Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Date: 8 June, 2020
Index
1. Introduction to Article 21
2.Right to Life
3. Right to Personal Property
4. Procedure established by law
5. The relation between Article 14,19 and 21
6. Important rights under Article 21
7. Article 21A
1. Introduction to Article 21
2.Right to Life
3. Right to Personal Property
4. Procedure established by law
5. The relation between Article 14,19 and 21
6. Important rights under Article 21
7. Article 21A
Introduction to Article 21
Article 21 is a part of Right to Freedom which is given under Part 3- Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution. This article is saying that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This right is available to citizens as well as non-citizens of this country.
Article 21 : Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
This article is talking about 3 important points:
1. Right to Life
2. Right to Personal Liberty
3. Procedure established by Law
1. Right to Life
2. Right to Personal Liberty
3. Procedure established by Law
1. Right to Life is a right which is giving every person the right to live a life full of dignity in this country. Non-payment of wages for the labourers is denying their Right to life with dignity. So we can clearly say that Right to Life also includes Right to Livelihood so that a person can live his life full of dignity and Free of Exploitation. This article includes various rights like Right to live in a clean environment etc.
2. Right to Personal Liberty: The term Personal liberty is too vast. So initially there were different opinions on what would constitute personal liberty in the Constitution.
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, the Supreme Court said that personal liberty means the liberty of the body which is freedom from arrest and detention from false detention. The Supreme Court added that the meaning of the word ‘law’ means state made law only. So clearly this was a narrow interpretation of the word Personal freedom and Law.
But in later cases, this view was corrected by the Judiciary. In the case of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) the court held that the word personal liberty would not only include Article 21 but also includes the 6 Fundamental Freedoms given under Article 19 (1).
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963, the court adopted a wider meaning of personal liberty and said that it will include all the rights which are given under the Article 19(1).
The meaning of Personal liberty was again decided in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978. In this case, the court has given the widest possible meaning of Personal liberty. The court said that personal liberty covers a variety of rights and some of those rights are given under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Any law which is made against Personal liberty must have:
1. Law
2. Procedure
3. Procedure must pass the test of Fundamental Rights.
4. Procedure must be in consonance with Article 14 and Article 19.
1. Law
2. Procedure
3. Procedure must pass the test of Fundamental Rights.
4. Procedure must be in consonance with Article 14 and Article 19.
3. Procedure established by Law: This means that the personal liberty of a person cannot be taken away from him without giving a procedure which is established by law. The law must be duly enacted by the legislature.
What is the meaning of Law under Article 21?
The meaning of the law is given a wide scope under Article 21. It means that the law must be enacted by a Legislature and it must be Just, Fair and Reasonable. Which means that the law must be having the features of Natural Justice? Not in all cases as seen in the popular case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India (NSA Case). In this case, the NSA act was given:
1. The power to arrest without giving the right of cross-examination.
2. No oral and documentary evidence to be given by the detenu to prove his innocence.
3. There is no right to be defended by a lawyer in the Act.
The court refused to give rights to the detained person in this Act, saying that this is a special piece of legislation (Preventive Detention Act).
1. The power to arrest without giving the right of cross-examination.
2. No oral and documentary evidence to be given by the detenu to prove his innocence.
3. There is no right to be defended by a lawyer in the Act.
The court refused to give rights to the detained person in this Act, saying that this is a special piece of legislation (Preventive Detention Act).
The relation between Article 14, 19 and 21
Initially in the Gopalan case, the Supreme Court said that Article 19 won’t be applied on Article 21 cases in which a person is deprived of his right of personal liberty.
But in the later case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that Article 19 and Article 14 will be applied while deciding the fate of a law which is depriving a person of his Personal Liberty.
It is important to understand that now not only the legislative actions but also the executive actions must pass the test of Article 14 and 19.
But in the later case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that Article 19 and Article 14 will be applied while deciding the fate of a law which is depriving a person of his Personal Liberty.
It is important to understand that now not only the legislative actions but also the executive actions must pass the test of Article 14 and 19.
Important Rights and cases of Article 21
1. Rights of Transgendered People: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Ors (2014)
The National Legal Services Authority filed a PIL to protect the interests of transgendered persons. In this case, the court said that the Gender of a person is to be decided by the person himself after looking into the Right to Life Article. So all the rights which are given to normal people must be given to transgendered people like Public toilets, medical care for transgendered people and the provisions of reservations under Article 15 and 16 must be extended to them as they are a minority class.
