ARTICLE 21

1. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath: Any disturbance of basic natural elements which are necessary
to life will be hazardous to life as under 21
o Doctrine of Public Trust: Certain natural resources such as air, water, sea are for general use
and not for private ownership - gift of nature and the State, as a trustee is duty bound to protect
them - State is the trustee and the general public is the beneficiary of such resources
2. Paschim Banga Khet Samiti v. West Bengal: Person who needed immediate medical attention
was denied the same in various government hospitals - court said that since 21 imposes
obligation on State to safeguard the right to life of every person, government hospitals
and the medical officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend medical assistance.
Failure to do so results in violation of right to life. State cannot avoid its responsibility
for such denial.
3. Mohan Patnaik v. State of AP: Departmental instructions made without statutory authority
and not having the force of law are not law for the purpose of 21 and therefore cannot
put restraints on an individual’s liberty
4. Mahmood Nair Azam v. Chattisgarh: Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment would fall within the ambit of 21 whether it occurs during investigation,
interrogation or otherwise - right to life of a citizen cannot be put in abeyance on his
arrest and it cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in
custody.
5. Vakil Prasad Singh v. Bihar: Appellant arrested in 1981 - filed a petition under Section
482 CrPC alleging undue harassment for 18 years - charge sheet was filed in 2007 - there
is a clear violation of the FRs of the accused conferred by Article 21

6. Chairman Railway Board v Chandrima Das (2000)

Bangladeshi woman gang-raped by railway employees. Damages awarded to her against
Railway administration in this case under Article 226. SC said that relief could be granted
under 226 because it involved violation of an FR under Art.21, and not just of an ordinary
right. Foreigner can claim Art.21 protection along with citizens.
 7. A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras (1950)
Personal Liberty:
Petitioner (communist leader) detained under preventive detention act. Challenged this on
basis of Art. 19(1)(d) - personal liberty, saying that it included freedom of movement and
therefore the Act clashed with the FR.
SC took literal meaning of personal liberty- said that since word liberty was qualified by word
'personal', it did not include the full meaning of the word liberty. Basically, 19 need not be
read with 21. Faizal Ali dissented from this, saying it should be read together.
Also, law in 21 meant state made law, and did not include PNJ.
Procedure established by law:
Petitioner said that procedure established by law = due process of the US. And thus same
substantive and procedural protection must be given, nit just the procedural protection
currently available. SC rejected this, saying that it did not include the US definition just cuz
word law is used in Art.21.

8. Ram Singh v Delhi

Person detained under Prevention Detention Act for speeches against public order. Issue was
whether detention order could be read with respect to 19(1)(a) and 19(2). SC said it could not
be read, in light of the Gopalan judgement saying no links could be formed.

9. P.L. Lakhan Pal v UOI (1967)

Concerned the Preventive Detention Rules. Said that when person is detained, the detention
has to be reviewed every six months. Thus,a review procedure like this incorporates PNJ.

10. R.C Cooper v UOI (1970) - bank nationalisation case

Softened rigid view w.r.t linkage. 19(1)(f) was linked with 31(2). SC Wanted to protect right
to property more than right to freedom at the time.

11. Bennet Coleman v UOI (1973)

Overruled that 19(1)(a) could not apply to law affecting freedomof speech, although not
directly. Said that the law restraining freedom of speechshould be read with 19(2) in order to
check its reasonableness, even if it was not enacted directly to control freedom of speech.
Kick out Gopalan understanding.
 12. Maneka Gandhi v UOI (1978)
• Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act: It allowed the government to impound the passport of any
person on grounds of public order, security of State and stuff like that
• The court recognised the right to be heard and being represented
o Law includes PNJ
• It established the nexus between Article 14, 19 & 21. They are not mutually exclusive, which
was Gopalan view.
o 21 says procedure established by law is expanded and interlinked w/14 and 21, no longer
can be used to restrict like before.
o 14 says no arbitrary laws
o 19 says reasonable
o There has to be a procedural reasonableness before a right, especially to life, can be
denied to a person
o Law has to be fair, just and reasonable

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar(1979)

• The right of under-trial prisoners who are being held despite not yet being convicted on the
pretext that they might run away or obstruct justice. The court gave the right to fair and
speedy trial – Section 436A was inserted in the CrPC which allows such people to be granted
bail, since SC saw that financial constraints and expediture priorties would not warrant speedy
trial.

• Bhim Singh v. UOI: Hussainara Khatoon introduced 436A CrPC. This case directed
effective implementation of the provision. The foll. steps were commanded of
JM/CJM/Sessions Judges:
• Hold one sitting per week in each jail for 2 months.
• In these sittings, identify undertrials who have completed ½ the max period or more and
order release u/s 436A.

