodelayt
hesameasi tisofut most
i
mpor t
ance.Anydel ay,her
ewai tf
orpolicebef
oret
reat
ment ,
istakentobeviolat
ionof
one‟sfundament alr
ightunderArti
cle21.

NoRi
ghtt
oDi
eorCommi
tSui
cide

Secti
on309oftheIndianPenalCode,
1860,puni
shesaper
sonconvi
ctedofatt
empti
ng
tocommitsui
cide.Therehadbeendif
fer
enceofopini
ononthej
ust
if
icat
ionofthi
s
prov
isi
ontoconti
nueont heStatut
eBook.

Thisquesti
oncamef orconsi derati
onforfi
rsttimebef oretheHighCour
tofBombayi n
StateofMaharashtr
av .Mar utiSri
pati
Dubal .I
nthiscaset heBombayHighCour thel
d
thatther
ightt
ol i
feguaranteedunderAr ti
cle21i ncludesri
ghttodie,
andthehon‟ble
HighCourtstr
uckdownSect i
on309oft heIPCwhi chprovidespuni
shmentforatt
empt
tocommi tsui
cidebyaper sonasunconst ituti
onal.

I
nP.Rat hinam v.UnionofIndiaaDivisi
onBenchoftheSupremeCour t,support
ingthe
decisi
onoft heHighCour tofBombayi nMarut
iSri
patiDubalCase,heldthatunder
Art
icle21r i
ghttoli
fealsoincl
uderighttodi
eandlaiddownt hatsecti
on309ofI ndi
an
Penal Cour twhichdealswith„at
tempttocommi tsui
cideisapenal of
fence‟
unconstitutional
.

Af
ive-
judgeConst
it
uti
onBenchoft
heSupr
emeCour
tinGi
anKaurv
.St
ateofPunj
ab,
over
ruledthedeci
sionoftheDivi
sionBenchintheabov est
atedcaseandhasputan
endtot hecont
rover
syandruledthatSecti
on309, I
PCwasnei t
hervi
olat
iveofArt
icl
e21
norArti
cle14.Thecourthel
dthatthe“ri
ghttol
ife”underAr
ticl
e21didnotincl
ude“the
ri
ghttodie.”

Deat
hPenal
ty
TheSupr emeCour taddressedt hequestionofconst it
uti
onali
tyofthedeat hpenal
tyfor
thefir
sttimeinJagmohanSi nghvStateofUt t
arPradesh.Thefactsestabli
shed
premedi t
atedmurdermot ivatedbyill
-f
eelingnur t
uredforyears–andt hedeat h
sentencewashel dproper.TheCour tconcl udedthatdeathpenaltywasconst it
uti
onal
ly
permissibl
eprovi
dedi twasi mposedaf teraf airt
ri
alpursuanttoaprocedur e
establ
ishedbylaw.Inr enderingit
sdecisiont heCourtalsoemphasisedt hatthe
discr
etionaryj
udgment soft hetri
alCourtswer esubjecttoappell
atereview.

I
nBachanSi nghv.St
ateofPunjab,theSupremeCour texpl
ainedthatArti
cle21
recognisedtheri
ghtoftheStat
etodepr i
veapersonofhisli
feinaccordancewithjust,
fairandreasonabl
eprocedur
eest abli
shedbyvalidl
aw.Itwasf urt
herheldthatdeath
penaltyawardedunderSecti
on302ofI PCdidnotvi
olatebasicfeat
ureofthe
Const i
tut
ion.

I
nAll
auddinMianv.Stat
eofBihar,t
heSupremeCourtref
erredtothei
rearl
i
er
pr
onouncementsandheldthatdeat
hsentenceshoul
dber eser
vedfortherar
estcases
whi
chareofexcepti
onalnatur
e.

Ri
ghtt
oPer
sonalLi
ber
ty
Theexpr ession„ personallibert
y‟usedinAr ti
cle21hasal sobeengi v
enal i
beral
i
nterpretati
on.I tdoesnotmeanmer elythelibert
yoft hebody ,.
i.
e.,
freedom from
physicalrestraint
sorf reedom f r
om confinementwi thinboundsofapr i
son.Inot her
words, i
tmeansnotonl yfreedom from arrestordetent i
on,fr
om falseimpri
sonmentor
wrongful confinement ,butitmeansmuchmor ethant hat
.Thet er
m personallibertyis
notusedi nanar rowsensebuthasbeenusedi nAr t
icle21ascompendi oustermt o
i
ncludewi t
hinitallthosev ariet
yofright
sofaper sonwhi chgot omakeupt heper sonal
l
ibert
yofaman.

