RIGHT TO LIFE:

ARTICLE 21 AN
EXHAUSTIVE
STUDY

Right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other
add quality to the life in question and depend on the
pre- existence of life itself for their operation" - J. BHAGWATI

Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• In A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 88] the
Supreme Court held that Art. 19 has no application to laws
depriving a person of his life and personal liberty enacted
under Article 21 of the constitution and article 19, 21 and 14
1|Page
 are mutually exclusive. It was held that protection under Art.
21 is available only against arbitrary action and not from
arbitrary legislative action. This means that the state can
deprive a person of the right available in Art. 21 based on
law. Further it was held that 'law' means ‘state made law'
and not just Natural Law.
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964 SCR (1) 332,
the Supreme Court quoted and held - Expression 'life' was
not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only
but something more than mere animal existence. It was also
declared the relevant provisions that allowed police to make
domiciliary visits to 'habitual criminal' pr individuals likely to
become habitual criminals as unconstitutional.
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2) 621, the
court held - Art. 21 protects the right to life and personal
liberty nto tonly from executive but from the legislative
action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal
liberty if two conditions are complied with, (1) there must
be a law and (2) there must be a procedure prescribed by
that law, provided the procedure is Just, fair and
reasonable., there must be a procedure prescribed by that
law. The court ruled that any regulation that restricts a
person's personal liberty must pass the constitutional tests
of Articles 21, 14, and 19. Article 21 also protects natural
justice and personal liberty' should not be interpreted in a
restricted and rigorous meaning, but rather in a liberal and
wide sense

2|Page
 APPLICABLITY
• The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus,
even a foreigner can claim this right.
• However, it does not entitle a foreigner to the right to
reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).
• article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of
his 'life or personal liberty' by the state as defined in article
12. thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not
within the purview of Art. 21.
• Article 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency

RIGHTS WHICH COME UNDER RIGHT TO LIFE

3|Page
 ➢ RIGHT TO PRIVACY –RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOT AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT- In 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' [1998 Supp(1) 723] ‘Z' ' the supreme
court held although the '' right to privacy'' is a fundamental right
under Art. 21 of the constitution yet it is not an absolute right and
restrictions can be imposed on it for the prevention of crime,
disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights
and freedom of others.
➢ Phone tapping; Rn invasion on Right to Privacy - In Rayal M.
Bhuvaneshwari V. Nagaphamender Rayala [AIR 2008 AP 98] the
petitioner filed a divorce petition and to substantiate his case
sought to produce a hard disc relating to the conversation of his
wife recorded in U.S. with others. She denied some portions of
the conversation held. The act of tapping of conversation of his
wife without her knowledge was illegal and amounted to
infringement of her right to privacy under Art. 21 of the
constitution.
➢ RIGHT TO EDUCATION –
Article 21A of the Indian Constitution which was inserted in the
constitution by the means of the constitution ,86 Amendment Act
,2003 providing free and compulsory education is intended to
allow all children in the age group 6-14 live with dignity, which is a
facet of ‘Right to life’.
In Environmental and consumer protect foundation v. Dekhi
Administration (2012), it was held that in order to ensure
compliance of Article 21Aof the Constitution, it is imperative that
schools must have qualified teachers and Basic Infrastructure.
RIGHT TO LEGAL AID
It is is now well established as a result of the decision of this
Court in Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary State of Bihar
[1979 AIR 1369], case that: "The right to free legal service is ....
4|Page
 clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just
procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be
held to be implicit in the guarantee of Article 21
➢ RIGHT TO REPUTATION-
Man being a social animal thrives on the fact that one's
reputation and dignity go hand in hand for making life worth
living. The Supreme Court in Kiran Bedi’s case held that a good
reputation was an element of personal security and is
protected by the Constitution under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The right to the enjoyment of private reputation
was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society. In
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 AIR 1380]the Supreme
Court reiterated that the right to reputation is a person’s
valuable asset and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
➢ RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT A WORKPLACE –
The Supreme Court, after a series of cases, has held that the
‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution along
with other fundamental rights are guaranteed to us by
constitutional amplitude to cover gender equality including the
Right against Sexual Harassment. The scope of Article 21 has
been widened by the Supreme Court to a great extent. While
declaring that sexual harassment of women at the workplace is
violative of gender equality, the Supreme Court, in Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241] observed that “The
meaning and content of the Fundamental rights guaranteed in
the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to
encompass all the facets of gender equality including the
prevention of sexual harassment or abuse”