The National Legal Services Authority filed a PIL to protect the interests of transgendered persons. In this case, the court said that the Gender of a person is to be decided by the person himself after looking into the Right to Life Article. So all the rights which are given to normal people must be given to transgendered people like Public toilets, medical care for transgendered people and the provisions of reservations under Article 15 and 16 must be extended to them as they are a minority class.
2. Rights of Animals: Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
This case is talking about the rights which are given to animals (especially bulls used in Jallikattu festival). In this case, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) brought the attention of the court towards the cruelty and inhuman behaviour which is faced by the animals which are used in the Jallikattu festival. AWBI said that this is against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The court said that they have a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the rights of animals as they cannot take care of themselves. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution also gives the principle of compassion towards living beings and animals. So under this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Jallikattu Act was repugnant to the PCA Act, so it is constitutionally void.
This case is talking about the rights which are given to animals (especially bulls used in Jallikattu festival). In this case, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) brought the attention of the court towards the cruelty and inhuman behaviour which is faced by the animals which are used in the Jallikattu festival. AWBI said that this is against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The court said that they have a duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to take care of the rights of animals as they cannot take care of themselves. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution also gives the principle of compassion towards living beings and animals. So under this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Jallikattu Act was repugnant to the PCA Act, so it is constitutionally void.
3. Right to Privacy: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
This case is famously known as the Right to Privacy Judgement. In this case, the petitioner argued that Right to Privacy is an independent right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. On the other hand, the government of India argued that the Right to Privacy is only personal liberty to a limited extent.
Finally, the Court gave its verdict that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. So under this case, it was found that the Aadhar Act which was passed by the Government is violative of Right to Privacy. It is important to understand here that just like other Fundamental Rights, This Right to Privacy is not absolute and it can be curtailed by valid Amendments.
This case is famously known as the Right to Privacy Judgement. In this case, the petitioner argued that Right to Privacy is an independent right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. On the other hand, the government of India argued that the Right to Privacy is only personal liberty to a limited extent.
Finally, the Court gave its verdict that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. So under this case, it was found that the Aadhar Act which was passed by the Government is violative of Right to Privacy. It is important to understand here that just like other Fundamental Rights, This Right to Privacy is not absolute and it can be curtailed by valid Amendments.
4. Right of Natural Justice: A.K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982)This case is popularly known as the NSA case. In this case, it was to be decided that if the provisions of Natural Justice should be applied to the NSA act or not. This Act took away many important rights of a detained person like Right to be represented by a lawyer, Right to cross-examine the detaining authority etc.
The court said that Natural justice is important but it cannot be applied in all the acts. It is important to look at the circumstances and the purpose of making the Act. So based on this logic court upheld the NSA Act (1980).
The court said that Natural justice is important but it cannot be applied in all the acts. It is important to look at the circumstances and the purpose of making the Act. So based on this logic court upheld the NSA Act (1980).
Article 21 A: Right to Education
Education was always given high importance by the makers of the Constitution. As a result of which Article 45 was added in the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution. This Article is making a provision of Free and Compulsory Education to every child who is below the age of 14. It was to be achieved within 10 years of Indian Independence. But various governments failed in implementing this provision of the Constitution.
Later in the case of Mohini Jain v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 1992, the court gave a judgment that Right to Education is a Fundamental Right which is emanating from Article 21.
As a result of this 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 was passed. This amendment added Clause A in Article 21. This amendment made Free and compulsory education for every child of the age of 6-14 years.
After this amendment Parliament enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). This act legally guarantees Right to Education as a Fundamental Rights of Children between 6 to 14 years of age.
As a result of this 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 was passed. This amendment added Clause A in Article 21. This amendment made Free and compulsory education for every child of the age of 6-14 years.
After this amendment Parliament enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). This act legally guarantees Right to Education as a Fundamental Rights of Children between 6 to 14 years of age.
Article 21 A and its validity
In the case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors v. Union of India, 2014, The RTE Act and various sections related to it were challenged. The court upheld the validity of this Act. One important point to remember is that now all minorities aided and unaided schools are outside the purview of the Right to Education Act. There were various other points raised in this case like the basic structure of the constitution. But the court said clearly that no this Act is not affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.
