Page | 1

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

1) Indian democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only to protect fundamental rights
of its citizens but also to establish an equal order. Law being an instrument of social
engineering obliges the judiciary to carry out the process established by it. The
Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III. These rights
are guaranteed by the constitution.
2) 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. The first
decision given to interpret the scope and meaning of life and personal liberty under
article 21 of the Indian constitution was Article 21 of Indian constitution a person can
lose his freedom with respect of his life and personal liberty only if he has committed
a crime. Nevertheless, the right to life does not comprise of the right to die, thus
suicide or even an attempt to suicide is an offence. Article 21, also includes the right
to travel abroad under personal liberty.
3) Article 21(A) was also included in 2002, by the 86th Amendment Act, which made
the right to primary education part of the right to freedom, stating that the State would
offer free and essential education to children from six to fourteen years of age. The
Union cabinet cleared the Right to Education Bill in 2008, after making an
amendment in the Indian Constitution.
4) A.K.Gopalan VS. State Of Madras (air 1950 sc 27)
The apex court interpreted that the words "procedure established by law" in article 21
are to be given a wide and fluid meaning of the expression "due process of law" as
given under the us. constitution but it refers to only state made statues laws. if
any statutory law prescribed procedure for depriving a person of his rights or personal
liberty it should meet the requirements of article 21
5) However, after 2 decades this was over ruled in the case of R.C.Cooper VS. Union
Of India (AIR 1970 SC 564) after this there where a series of decisions by the apex
court including that of maneka gandhi vs. Union of India in this case it was held
that any law that deprives the life and liberty must be just and fair krishna iyer j.

Page | 2

rightly said that "procedure" in article 21 means fair , not formal procedure law is
reasonable law not any enacted pieces. That article 21 confers positive rights to life
and liberty The word life in article 21 means a life of dignity and not just mere animal
survival (this was also upheld in the case of Francis caralie{(1993)1 scc 645}
6) The procedure of depriving a person of his life and liberty must be reasonable, air and
justIn the 1978, the 44th amendment of the constitution took place, article 359 was
amended, and it provided that article 20 and 21 could not be suspended even during
declaration of an emergency. In the case of P.Rathinam case held that right to live
includes right not to live. Physical as well as mental health both are treated as integral
part of right to live upholding that without good health , neither civil nor political
rights which constitution confers cant be enjoyed. Judiciary has played a vital role in
the interpretation and correct use of article 21.
7) The following are some cases on "right to life" through judicial activism
C Masilamani Mudaliar Vs. Idol Of Sri Swami Nathaswami Thrukoll {(1996)
8scc525/Pr22} Article 21 of the Indian constitution reinforces "right to life". Equity,
dignity of a person and the right to development are the inherent rights of every
human being. Life in its expanded horizon includes everything that gives meaning to a
person's life including culture, heritage and tradition with dignity of a person.
8) Noise Pollution (V), In Re, {(2005) 5 Scc 733/Pr 10}Article 21 guarantees right to
life and includes all those aspects which make a persons life meaningful, complete
and worth living. In the above case, it was held that any one who wishes to live in
peace, no one can claim a right to create noise even though he does so in his own
premises. Any noise, which materially interferes with the ordinary comforts of the life
of the other, judged by an ordinary prudent man is nuisance.
9) Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab {(1994) 3 scc 569}Speedy trail is an essential part
of the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 21 of the Indian constitution.
10) Unni krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the apex court has widened the scope of
article 21 and has provided with the rights article 21 embraces within itself. They are
Right to go abroad
Right to privacy
Right against solitary confinement

Page | 3

Right against delayed execution

Right to shelter
Right against custodial death
Right against public hearing
Doctor's assistance

Along with all these above-mentioned rights, it was also observed that the right to
education would also be included as apart of right to life.
11) A.k. bindal vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163 It was held that no person should
be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law.Thus with the above brief preview of article 21 it is clear that it has
a multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the part
of any state depriving the life or personal liberty would be against article 21 of the
Indian constitution.