Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Context

Article 21 of the Constitution states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

The expression “no person” covers both citizens and non-citizens. Although the provision is brief, judicial interpretation has progressively expanded its scope to cover several dimensions of human life and personal liberty.

Constitutional Evolution

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950

• The Supreme Court initially adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 21. The expression “procedure established by law” was understood to mean that deprivation of life or personal liberty could be permitted when supported by a valid law and the procedure prescribed by it.
• This approach did not substantially examine whether the procedure itself was fair or reasonable.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978

• The Supreme Court subsequently gave Article 21 a broader interpretation. It held that the procedure affecting life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful, oppressive or unreasonable.
• The judgment also emphasised the interrelationship among Articles 14, 19 and 21, forming what is commonly described as the constitutional “Golden Triangle.”
• This marked an important shift in the judicial understanding of “procedure established by law”.

3. Life and Human Dignity

• The meaning of “life” under Article 21 extends beyond mere physical existence.
• In Francis Coralie Mullin, the Supreme Court linked the right to life with human dignity and the ability to live a meaningful life. Thus, Article 21 came to protect dimensions of existence necessary for a dignified human life rather than merely ensuring physical survival.
• This interpretation provided the basis for recognising several rights within the broader scope of life and personal liberty.

4. Individual Autonomy

• Article 21 protects important choices concerning an individual’s personal life.
• In Shafin Jahan, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of an adult’s choice of partner. In Shakti Vahini (2018), the Court also addressed interference by family or community with the choices of consenting adults.
• However, Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) clarified that protection of individual choice does not amount to an unqualified fundamental right to marry.
• The Court has also connected Article 21 with bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy. Decisions such as Suchita Srivastava, NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar contributed to the recognition of reproductive choice, gender identity, sexual autonomy and individual dignity.

Privacy and Digital Liberty

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as an inherent part of the right to life and personal liberty.

The protection extends to matters including:

1. control over one’s body;
2. personal identity;
3. family and personal choices;
4. personal information; and
5. individual autonomy.

The right to privacy is not absolute. State interference must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate State objective, and satisfy the requirement of proportionality.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on internet access cannot be imposed arbitrarily. The issue was also linked with freedoms under Article 19, including speech and expression and the ability to conduct trade or business through the internet.

Socio-Economic Dimensions

Judicial interpretation has also connected Article 21 with conditions necessary for meaningful human existence.

1. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: recognised the right to livelihood as an aspect of the right to life.
2. Unni Krishnan: contributed to the recognition of the right to education, which was subsequently given express constitutional status through Article 21A.
3. Health: Article 21 has been read with the Directive Principles to emphasise the importance of health and conditions necessary for dignified living.
4. Environment: judicial decisions have recognised the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of Article 21.
5. The Supreme Court has also recognised protection against the adverse effects of climate change within the broader protection associated with Article 21.

Rights of Prisoners

Imprisonment does not remove the protection of Article 21.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court emphasised protection against custodial violence, torture and degrading treatment.

The Article 21 framework has also been applied to:

1. legal aid;
2. protection against arbitrary detention;
3. speedy trial; and
4. compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

The importance of speedy trial was particularly highlighted in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar.

Right to Die with Dignity

1. Article 21 has also been interpreted in relation to end-of-life dignity.
2. In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised the right to die with dignity as an aspect of Article 21. This recognition does not establish an unrestricted right to die or a general right to suicide.
3. The Court recognised passive euthanasia within a regulated framework and addressed advance medical directives, commonly referred to as living wills.
4. The issue has also arisen in cases involving persons in prolonged vegetative states. In Harish Rana v. Union of India, the Supreme Court considered withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration or other assisted medical support in such circumstances, subject to the applicable safeguards.

Constitutional Significance

1. Article 21 functions as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary interference with life and personal liberty. Its interpretation has also enabled protection of interests that are closely connected with dignified human existence.
2. Its judicial development reflects the constitutional movement from a narrow protection of physical liberty towards a broader understanding of dignity, autonomy and meaningful living.

Conclusion

The interpretation of Article 21 has evolved with changing understandings of human dignity and personal liberty. Its continuing significance lies in maintaining constitutional protection for individual freedom while subjecting restrictions to constitutional safeguards.

FAQs

1. What is meant by “proportionality” in privacy cases?

Proportionality requires a reasonable relationship between the objective pursued by State action and the restriction imposed on an individual’s protected interest. The interference should not exceed what is necessary for the stated objective.

2. What is an advance medical directive?

It is a prior statement expressing a person’s preferences regarding medical treatment for circumstances in which the person may later be unable to communicate or make decisions.

3. What is passive euthanasia?

Passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing specified life-sustaining medical treatment in legally recognised circumstances, allowing the underlying medical condition to take its natural course.

4. Why is the right to privacy not absolute?

Protection of privacy must operate alongside legitimate State interests. An interference may be permissible where it has a legal basis, pursues a legitimate objective and satisfies the requirement of proportionality.

5. Why has Article 21 acquired such a broad scope?

Its broad scope has developed through judicial interpretation of the expressions “life” and “personal liberty”, allowing constitutional protection to respond to different dimensions of human existence.