Per
sonal
Liber
ty”i
susedi
nAr
ti
cle21asacompendi
oust
ermt
oincl
udewi
thi
nit
sel
fal
l
thevari
eti
esi fr
ight
swhichgot omakeupt he„personall
i
berty
‟ofamanot herthan
thosedealtwithinsever
alClausesunderAr t
icl
e19(1).Whil
eArti
cle19(
1)dealswit
h
parti
cul
arspeciesorattr
ibut
esoft hatf
reedom, „per
sonalli
ber
ty‟i
nArti
cle21takesin
andcompr isestheresi
due.

TheCourtf
urt
heralsosai
dinthesaidcasethatunauthor
isedi
ntrusi
onintoaperson‟s
homeandthedistur
bancecausedtohimtherebyviol
atedhisr
ightto“per
sonall
i
ber t
y”
enshr
inedi
nArti
cle21.

I
nManekaGandhiv.Uni
onofIndi
a,t
heSupremeCour texpandedthehori
zonsoft
he
t
erm“
Personal
Libert
y”t
ogiveitt
hewidestpossi
blemeaning.TheCourthel
d:

“Theexpressi
on„personall
iber
ty‟i
nAr ti
cle21isofthewidestampl
i
tudeanditcover
sa
vari
etyofri
ghtswhichgot oconsti
tut
et hepersonal
liber
tyofamanandsomeoft hem
havebeenr ai
sedtothestatusofdist
inctfundamentalri
ght
sandgiv
enaddit
ional
prot
ecti
onunderAr t
icl
e19.”

Inthiscaset heSupremeCourtgaveanewdimensiontoArti
cle21anditwaswi t
hthi
s
decisionthatthecourtst
art
edlayi
ngdownnewconst i
tut
ionjuri
spr
udence.Var
ious
aspectoft herightt
opersonal
li
bert
yaredi
scussedinthevariousf
acet
sofpersonal
l
ibertythatfoll
ow.

Ri
ghtt
oPr
ivacy
“Pr
ivacy
”hasbeendef
inedas“thest
ateofbei
ngf
reef
ormi
ntr
usi
onordi
stur
bancei
n
one‟spri
vat
eli
feandi
naffai
rs.
”

InR.Sukhanyav.R.Sri
dhar,Courtheldpubli
cati
onofmat r
imonialproceedings,meant
tobeconductedincamer a,asinvasi
onofr i
ghtofpriv
acyandmor eimpor tant
lythe
Courtal
soheldthat“t
her i
ghtfulcl
aim ofanindi
vidualtodeter
mi netowhi chhewi shes
tosharehimsel
fwithothersandcont r
ol ov
erthetime,placeandcircumst ancesto
communi cat
ewithothers.”

I
nMal akSinghv.StateofPunj
ab,thequest ionrel atedtoastowhensur v
eillanceofa
personwouldbeinfri
ngementofhis“ ri
ghttopr i
v acy ”
.Int
hiscase,t
henameoft he
peti
ti
onerwasincludedinthesur
veil
lancer egisterbyt hepoli
ceundersection23oft he
PunjabPoli
ceAct,henotbeinggi
venanoppor tuni t
yofbeingheard.Si
ncehewasnot
heardandincl
udinghisnameinther egister
, hear gued,hadinf
ri
ngedhisrightt opri
vacy
underArt
icl
e21.TheCour thel
dthat“ organisedcr imecannotbesuccessful l
yfought
wit
houtclosewatchofsuspects.But,
survei
l
lancemaybei ntr
usiveanditmayso
ser
iousl
yencroachontheprivacyofaciti
zenastoinf
ringehisfundamentalr
ightt
o
per
sonalli
bert
yguarant
eedbyAr ti
cle21oftheConstit
utionandthefreedom of
mov ementguar
anteedbyArti
cle19(1)(d)
.Thatcannotbepermi t
ted.
”

InR.Raj
agopalv.Stat
eofTamil
Nadu,theSupremeCourthasassert
edinrecentt
imes
theri
ghtt
opriv
acyhasacquir
edconsti
tut
ionalStat
us;
iti
s“i
mplici
tinther
ighttol
if
e
andli
bert
yguaranteedtot
heci
ti
zens”byArti
cle21.

Ar
ti
cle21&Pr
isonerRi
ght
s
Thepr otecti
onofArti
cle21i savail
abl
eev entoconv ict
sinj ai
l.Theconv i
ctsarenotby
mer ereasonoftheirconvicti
ondepriv
edofal lt
hei rf
undament alr
ightswhichthey
otherwisepossess.Followingtheconvictionofaconv i
ctisputi nt
oaj ailhemaybe
deprivedoffundament alfr
eedomsl i
ket her i
ghttomov efreel
yt hr
oughoutt heter
ri
tor
y
ofIndia.Butaconvictisentit
ledtothepr eciousrightguaranteedunderAr t
icl
e21and
heshal lnotbedepri
vedofhi sli
feandper sonall
ibertyexceptbyapr ocedure
establi
shedbylaw.

