Project

Article 21 of The Constitution of India
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my immense gratitude to my teacher, Dr. Shruti Bedi who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful assignment on the topic “Article 21
of The Constitution of India”, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I
came to know about so many new things. I am really thankful to her.
Secondly, I would also like to thank the authors and the writers of various books,
commentaries and articles which helped me a lot in gaining in-depth knowledge of my
topic and compiling it in my project.
Mudit Gupta
(Student’s Signature)
1|Page
Constitution Assignment
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………...…...1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………...………………………4
TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………...…………………….5-7
ARTICLE 21: IN BRIEF………………..………………………...……………………8
PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY………………………………8-29
A. RIGHT TO LIFE…………………………………………………………….....8-16
DEFINITION………………………………………...…………………….8-9
DIFFERENT FACETS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE………………………..9-16
1. Right to Live with Human Dignity………………………………..…….10

2. Right to Reputation………………………………………………..…….11
3. Right to Livelihood………………………………………………..…….11-12
4. Right to Shelter……………………………………………………..…....12-13
5. Right to Clean Environment………………………………………..…....13-14
6. Right to Education…………………………………………………..…...14
7. Right to Know or Right to Be Informed……………………………..…..15
8. Right to Social Security & Protection of Family……………………..….15
9. No Right to Die or Commit Suicide…………………………………..….15-16
B. RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY………………………………………….….16-27
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY…...18-27
1. Right to Privacy…………………………………………………………..18-20
1.1.Right To Privacy & Telephone Tapping……………………………..19
1.2.Right To Privacy & Disclosure Of Certain Diseases………………...19
2|Page
1.3.Right To Privacy And Disclosure Of Information…………………...19-20

2. Right To Go Abroad……………………………………………………...20-21
3. Right Against Illegal Detention…………………………………………..21
ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER RIGHTS……………………………….22-27
1. Right To Free Legal Aid & Right To Appeal…………………………….22

2. Right To Speedy Trial…………………………………………………….22-24
3. Right To Get Bail…………………………………………………………24
4. Right Against Handcuffing……………………………………………….25
5. Right Against Bar Fetters…………………………………………………25-26
6. Right Against Delayed Execution………………………………………...26
7. Right Against Solitary Confinement………………………………….…..27
8. Right Of A Prisoner To Write A Book……………………………….…..27
9. Death By Hanging Not Violative Of Article 21……………………....…..27
C. INTERRELATION BETWEEN ARTICLES 21, 19 & 14……………………....28
D. RIGHT TO EDUCATION……………………………………………………….29-30
ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY………………………………………………..31
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………...32
3|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India.
2. The Indian Penal Code.
B. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis Buttorworths
Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2015.
2. Kumar, Narender; Constitutional Law of India, 9th Ed., Allahabad Law
Agency, Allahabad, 2015.
3. Pandey, J.N., The Constitution of India, 47th Edition, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 2010.
4. Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, 8th Edition, Universal Law Publishing
Co., Delhi, 2008.
C. ARTICLES
1. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-upholds-RTE-
Act/article12960710.ece
2. http://righttoeducation.in/sites/default/files/policy_brief_on_rte_reservation.pdf
3. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-
right-to-life-and-personal-liberty/
4. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm, by Vidhan Maheshwari.
5. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-right-
to-life-and-personal-liberty/#_edn97
D. WEBSITES
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.scconline.com/
3. https://barandbench.com/
4. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/
4|Page
TABLE OF CASES
SR. NO. CASE PAGE NO.