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal: Whether there is protection against custodial violence.
Whether torture is prohibited in Indian or Common Law? (Yes – UK Law, Common
Law and the UDHR) It is embodied in Indian jurisprudence because of Articles 21 &
22. Guidelines:
o The arresting officer must be in uniform, name tag - all of this should be mentioned in a
register
o Memo of arrest (time & date) with at least one witness & countersigned by arrestee
o One person who has interest in the arrestee should be informed of the arrest & inform him
of right to inform someone of arrest
o Can’t arrest a woman from 6 pm to 6 am without a female constable
o Cannot torture the prisoners
o A lot of other guidelines

o MC Mehta v. UOI (2009): If any industry has the capability to affect the public health
and interests, then it can be covered under Article 21 – they gave out the principle of
absolute liability

17. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UOI: A British national was arrested and was
given the right to meet her family only once a month. Even then she was not allowed
to meet freely with her lawyer
o Right to free legal aid, equality, detenu were in question. She approached the court as it was
in violation of Article 14, 21 & 22. The SC came to the conclusion that such articles were
violated. It also discussed the difference between punitive and preventive detention
o The right to life includes the right to dignity and all that goes along with it, SC linked all the
freedoms provided in Article 19 to come within the ambit of right to life. The prisoners of
the detenu cannot go outside the walls of the prison but they should be allowed to meet their
lawyer, family and friends.

o Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn: Large number of people living on the pavements in
Bombay. The commissioner of police had the power to vacate them without giving any
notice. The Court held that we should take into consideration that state is failing to
provide basic amenities to its citizens.
o “The right to livelihood of the pavement dwellers” was included in Article 21
o It is not restricted to mere animal existence of a person, it means something more and the
inhibition against deprivation of life extends to all those limits and facilities by which life is
enjoyed.
 o Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI: There was discharge of untreated affluents by the
industry in Tamil Nadu. Right to clean water was covered under Article 21 and the
industries were asked to compensate the people who were affected by this.

20. Sheela Barse v. Maharashtra: A letter by Sheela Barse, a journalist alleging custodial
violence and torture in police lock-ups in Mumbai was treated as a writ petition:
o Legal assistance to poor/indigent accused not merely a DPSP u/39A but also an FR u. 14
and 21.
o Interrogation of women convicts to be carried out by women officers
o This judgement was a landmark one because it led to separate police lock-ups for women
convicts to shield them from further brutality.

o Suchita Srivasatava v. Chandigarh administration: orphan woman, 19-20 years old suffered
from mild mental retardation - found pregnant (allegedly a rape child) while staying in
a govt run Welfare Institution. P&H HC directed termination of pregnancy under the
MTP Act, 1971. However, the victim had wanted to continue her pregnancy.
Issue: In applying the MTP Act, was the victim’s right to life under 21 violated?
SC: Yes. A woman’s right to make reproductive choices falls under ‘personal liberty’ for 21.
She can choose to procreate/abstain from it. Woman’s right to privacy, bodily integrity and
dignity must be respected.
 ARTICLE 22
1. Joginder Kumar v UOI (1994) - dukki

Laid guidelines for arrest of person. Cant arrest just based on suspicion that person is
complicit in offence. Must be reasonable justification on part of police officer, and arrest must
be necessary and justified. Balance must be maintained b/w needs of police and protection
of rights of citizen.

7. State of M.P v Shobha Ram (1966)

o A person’s personal liberty cannot be curtailed by arrest without informing him as soon as
possible why he is arrested as it enables him to prepare his defence or to move to the court
for bail or for the writ of habeus corpus
o A person arrested on accusation of a crime becomes entitled to be defended by a counsel at
the trial and this right is not lost even if he is released on bail or is tried by a court which has
no power to impose a sentence of imprisonment

o Nandini Satpathy v PL Dhani (1978)

o The right to consult a legal practitioner starts from the day of his arrest. SC said that Article
22(1) does not mean that a person who is not arrested can be denied the right to consult the
lawyer of his choice. The spirit and the sense of Article 22(1) is fundamental to the ROL that
services of a lawyer shall be available for consultation to any accused under circumstances of
"mere custodial interrogation".
o This furthers the right against self-incrimination- by reading Article 20(3) and 22(1) together,
prudent to allow lawyer to be present when accused is examined. If accused wishes so, the
right should not be denied to him.

o Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal (1975)

The case involved the magistrate not giving all the information about 'injurious facts' to the
detenu, based on which the detenu argued that the magistrate has been biased in making the
detention order- thus right under 22(5) was infringed. SC said that what affected the
magistrate's mind i snot relevant, but that all basic facts must be communicated to the detenu.
 10. Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, State of Kerala (1986):
While examining grounds under Art. 22 (5) , said that grounds includes not only conclusion
of facts but also all the basic facts upon which the conclusions were founded.