InManekaGandhi v.UnionofIndi
a,theSupremeCourtgav eanewdi mensiontoAr t
icl
e
21.TheCourthasinterpret
edArti
cl
e21soast ohavewidestpossibl
eampl it
ude.On
bei
ngconv i
ctedofcrimeanddepr i
vedoftheirl
i
bertyi
naccordancewi t
ht heprocedure
establ
i
shedbyl aw.Arti
cle21,
haslaiddownanewconst i
tuti
onalandprison
j
uri
sprudence.Therightsandprot
ectionsr
ecognisedt
obegi veninthetopicstofoll
ow.

Ri
ghtt
oFr
eeLegalAi
d&Ri
ghtt
oAppeal
InM.H.Haskotv .StateofMahar ashtra,theSupr emeCour tsaidwhi l
eholdi
ngfreel
egal
aidasanintegralpartoffai
rprocedur et heCour texplainedthat“thetwoimportant
i
ngredient
softher i
ghtofappeal are;f
irstly
, ser
v i
ceofacopyofaj udgementtothe
pri
sonerinti
met oenabl ehimt ofil
eanappeal andsecondl y,provi
sionoffr
eelegal
servi
cetothepr i
sonerwhoi sindigentorot herwisedisabledfrom securi
nglegal
assi
stance.Thi
sr i
ghtt ofr
eelegal aidist hedut yofthegov ernmentandi sanimpli
cit
aspectofArti
cle21i nensuri
ngf air
nessandr easonableness;thiscannotbetermedas
governmentcharit
y.

I
not
herwor
ds,
anaccusedper
sonatl
easewher
ethechar
gei
sofanof
fence
punishabl
ewithimprisonmentisentit
ledt
obeof fer
edl egalai
d,i
fheist
oopoort o
affor
dcounsel.Counselfortheaccusedmustbegi vensuf f
ici
entt
imeandfaci
li
tyfor
prepari
nghisdefence.Breachofthesesafeguar
dsoff airtr
ial
wouldi
nval
idat
ethet r
ial
andconv i
cti
on.

Ri
ghtt
oBai
l
TheSupr emeCour thasdiagnosedt her ootcausef orlongpre-t
riali
ncarcer
at i
ontobe
thepresent-dayunsatisf
actoryandi rrati
onal r
ulesforbailwhichinsist
smer elyon
fi
nancialsecurit
yfrom theaccusedandt heirsuret
ies.Manyoft heundert r
ialsbei
ng
poorandi ndigentareunabletopr ovideanyf i
nanci
al secur
it
y.Consequent l
yt heyhave
tolanguishinprisonsawai t
ingtheirtrial
s.Butincarcerati
onofper sonschar gedwith
non-bail
ableoffencesduringpendencyoft r
ialcannotbequest i
onedasv i
olativ
eof
Arti
cle21sincet hesamei sauthor i
sedbyl aw.

I
nthecaseofBabuSi nghv.Stat
eofUttarPradesh,
theCourtheldthatri
ghtt
obai l
was
i
ncl
udedinthepersonall
iber
tyunderArti
cle21anditsr
efusalwouldbedepriv
ationof
t
hatl
iber
tywhichcouldbeauthorisedi
naccordancewit
ht heprocedureest
abli
shedby
l
aw.

Ant
ici
patorybai
lisastatut
oryr
ightanditdoesnotari
seoutofArt
icl
e21.Ant
ici
pat
ory
bai
lcannotbegrant
edasamat terofr
ightasi
tcannotbegrant
edasamat t
erofri
ght
asi
tcannotbeconsideredasanessent i
ali
ngredi
entofAr
ti
cle21.

Ri
ghtt
oFai
rTr
ial
Freeandfai
rtrialhasbeensaidtobethesinequanonofAr ti
cle21.TheSupremeCourt
i
nZahiraHabibullahSheikhv.St
ateofGujaratsai
dthatr
ighttofr
eeandf ai
rtri
alnot
onlyt
otheaccusedbutal sot
othevict
ims,theirf
amil
ymember sandr el
ati
ves,asal
so,
thesoci
etyatlarge.

