SESSION – 2019-20

ARTICLE 21

SUBMITTED BY
SUBMITTED TO
BHANU PRATAP SINGH RATHORE
DR. RICHA CHOUDHARY
B.B.A LL.B. 3 RD SEM.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I Would like to express my special thanks of Gratitude to
my teacher Dr. Richa choudhary who Gave me golden
opportunity to this wonder full project on Article 21 who
also help me in completning this project .I am really
thankful to them.

BHANU PRATAP SINGH RATHORE

B.B.A.LL.B.3RD SEM
 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.

Article 21 uses four crucial expressions , viz:  

Life: as here used, something more is meant than mere animal
existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those
limbs and facilities by which life is enjoyed.
Personal liberty: In art.21 it is of widest amplitude & it covers a variety
of rights which go to constitute personal liberty of man & some of
them have been raised to status of distinct Fundamental Rights.
Law: constitution make no distinction in principle b/w a law made by
the legislature & ordinance issued by president, both are equally
subject to limitation which the constitution has placed upon that
power.
Procedure established by law: it extends both to substantive as well as
procedural law. A procedure not fulfilling these attributes is no procedure
at all in the eyes of art.21.
The Fifth Amendment of American Constitution also provides that ‘no
Person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except
according to procedure established by law’. The Fourteenth
Amendment imposes a similar limitation on the state authorities.

The right guaranteed in article 21 is available to ‘citizens’ as well as

‘non-citizens’.
Personal liberty : Meaning and Scope
Prior to Maneka Gandhi case – The meaning of the words “personal
liberty came up for consideration of the Supreme Court for the first
time in A.K Gopalan v. Union of India. In that case the petitioner , a
communist leader was detained under the preventive detention Act
1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of movement under
article 19(1) (d) which is the very essence of personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.
In A.K goplan the supreme court interpreted the ‘law’ as ‘state made
law’ and rejected the plea that by the term ‘law’ in art. 21 meant not
the state made law but jus naturale or the principles of natural
justice. Therefore any law which deprives a person of his personal
liberty must satisfy the requirement of art. 19 & 21 both.
After Maneka Gandhi case - in maneka gandhi v. Union of India the
Supreme Court has not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has widened
the scope of the words personal liberty considerably.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - Maneka’s passport was impounded

by the Central govt. under the passport Act in the interest of the general
public. Maneka filed a writ petition challenging the order on the ground
of violation of fundamental right under Art. 21. The major ground of
challenge was the order impounding the passport was null and void as it
had been made without affording her an opportunity of being heard in
her defence.
 Right to Right to
Medical Care Livelihood
Right to
Privacy

Article
Right to 21 Right to Healthy
Shelter Environment

Right to Education
 Right to livelihood
Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation - AIR 1986 SC 180

The right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life, as no

person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of
livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and
parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be deprived him of
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ (AIR 1999 SC 495)

The Supreme Court explained that Article 21 of the
Constitution entitles a person to lead a healthy life and
therefore the women who was to marry a person was entitled
to know whether her prospective husband has any deadly and
communicable disease.
 RIGHT TO SHELTER
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630

The SC has ruled that the right to life is guaranteed in any

civilized society . That would take within its sweep the right to
food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and
reasonable accommodation to live in. The diff. b/w the need of
an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.
For an animal it is the bare protection of body: for a human
being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow
him to grow in every aspect-physical, mental and intellectual
 RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE
Parmanand Katara V Union of India AIR 1989

The SC has considered a very serious problem existing

at present: in a medico legal case (such as accident) the
doctor RIGHT TO usually refused to give immediate
MEDICAL a medical aid to the victim untill the legal
formalities are CARE completed. In some cases, the
injured die for want of medical aid. The SC has now
very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of
paramount importance.
 RIGHT TO HEALTH
Vincent v. Union of India AIR 1987

The SC held that a healthy body is the very foundationof

all human activities. Even Art.47, a directive principle,
lays stress on improvement of public health un
prohibition of drugs injurious to health as one of the
primary duties of the State.
 RIGHT TO EDUCATION 

Mohini Jain V. State of Karnataka AIR 1992

The right to education flows directly from the right to life,” and
the right to education being concomitant to the fundamental
right,“The state is under a constitutional mandate to provide
educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of the
citizens.”
 RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT

 Subash kumar v. Bihar AIR 1991

 The SC has held that enjoyment Kumar of pollution free
 environment is v. included in the right to life under Art.
21.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 (.) dr. pandey jain,(2018), Article 21 of the Indian
constitution ,Central law agency .