11. Icchu Devi v UOI (1980)

Some act was in question, where the concerned person was not given the full facts, on the
basis of which he was unable to give a proper representation.

12. A.K. Roy v UOI (1982) - NSA Case (4:1) - dukki

Upheld the NSA,1947 and the ordinance which preceded it. Act was not vague or arbitrary
in the manner that it allowed for preventive detention, for the purpose of the defence and
security of India, and also for relations to a foreign power. Laid down basic standards by
which the detenu must be treated.
 Article 23
1. PUDR v UOI (1982)/PUCL v UOI
Broad interpretation of forced labour, not just practices similar to begar. Even giving below
minimum wage would be considered under this. 'Forced' here interpreted in different ways:
compulsion cuz of hunger, poverty and destitution too.

2. Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan (1983)

Held that payment of wages below minimum wage violative of Article 23. People here were
employed in famine relief work, as part of State of Rajasthan relief measures. They were building
a road. State argued that cuz there was a separate exemption act for this, they would not need to
pay minimum wage. To pay everyone minimum wag would reduce potential to help more people.
Held that plea was plausible, but not sustainable. Work done is not any less worth, it isnot charity.
You can't take advantage like this.

3. Rohit Vasavacia v General Manager, IFFCO (AIR 1984 Guj 102)

Here, workers in a fertiliser factor were working in sub-human conditions, handling urea manually.
NO safeguards, not free to leave, not paid properly. They were contract labourers.
High Court said just because they are working without apparent physical constraint doesn't mean
it is volunrtary. Even if paid properly, but under such conditions, comes under Article 23. Gave
directions to remedy situation.

4. Sec. State of Karnataka v Uma Devi (2006)

Argument that Article 23 not breached when employment is on daily wages. It is not forced labour,
as employees accepted of own violition, with open eyes.

5. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v UOI (1984)

Facts: Large number of labourers working in stone quarries in Haryana in inhuman conditions. SC
said to release them from bondage. Emphasised rehabilitation, and provide proper and safe
facilities.
Original conception of bonded labour (work till debt wiped out) incompatible with new socio-
economic order, and to read it as such is violative of consti values. Links Article 23 with 21, context
of dignity and freedom from exploitation.
 6. Neerja Choudhary v State of Madhya Pradesh (1984)
Stressed that state must not only free bonded labourers, but take responsibility of rehabilitation,
lest they lapse back into it. The labourers from Bandhua Mukti Morcha case were not rehabbed,
and were in bad state. SC said it was state responsibility to ensure they were taken care of.

7. Gaurav Jain v Union of India (1997)

Inspite of IPC and Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (SITA),
prostitution still prevalent. Comes under Article 23 (1) - traffic in human beings. Responsibility to
supress this malady and properly rehab its victims. Tis a socio-economic problem. In this case,
court gave directions for rehab of children of prostitutes, child prostitutes and establishment of
juvenile homes for them.

ARTICLE 24
1. MC Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1997) - Dukki
SC held that children below 14 should not be employed in any hazardous industry. Gave guidelines
as to how State authorities must protect socio, eco and humanitarian rights of children working
illegally in public and private sectors. Context was children working in cracker factories.
Court directed that Child Labour Rehab Welfare Fund be set up, asked employer to cough up 20
grand per child, and told state to rehab in phased manner. Liability of employer doesn't end w/
disengaging the child.
 ARTICLE 25
1. S.R Bommai v UOI (1994) - dukki
SC said that secularism is a basic feature of constitution. State treats all religions and religious
denominations equally. Secularism does not mean anti-god. Our consti takes positive concept of
secularism, not the American doctrine (separation of church and state). State is neither anti-religion
nor pro-religion, but is neutral. Any step departing form this would be unconstitutional.

2. Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh (1981)

Dispute between Shia and Sunnis , as Sunnis had two graves in Shia property which h=gave rise
to disputes between the sects ( different rites, practices, etc.). Court ordered shifting of the graves,
in larger interest of the community and to maintain public order. Religious freedom is subject to
public order, and order does not violate FR of sunnis.
SC said that in order to consider something a practice of religion, must be regarded as essential
and integral part of it. Certain practices are just based on superstition, and can be considered
unnecessary in the religious institution.

3. N.Adithayan v Travancore Devaswom Board (2002) - dukki

SC held that non-Brahmins can be appointed pujari. No justification that only Brahmins can do
so under Article 25, as others were prohibited from learning rituals and relevant literature earlier.
Can't claim deviation to be violation of Article 25. Courts can decide what practices are essential
to religion with reference to doctrine, to be regarded as parts of religion.

4. Abdul Gani Sofi v Haj Committee (2009)

Following from N. Adithayan, held that arbitrary withholding of travel documents preventing
pilgrims from performance of Haj to be violative of Article 25.