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. 17, 28
2. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701. 23
3. Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3173. 24
4. Associated Management of Primary and Secondary Schools 29
in Karnataka v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 (NOC) 2790
(Kar.).
5. Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 527. 24
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 10, 14
802.
7. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 12
1051.
8. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610. 21
9. DBM Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 AIR 2092, 25
1975 SCR (2) 24.
10. Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155. 27
11. Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 12
AIR 1991 SC 101.
12. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar & Anr. v. State Of NCT of 26
Delhi, WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) D.NO. 16039 OF
2011.
13. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, AIR 2004 SC 1834. 15
14. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 10
746.
15. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946. 16
16. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 22
1979 SC 1369.
5|Page
17. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861. 28

18. In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207. 31
19. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 21
1349.
20. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295. 9, 17, 18
21. L.K. Koolwel v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2. 13
22. LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, 15
AIR 1995 SC 1811.
23. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734. 13
24. M.H. Haskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548. 22
25. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. 18, 20, 28
26. Moses Wilson v. Karluriba, AIR 2008 SC 379. 22
27. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, AIR 1999 SC 495. 19
28. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, AIR 2003 SC 664. 19
29. Munn v. Illinois, (1877) 94 US 113. 9
30. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40: (2001) 8 13
SCC 765.
31. MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY, AIR 1997 12
Bom. 406.
32. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 11
SC 180.
33. P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844. 16
34. P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. R.S Naik, AIR 1992 SC 1701. 9
35. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 19, 20
1997 SC 568; AIR 2004 SC 456.
36. Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535. 25
37. R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, 15
Bombay Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 190.
38. Rajneesh Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 2007 MP 204. 9
6|Page
39. Re Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932. 11

40. Re: Noise Pollution, AIR 2005 SC 3136: (2005) SCC 733. 14
41. Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, AIR 1990 12
SC 630: (1990) 1 SCC 520.
42. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION 26
(CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013.
43. Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 465. 26
44. Society For Un-Aided P.School vs U.O.I & Anr., WRIT 30
PETITION (C) NO. 95 OF 2010.
45. State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780. 20
46. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia, AIR 24
1995 SC 1198: (1995) 3 SCC 221.
47. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, AIR 1966 27
SC 424.
48. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance 11
Trust, AIR 2007 SC 777.
49. Sukh Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 22
1986 SC 991: (1986) 2 SCC 401.
50. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675. 9, 25, 27
51. T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 26
643.
52. U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society 13
Limited, AIR 1996 SC 114.
53. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 14
1996 SC 2721: (1996) 5 SCC 647.
7|Page
ARTICLE 21: IN BRIEF
PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
Article 21 reads as:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.”
Article 21 secures two rights:
 Right to life; and

 Right to personal liberty.
Article 21 can be claimed only one a person is deprived of his ‘life’ or ‘personal liberty’ by
the state as defined by Article 12. It not only refers to the necessity to comply with the
procedural requirements, but also, substantive rights of a citizen. Violation of the right by a
private individual is not within the purview of Article 21.
A. RIGHT TO LIFE
 DEFINITION
The right to life does not merely mean that the continuous of a personal animal existence
butter quality of life
It means the fullest opportunity to develop one's personality and potential ATI to the
highest level possible in the existing stage of a civilization. Inevitably, it means the right to live
decently as a member of the civilized society. It is to ensure all freedoms and advantages that
8|Page
would go to make life agreeable. The right implies a reasonable standard of comfort and
decency.
In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Supreme Court quoted with
approval Field, J.‟s observation in Munn v. Illinois2, and held:
‘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 Administration3, 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.
According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme

