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 secures two rights:
1) Right to life
2) Right to personal liberty
a person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if the following
conditions are fulfilled, namely:
 There must be a law, and
 There must be a procedure prescribed by the law, provided that the
procedure is just, fair and reasonable.
•Article 21 has been considered and held as the heart of the Indian
Constitution and has received widest possible interpretation.
•Article 21 can be claimed by a person only when the “State” as defined
in Article 12 deprives a person of his “life” or “personal liberty”. However, this
right cannot be claimed if there is a violation of the right by private
individuals.
•Thus, it has now been accepted that the right to life does not mean a mere
animal existence , rather it means to live life with human dignity. It ensures all
freedom and advantages that would go to make life agreeable.
LIFE PESONAL
LIBERTY

ARTICLE 21

LAW PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED
BY LAW
MEANING AND CONCEPT OF ‘RIGHT TO LIFE’
‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The right to
life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add
quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for
their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might
expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the other
rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no
Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its
original sense.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295, the Supreme Court
quoted and held that: By the term “life” as here used something more is meant
than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to
all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally
prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm or leg or the
pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through
which the soul communicates with the outer world.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675 the Supreme Court
reiterated with the approval the above observations and held that the “right to
life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the
human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to
protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning
to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the
right to repose and health.
Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 2009 SC 984), it was held by the Court
that fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of
fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. A victim
of crime is equally entitled to a fair investigation.
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP scope of Article 21, the Supreme Court has
explained. 1) Right to go abroad 2) Right to privacy 3)against solitary
confinement) is fine. 4)Against hand cuffing 5) against delayed execution is
correct. 6) Right to Shelter. Against the death in custody 7) Right against
public hanging.
Right to Live with Human Dignity
1.The SC in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India held that right to life
embodied in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is not merely a physical
right but it also includes within its ambit, the right to live with human dignity.
2.In the case of Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi it was held that
right to live includes the right to live with human dignity with bare necessities
of life such as:
 Adequate nutrition, Clothing, and
 Shelter over the head and facilities for Reading, Writing, and Expressing
oneself in diverse form.
Right to Livelihood:
Olga Tellis and ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
This case came before the Supreme Court as a writ petition by olga tellis a
journalist on behalf of the persons who live on pavements and in slums
dwellers in the city of Bombay. It was prayed by the petitioners to allow them
to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction.
Supreme Court expanded the ambit of the right to life so as to bring the ‘right
to livelihood’ within the purview of ‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
Right to speedy trial (free legal aid under Art. 39A)
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically guarantee speedy trial
nor it has the Indian Constitution guaranteed under any of the Fundamental
Rights but the Indian Judiciary in the case of Hussianara Khatoon vs. the State
of Bihar 1979, has made it settled decision that the right to speedy trial is an
inalienable right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. under trials who
had suffered long incarceration held that a procedure which keeps such large
number of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be
regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the
requirement of Article 21.
Right to compensation
1. A new judicial trend has manifested a new trend of providing
compensation. In the case of Rudul Shah vs. the State of Bihar, the petitioner
was kept in jail for 14 years even after his acquittal.
2. He was released only after a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 was filed
on his behalf and reliefs like Rehabilitation cost, medical charges and
compensation for illegal detention was prayed in the petition.
3. The Supreme Court held that under Article 21, the petitioner is entitled to
an award of INR 35,000 as compensation against the State of Bihar as he
was kept in the jail for 14 long years after his acquittal.
The Right To Privacy is protected as an intrinsic and essential part of
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the
freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Right of privacy may,
apart from contract, also arise out of a particular specific relationship, which
may be commercial, matrimonial or even political. Right to privacy is not an
absolute right; it is subject to reasonable restrictions for prevention of crime,
disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom
of others. Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which
advances public morality and public interest prevails.
Tapping of Telephone: Telephone tapping constitutes a serious invasion of an
individual’s right to privacy. Is it constitutionally permissible in India? If so,
within what limits and subject to what safeguards?