5|Page
 ➢ RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE –
According to Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event
of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control".
In the State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla[(1996) 113 PLR 499 ] . This
has been held that-the right to life ensured under Article 21
incorporates inside its ambit the right to health and clinical
consideration.
➢ QUALITY OF LIFE-
In the Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi [AIR (2005) SC 3180], the Supreme Court recognized that
“life” is more than just mere animal existence. The Supreme
Court stated that,
“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity
and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life
such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter over the head
and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling
with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic
necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and
activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the
human self.''
➢ RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD –
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation [(1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)]
held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.
Thereby, the court recognized the rights of the pavement
6|Page
 dwellers and the hawkers in Bombay. However, this does not
mean that the State can be held accountable for not providing
livelihood through affirmative action programs and policy. This
recognition of the right to livelihood only bars the state from
denying the right to livelihood to any individual without any
procedure established by law
➢ RIGHT TO INFORMATION-
This right which is a subset of Article 21 was transformed into
an act known as 'Right to Information Act, 2002' allowing any
citizen to request information from a public authority and
bounding the governing authorities to reply within a stipulated
time of 30 days. In R.P Limited v. Indian Express Newspapers [
(1988) SCR Supl. (3) 212], it was held by the Supreme Court
that Article 21 is wide enough to accommodate the essential
features of a democracy such as the right to know and the
right to be informed.
➢ RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DECENT ENVIRONMENT -
This right under article 21 of the Indian constitution covers a
wide variety of rights not just for Human but also for wildlife,
forest, lakes, ancient monument, fauna – flora,
unpolluted air, water, and maintenance of the ecological balance.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 202 SC 1696 (CNG Vehicles
case). SC propounded that Article 21 of the constitution provides
the right to life which includes the right to a clean and healthy
environment. The Supreme court in many cases had come
forward to protect this right. The supreme court has directed the
Government to use only CNG vehicles as a form of public
transport in Delhi and has banned the running of diesel buses in
Delhi and has banned the running of diesel buses in Delhi, in
light of the deteriorating air quality in the capital.

7|Page
 ➢ RIGHT TO DIE (EUTHANASIA)-
Art. 21 provide right to die with dignity and right to live with dignity
also Euthanasia and Right to Life.
Euthanasia is termination of the life of a person who is terminally ill
or in a permanent vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
[(1996) AIR 946], the Supreme Court has distinguished between
Euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide. The court held that death
due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the
process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of
extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process
of natural death that has already commenced.
The court further held that this may fall within the ambit of Right to
live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may
include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his
life is ebbing out. This cannot be equated with the right to die an
unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.
➢ RIGHT TO LIFE DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHT TO DIE –
In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India [(1994) INSC 264]
the court argued that the word life in Art. 21 means right to live with
human dignity and the same does not merely connote continued
drudgery. Thus, the court concluded that the right to live of which
Art. 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live
a forced life. The count further emphasized that "attempt to commit
suicide is in reality a cry for help and not for punishment."
Right Against delayed execution –
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in T. Vatheeswaram v.
State of Tamil Nadu [(1983) AIR 361, (1983) SCR (2) 348] held that
delayed execution of death sentence is contrary to the idea of life
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the execution is
delayed 2 years after such a death sentence is finalized then such a
sentence may be commuted. The cause of the delay is immaterial

8|Page
 REMEDIES

Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Constitution

can be invoked by any citizen in case his/her fundamental rights
have been violated by any member of the State or executive.
The provision of Article 21 and Article 21A itself being a part of the
fundamental rights, cannot be denied to any citizen except in the
case of State emergency (Article 359).
An application made under Article 32 in violation of the
fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be dismissed on
technical grounds. Such applications can be made under any
prescribed writs, and the Supreme Court shall protect these rights by
providing appropriate relief as deemed fit.
We must also not forget that these rights are given to us by the State
and hence, available only against the State and not against an
individual, in that case, one must seek remedy under ordinary law
and not under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
ABOUT:
For Legal article writing and research work contact
Writer: Nameera meraj
Contact: nameerameraj46@gmail.com
Education: 3rd year law student.

9|Page
 REFERENCES
• A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 88]
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964 SCR
(1) 332,
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2) 621
• 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' [1998 Supp(1) 723] ‘Z'
• Rayal M. Bhuvaneshwari V. Nagaphamender Rayala
[AIR 2008 AP 98 ]
• Environmental and consumer protect foundation v.
Dekhi Administration (2012)
• Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary State of
Bihar [1979 AIR 1369],
• Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 AIR 1380]
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241]
• State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla[(1996) 113 PLR 499
]
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union
Territory of Delhi [AIR (2005) SC 3180
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
[(1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)]
• R.P Limited v. Indian Express Newspapers [
(1988) SCR Supl. (3) 212],
• MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 202 SC 1696 (CNG
Vehicles case).
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1996) AIR 946],
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India [(1994) INSC 264]
• T. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1983)
AIR 361, (1983) SCR (2) 348]

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e