importance in a democratic society.”4 Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural
magna carta protective of life and liberty.5 This right has been held to be the heart of the
Constitution,6 the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the
foundation of our laws.7
 DIFFERENT FACETS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
The courts in various decisions have given an extended connotation to the right to life the
different facets of the right as discussed below:-
1
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
2
(1877) 94 US 113.
3
AIR 1978 SC 1675.
4
Francis Coralis v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
5
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. R.S Naik, AIR 1992 SC 1701.
6
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861.
7
Rajneesh Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 2007 MP 204.
9|Page
1. Right To Live With Human Dignity
As already discussed Right to Life is not only confined to physical existence but includes
within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.
In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi8 the Supreme Court struck down Section
3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as
violation of Article 14 and 21. The impugned Section 3 provided that a detenu could have
interview with his legal adviser only one time in a month and that too only after obtaining prior
permission of the district magistrate, Delhi and to take place in the presence of customs officer.
Explaining the scope of the right to life and surrounding article 21 the court observed:
The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes
along with it namely the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition clothing and
shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse
norms forms freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human
beings.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India9 Bhagwati, J. observed:
It is a fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity
free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21
derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly
clauses (e) and (f) of article 39 and articles 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must
include protection of health and strength of the workers, men and women, and of the
tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop
in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, education facilities, just
and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
The right to life is, thus, held to include the right to food, clothing and shelter, reasonable
accommodation to live, the right to decent environment and also the right to live in a clean city.
8
AIR 1981 SC 746.
9
AIR 1984 SC 802
10 | P a g e
2. Right To Reputation
Reputation is an important part of one’s life. When reputation is hurt, a man is half dead.
It is fundamentally an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and
the privileged. It is one of the finer graces of human civilization which makes the life worth
living.10
The Supreme Court referring to an American Decision in the case of State of

Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust11, held that good reputation was an
element of personal security and was protected by the constitution, equally with the right to the
enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
3. Right To Livelihood
Earlier the Supreme Court took the view the right to life in Article 21 would not include
livelihood. In Re Sant Ram12, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall
within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21. This view of the court, however, underwent a change.
With the defining of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 in broad and expansive manner, the court came
to hold that “the right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to livelihood’.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation13, popularly known as the “Pavement

Dwellers Case” a five judge bench of the Court has finally ruled that the word “life” in Article
21 includes the right to livelihood also. The court opined that:
“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 to deprive
him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation … the state may not by
affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the
citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to
10
Kumar, Narender; Constitutional Law of India, 9th Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2015, at Page 322.
11
AIR 2007 SC 777
12
AIR 1960 SC 932
13
AIR 1986 SC 180.
11 | P a g e
just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the
right to life conferred in Article 21.”
In MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY14 held that a person tested positive for
HIV could not be rendered “medically unfit” solely on that ground so as to deny him the
employment.
In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress15, a regulation