Ri
ghtagai
nstHandcuf
fi
ng
Handcuff
inghasbeenheldtobepr i
maf acieinhumanandther
eforeunreasonable,
over
-
harshandatfi
rstf
lush,
arbi
trar
y.Ithasbeenhel dtobeunwarr
antedandv i
olat
iveof
Art
icl
e21.InPr
em Shankarv.DelhiAdminist
rati
on,theSupr
emeCour tstr
uckdownt he
Ruleswhi chprovi
dedthatev eryunder
-t
rialwhowasaccusedofanon- bail
abl
eof f
ence
punishablewithmorethant hreeyearsprisonter
m wouldberouti
nel
yhandcuffed.The
Courtruledthathandcuf
fingshoul dberesortedtoonlywhenther
ewas“ cl
earand
presentdangerofescape”oft heaccusedunder -
tri
al,
breaki
ngoutofpoli
cecontrol
.

Ri
ghtagai
nstCust
odi
alVi
olence
Theinci
dentsofbr
utalpol
icebehaviourt
owardspersonsdet
ainedonsuspi
cionof
havi
ngcommi tt
edcri
mesar ear out
inematter
.Ther
ehasbeenal otofpubl
i
coutcry
fr
om ti
met oti
meagainstcustodial
deaths.

TheSupremeCourthastakenav er
yposit
ivest
andagai nsttheatr
oci
ties,i
nti
midati
on,
har
assmentanduseofthird-
degreemethodstoextortconfessi
ons.TheCour thas
cl
assi
fi
edtheseasbeingagainsthumandigni
ty.TherightsunderArt
icle21secureli
fe
wit
hhumandi gni
tyandthesamear eav
ail
ableagainsttort
ure.

InSheel
aBarsev.St
ateofMaharasht
ra,
theSupremeCourtcondemnedvi
olence
commi t
tedonwomenprisoner
sconfi
nedinthepol
icel
ockupinthecit
yofBombay.

Thiswasf oll
owedbyD. K.Basuv .StateofWestBengal,t
heSupremeCourtheldthat
tor
turebypol i
cest r
uckabl owatt heRuleofLaw,custodi
alvi
olencehasbeenheld
cal
culatedassaultonhumandi gnity
, per
hapsoneoftheworstcrimesinaciv
il
ized
societ
ygov ernedbyr ul
eofl aw.TheCour thel
dthatanysuchactswouldfal
lwithi
nthe
i
nhibit
ionofAr ti
cle21.
CONCLUSI
ON
IndianJudici
aryprovidedexcel l
entelucidati
ont ori
ghtofl i
feandper sonal l
ibert
yunder
Arti
cle21oftheConst ituti
on.TheSupr emeCour tnotonl yexploredtheinsti
nct i
ve
humanequal i
tiesoftheAr ticle21butal soest abli
shedcer t
ainpr oceduretoimpl ement
them.Thismakes" r
uleofl aw"magni f
icentandmeani ngful
.Eachi nterpr
etationand
procedurelai
ddownwi thther egar dtoAr t
icl
e21i spar t
icul
arai medt oachiev e'
Justi
ce'
ment i
onedinthePr eambl et hroughall-
rounddev elopmentoft heci ti
zens.each
explanat
ionprovidedv i
s-a-visAr t
icl
e21at tempt stofulf
ilbasicneedoft hehuman
beingwhilesafeguardingonesdi gnit
y.

I
tisdi f
fi
culttof
indsuchnoble,l
ofty,di
gnif
iedi
llust
rat
ionsandi nterpr
etat
ionsas
provi
dedbyt heSupremeCour toftheIndiatotheconceptofrightt ol
if
eandpersonal
l
ibertyelsewher
eintheworl
d.TheI ndianconceptdidnotconfinet heri
ghtandpersonal
l
ibertyonlytoonesphysi
calenti
ty.Itmeanstosur v
iveall
rounddev el
opmentofa
personsot hatj
usti
ceshal
ltri
umphandt ermlawcanbeusei nt hesenseofjusandlex
both.
REFERENCE

 Bakshi,
P.M.,TheConsti
tut
ionofI
ndi
a,8t
hEdi
ti
on,
Uni
ver
sal
Law
Publi
shingCo.,Del
hi,
2008.

 Jai
n,M.P.
,Indi
anConst
it
uti
onalLaw,6thEdit
ion,
Lexi
sNexi
s
But
tor
worthsWadhwaNagpur,Gurgaon,2010.

 Pandey
,J.
N.,TheConst
it
uti
onofI
ndi
a,47t
hEdi
ti
on,
Cent
ral
Law
Agency
,Al
lahabad,
2010.

 TheConst
it
uti
onOfIndi
a,Bar
eAct
,Uni
ver
sal
LawPubl
i
shi
ngCo.Pv
t.
Lt
d.NewDelhi
,2010.

 www.
academi
a.edu

 www.
lawct
opus.
com