People s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v Union of India is related to phone
tapping and it discussed that whether telephone tapping is an infringement of
right to privacy under Article 21. Supreme Court argued that conversations on
the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character and
telephone-conversation is a part of modern man’s life. Supreme Court also said
that whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given
case would depend on the facts of the said case.
Naz Foundation Case (2009) Delhi HC gave the landmark decision on
consensual homosexuality. In this case Sec. 377 IPC and Articles 14, 19 & 21
were examined. Right to privacy held to protect a “private space in which man
may become and remain himself”. It was said individuals need a place of
sanctuary where they can be free from societal control where individuals can
drop the mask, desist for a while from projecting on the world the image they
want to be accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the values of their
peers rather than the realities of their nature.
Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975, Mathew, J. accepted the right to
privacy as an emanation from Art. 21, but right to privacy is not absolute
right. “Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen
have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental
right, the fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of
compelling public interest”. Surveillance by domiciliary visits need not always
be an unreasonable encroachment on the privacy of a person owing to the
character and antecedents of the person subjected to surveillance as also the
objects and the limitation under which the surveillance is made. The right to
privacy deals with ‘persons not places’.
Divorce Petition: Husband Tapping Conversation Of His Wife With Others
Seekingto Produce In Court, Violates Her Right To Privacy Under Article 21
In Rayala M. Bhuvneswari v. Nagaphomender Rayala 2007 the petitioner filed a
divorce petition in the Court against his wife 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. The Court
held that the act of tapping by the husband of conversation of his wife with
others without her knowledge was illegal and amounted to infringement of her
right to privacy under article 21 of the Constitution. These talks even if true
cannot be admissible in evidence.
The wife cannot be forced to undergo voice test and then asked the expert to
compare portion denied by her with her admitted voice. The Court observed
that the purity of the relation between husband and wife is the basis of
marriage. The husband was recording her conversation on telephone with her
friends and parents in India without her knowledge. This is clear infringement
of right to privacy of the wife. If husband is of such a nature and has no faith
in his wife even about her conversations to her parents, then the institution of
marriage itself becomes redundant.
R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal v State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 A prisoner had
written his autobiography in jail describing the conditions there and the nexus
between prisoners and several IAS and IPS officers. He had given the
autobiography to his wife so that she may publish it in a particular magazine.
However, the publication was restrained in various matters and the question
arose whether anyone has the right to be let alone and particularly in jail.
Court held Right to Privacy to be implicit in Article 21. “It is the right to be left
alone”. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family,
marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among many
other matters. In this case right of a prisoner to privacy recognized.
Court held that No one can publish anything concerning the above matters
without his consent, whether truthful or otherwise whether laudatory or
critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person
concerned and would be liable in the action of damages.
Mr. ‘X’ v Hospital ‘Z’ it was decided that when the right to privacy clashes with
the other fundamental right i.e. right of privacy one person and right to lead a
healthy life of another (society), then the right which would advance public
morality or public interest would alone be enforced. Samuel Warren and Louis
Brandeis discussed the same thing; they stated that “The right to privacy does
not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest"
 Right Against Honour Killing
A division bench of Allahabad high court, In Surjit Kumar v. State of U.P. took
serious note on harassment, in ill treatment and killing of a person who was a
major, for wanting to get married to a person of another caste or community,
for bringing dishonor to family since inter caste or inter community marriage
was not prohibited in law, the court said that such practice of “honour killing”
was a blot on society. The court, therefore, directed the police to take strong
measures, against those who committed such ‘honour killing’.
 Right to die with dignity
Art. 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life. Does, it also confers
a right not to live or a right to die if a person chooses to end his life? If so, what
is the fate of Sec. 309, I.P.C., 1860, which punishes a person convicted of
attempting to commit suicide?
State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal 1986. In this case the Bombay
High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes
right to die, and the hon’ble High Court struck down Section 309 of the IPC
that provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as
unconstitutional.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994, a two judge Division Bench of the Supreme
Court, took cognizance of the relationship/contradiction between Sec. 309,
I.P.C., and Art. 21. The Court supporting the decision of the High Court of
Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case held that the right to life embodies in
Art. 21 also embodied in it a right not to live a forced life, to his detriment
disadvantage or disliking.