conferring power on the authority to terminate the service of a permanent and confirmed
employee by issuing a notice without assigning a reason and without giving him a hearing has
been held to be wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 21. Sawant, J. has explained the position
as-
“The right to life includes the right to livelihood. Therefore, right to livelihood
cannot hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. Income is the foundation of
many Fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work
becomes much more fundamental.”
4. Right To Shelter
In Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame16, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right
to life is guaranteed in any civilised society. That would take within its sweep the right to food,
the right to clothing, the right to descent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in.
The difference between the need of an animal and human being for shelter has to be kept I view.
For an animal, it is bare protection of body; for human being it has to be a suitable
accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and
intellectual.
14
AIR 1997 Bom. 406.
15
AIR 1991 SC 101.
16
AIR 1990 SC 630: (1990) 1 SCC 520.
12 | P a g e
In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh17, the Supreme Court, emphasising on the
importance of the right to shelter as one of the basic human rights designed to ensure all facilities
to the man to develop himself as a member of a civilised society, opined that-
“Shelter for a human being is not merely the protection of his life and limb. It is
home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and
spiritually.”
It was again stated in U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society
Limited18, that the right to shelter is a fundamental right which springs from the right to
residence secured in Article 19 (1) (e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
5. Right To Clean Environment
The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to be lived in a proper
environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection19. Maintenance of health,
preservation of the sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of
Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and
reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created if not checked.20
On the question of ecology ad Article 21, the thinking of the court is that since the right
to life is a Fundamental right under Article 21, and since the Right to life connotes “quality of
life”, a person has right to the enjoyment of pollution free water and air to enjoy life fully. 21
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India22, the Supreme Court ordered closure of tanneries
which were polluting water and issued several guideline and directions for the protection of the
Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.
17
AIR 1996 SC 1051.
18
AIR 1996 SC 114.
19
See Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand, AIR 1980 SC 1622
20
L.K. Koolwel v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2.
21
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis Buttorworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2015, at
Page 1173.
22
AIR 1997 SC 734
13 | P a g e
The Supreme Court in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India23, held that the persons not
indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of act
of smokers. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of
someone smoking in a public place.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India24, the Court took cognizance of the
environmental problems being caused by tanneries which were polluting the water resources,
rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land. The Court issued several directions to
deal with the problem.
Noise pollution has also been dealt within the preview of Article 21 by the Apex Court in
In re: Noise Pollution25. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the
sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a
right to listen or to decline to listen. If anyone increases the his volume of speech and that too
with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a
noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of
others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution free life guaranteed in Article 21.
6. Right To Education
The Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India26, while interpreting
the scope of the “right to life” under article 21, held that it included “educational facilities”.
In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka27, the court referred to Bandhua Mukti Morcha
Case and held that “right to life” was the compendious expression for all those rights which the
courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. The court further
observed that the right to life under article 21 and the dignity of an individual could not be
assured unless it was accompanied by the right to education. The court thus declared: “the right
to education flows directly from right to life”.
23
AIR 2002 SC 40: (2001) 8 SCC 765.
24
AIR 1996 SC 2721: (1996) 5 SCC 647.
25
AIR 2005 SC 3136: (2005) SCC 733.
26
Supra note 9.
27
AIR 1992 SC 1858.
14 | P a g e
These observations of the Apex Court have been acknowledged as Incorporated by the
Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, inserting a new Article 21-A declaring right to
education an independent fundamental right.28
7. Right To Know Or Right To Be Informed
In the broader Horizon of the right to life, in this age of our land under Article 21, the right to
know has been held to be a basic right, which, citizens of a free country may aspire. Holding that
the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency, the Supreme Court in R.P. Ltd. v.
Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.29 observed that if the democracy had
to function effectively people must have a right to know and to obtain information about the
conduct of affairs of the state.
The Apex Court in Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti30 said that there was a strong
link between the article 21 and the right to know particularly where “secret government decisions
may affect health and life and the livelihood”.
8. Right To Social Security & Protection Of Family
Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ambit “the right to social
security and protection of the family.”
Socio-economic rights have been said to be basic aspirations for meaningful right to life
and that the right to social security and protection of family are integral part of the right to life.
The Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre31,
held that the right to life and livelihood included the “right to life insurance policies of LIC of
India” and that it must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured.
9. No Right To Die Or Commit Suicide
28
Kumar, Narender; Constitutional Law of India, 9th Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2015 at Page 330.
29
AIR 1989 SC 190
30
AIR 2004 SC 1834
31
AIR 1995 SC 1811.
15 | P a g e
If article 21 conferred on a person the right to live a dignified life does it also confirm
right not to leave every person chooses to end his life? If so then what is the fate of the
provisions in the Penal Code making attempt to commit the suicide penal?
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India32 a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, supporting

the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal Case, held that under Article
21 right to life also include right to die and laid down that section 309 of Indian Penal Court
which deals with “attempt to commit suicide is a penal offence” unconstitutional.
This view constituted an authority for the proposition that an individual has the right to
do as he places with his life and to end it if he so pleases.
But this was a radical view and could not last for long. The Rathinam ruling came to be
reviewed by full bench of the court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab33, where a five-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the
above stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Section 309, IPC was
neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14. The court held that the “right to life” under Article
21 did not include “the right to die.”
The Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is termination of life of a person who is terminally ill, or in a persistent vegetative
state. In such a case death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent. The process
of natural death has commenced; it is only reducing the period of suffering during the process of
natural death. This may include the right of a dying man to die with dignity when his life is
ebbing out. But this cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the
natural span of life.
32
AIR 1994 SC 1844
33
AIR 1996 SC 946
16 | P a g e
B. RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY
The expression “personal liberty” used in Article 21 has also been given a liberal
interpretation. It does not mean merely the liberty of the body, .i.e., freedom from physical
restraints or freedom from confinement within bounds of a prison. In other words, it means not
only freedom from arrest or detention, from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement, but it
means much more than that. The term personal liberty is not used in a narrow sense but has been
used in Article 21 as compendious term to include within it all those variety of rights of a person
which go to make up the personal liberty of a man.34
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras35, the petitioner, a leader of the communist party,
was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
The Supreme Court took a liberal view of the expression “personal liberty”. The
court held that since the word “liberty” was qualified by the word “personal” which was a
narrow concept, the expression “personal liberty” did not include all that was implied in
the term “liberty”. So interpreted the expression “personal liberty” meant nothing more
than the liberty of physical body i.e., freedom from arrest and detention from false
imprisonment or wrongful confinement.
Later, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh36, where the court did not follow the
narrow interpretation laid down by the A.K. Gopalan case and held that:
“Personal Liberty” is used in Article 21 as a compendious term to include within

itself all the varieties if rights which go to make up the „personal liberty‟ of a man other
than those dealt with in several Clauses under Article 19(1). While Article 19(1) deals
with particular species or attributes of that freedom, “personal liberty” in Article 21 takes
in and comprises the residue.
34
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis Buttorworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2015 at
Page 1125.
35
AIR 1950 SC 27.
36
Supra note 1.
17 | P a g e
The Court further also said in the said case that unauthorised intrusion into a person’s
home and the disturbance caused to him thereby violated his right to “personal liberty” enshrined
in Article 21.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India37, the Supreme Court expanded the horizons of the
term “Personal Liberty” to give it the widest possible meaning. The Court held:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it

covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man and some of
them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional
protection under Article 19.”
In this case the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21 and it was with this
decision that the court started laying down new constitution jurisprudence.
 DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY
Various aspect of the right to personal liberty are discussed in the various facets of personal
liberty that follow.
1. Right To Privacy
“Privacy” has been defined as “the state of being free form intrusion or disturbance in one’s
private life and in affairs.” The constitution does not contain specific and express terms any right
to privacy as such. Right to Privacy is no enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the constitution
was such a right has been called by the Supreme Court from article 21 and several other
provisions of the Constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
For the first time, in 1963, in the case of Kharak Singh38 question was raised by the right
to privacy could be implied from the existing Fundamental Rights such as article 19(1)(d),
19(1)(e) and 21 the m SC ajority of the judges participating in the decision said of the right to
privacy that our constitution does not in terms conferred to any constitutional guarantee on the
37
AIR 1978 SC 597.
38
Supra note 1.
18 | P a g e
other hand the minority of opinion was in favour of ensuring the right to privacy from the
expression personal liberty in article 21.
1.1. Right To Privacy & Telephone Tapping

In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India39, the Supreme Court
explained that the right to hold a telephone conversation in privacy from one’s home or
office, without interference, could certainly be claimed as right to privacy, a part of the
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This right however may not be
absolute.
1.2. Right To Privacy & Disclosure Of Certain Diseases
In Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’40, the question before the Supreme Court was whether
the disclosure by the doctor that his patient, who was to get married had tested HIV
positive, would be violative of the patient’s right to privacy.
The Division Bench of the hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy
was not absolute and might be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or
protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.
The court explained that the right to life of a lady with whom the patient was to
marry would positively include the right to be told that a person, with whom she was
proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually
communicable. Since the ‘right to life’ included right to healthy life so as to enjoy all the
facilities of the human body in the prime condition it was held that the doctors had not
violated the right to privacy.
Latest court in Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’41, held that the observations made by them
in their earlier decision42 were held to be uncalled for and confined to it and find it to that
“it was open to the hospital or the doctor concerned to reveal such information two
39
AIR 1997 SC 568
40
AIR 1999 SC 495.
41
AIR 2003 SC 664.
42
Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, AIR 1999 SC 495.
19 | P a g e
persons revealed to the girl whom he intended to marry and she had a right to know
about the HIV positive status of the appellant.”
1.3. Right To Privacy And Disclosure Of Information
The Right to Privacy is not an absolute right. It is said to be subservient to
security of the state. Highlighting the necessity of people’s assistance in direction of
crime, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh43 observed that it was the
statutory duty of every witness who has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, to
assist the state in giving evidence.
Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, conferred power on the
investigating officer to ask for furnishing information that was useful for or relevant to
the purpose of the Act. Upholding the constitutionality of this provision in People's
Union of for Civil Liberties v. Union of India44, Supreme Court observed that it was
settled position of law that a journalist or a lawyer did not have a sacrosanct right to
withhold information regarding crime under the guise of professional ethics. However, if
in the process of obtaining information, if the right of a citizen was violated, nothing
prevented from him resorting to other legal remedies, the Court ruled.
2. Right To Go Abroad
The Right to Move Freely is an attribute of Personal Liberty. The right to travel abroad has been
held to be included within the expression of Personal Liberty within the meaning of article 21.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India45 the question before the seven judge bench of the
Supreme Court related to the validity of section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, which
empowered the government to impound the passport of a person in the interest of general public.
Delivering the majority judgement, Bhagwati J. upheld the constitutionality of impugned

section as not violative of Article 14, 19 or Article 21. However, the Court laid down the
principles of law in respect of the scope of the rights conferred by Article 14 and 21.
43
AIR 1997 SC 2780.
44
AIR 2004 SC 456.
45
Supra note 37.
20 | P a g e
The Court held that Article 21 required a procedure established by law for depriving
him of his rights to Personal Liberty. The procedure contemplated in Article 21 could not be
arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.
The court further stated that it must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive, otherwise, it should be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21
would not be satisfied.
3. Right Against Illegal Detention
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh46, the petitioner was detained by the police
officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days.
Taking the serous note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the
Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during investigation:
 An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have a friend,

relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he
is being detained.
 The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police
station of this right.
 An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.
The Court said that “no arrest can be made me early because it is lawful for the Police
Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the
exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from
this part to do so.”
In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal47, the Supreme Court laid down detailed
guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and
detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures and held that any
46
AIR 1994 SC 1349.
47
AIR 1997 SC 610.
21 | P a g e
form of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation,
investigation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.
 ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER RIGHTS:

1. Right To Free Legal Aid & Right To Appeal
In M.H. Haskot v. State of Maharashtra48, the Supreme Court said while holding free
legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure the Court explained that
“the two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; (a) service of a copy of a
judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal, and (b) provision of free
legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal
assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit
aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as
government charity.”
In other words, an accused person at lease where the charge is of an offence punishable
with imprisonment is entitled to be offered legal aid, if he is too poor to afford counsel. Counsel
for the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defence.
The hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukh Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh49
validated these sfeguards, stating that “breach of these safeguards of fair trial would invalidate
the trial and conviction”.
2. Right To Speedy Trial
As stated in Moses Wilson v. Karluriba50, a procedure cannot be reasonable, fair and just
unless it ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of the person deprived of his liberty.
48
AIR 1978 SC 1548.
49
AIR 1986 SC 991: (1986) 2 SCC 401.
50
AIR 2008 SC 379.
22 | P a g e
In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar51, it was brought to the notice of
the Supreme Court that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons
for years awaiting trial in courts of law. The Court took a serious note of thesituation and
observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system which permitted incarceration of
men and women for such long periods of time without trials.
The Court held that detention of under-trial prisoners, in jail for period longer than what they
would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal as being in violation of Article of 21. The
Court, thus, ordered the release from jail of all those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail
for longer period than what they could have been sentenced had they been convicted.
In Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak52, a Constitution Bench of five judges of the
Supreme Court dealt with the question and laid down certain guidelines for ensuring speedy trial
of offences some of them have been listed below:
1. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused
to be tried speedily.
2. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the
stage of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial.
3. The concerns underlying the right of speedy trial from the point of view of the accused
are:
(a) The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.
(b) The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from
an unduly prolonged investigation, enquiry or trial should be minimal; and
(c) Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend him.
4. While determining whether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to all the
attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and
witnesses, and the workload of the court concerned.
5. Each and every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused.
51
AIR 1979 SC 1369.
52
AIR 1992 SC 1701.
23 | P a g e
6. An accuser’s plea of denial of speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the
accused did at no time demand a speedy trial.
7. The Court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors – “balancing test” or
“balancing processes” – and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial
has been denied in a given case.
8. An objection based on denial of right to speedy trial and for relief on that account
should first be addressed to the High Court. Such, proceedings in the High Court must
be disposed on a priority basis.
In the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar53, the Supreme Court directed the Judges of the High
Courts to give quick judgements and in certain circumstances the parties are to submit
application to the Chief Justice to move case to other bench or to do the needful at his discretion.
3. Right To Get Bail
The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to be the
present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail which insists merely on financial security
from the accused and their sureties. Many of the under trials being poor and indigent are unable
to provide any financial security. Consequently they have to languish in prisons awaiting their
trials.54
In the case of Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh55, the Court held that right to bail was
included in the personal liberty under Article 21 and its refusal would be deprivation of that
liberty which could be authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia56 held
that anticipatory bail is a statutory right and it does not arise out of Article 21. Anticipatory bail
cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be
considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.
53
AIR 2001 SC 3173.
54
Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 7th Edition, LexisNexis Buttorworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2015 at
Page 1138.
55
AIR 1978 SC 527.
56
AIR 1995 SC 1198: (1995) 3 SCC 221.
24 | P a g e
4. Right Against Handcuffing
Hand cuffing has been held to be prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-
harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration57, it has been held to
be unwarranted and violative of Article 21. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the
Rules58 which provided that every under-trial who was accused of a non-bailable offence
punishable with more than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. The Court
ruled that handcuffing should be resorted to only when there was “clear and present danger of
escape” of the accused under-trial, breaking out of police control.
5. Right Against Bar Fetters
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration59, the Supreme Court laid down that the treatment of
a human being which offended human dignity, imposed avoidable torture and reduce the man to
the level of beast would certainly be arbitrary and could be question under article 21 and 14.
In the writ petition, the facts were that Charles Sobhraj, a French National was arrested
and was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. He alleged
that ever since he was lodged in Tihar Jail, he was putting bar fetters and the fetters were
retained continuously for 24 hours a day.
The court ordered the removal of the bar fetters put on the petitioner and ruled that the
question of reimposing them would not arise until and unless the requirements of Section 5660 so
warranted and the safeguards were observed.
Therefore putting bar fetters for an unusually long period without due regard for the safety of
the prisoner and the security of the prison would certainly be not justified.
The court in the case of DBM Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh61, where a Naxalite
prisoner lodged in Vishakhapatnam jail filed a petition contending that electric fencing around
57
AIR 1980 SC 1535.
58
Para 26.22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
59
Supra note 3.
60
Section 56 of the Prison Act, 1894, which does not permit the use of bar fetters for unusually long period.
61
1974 AIR 2092, 1975 SCR (2) 24.
25 | P a g e
the prison amounts to violation of his right to liberty under Article 21 as the live wire mechanism
fixed top the jail was an unconstitutional act, because petitioner attempting to escape would, by
the use of the device be virtually subject to death penalty.
Supreme Court rejecting the contention stated that they had no fundamental freedom to
escape. A convict had no write more than anyone else had, to dictate whether guards are to be
posted to prevent the escape of prisoner. Installation of liver mechanism did not offend their
freedom because they would be coming into contact with it only if they attempt to escape from
the prison.
6. Right Against Delayed Execution
In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu62, the Supreme Court held that delay in
execution of death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection
under Article 21 and the death sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of
the delay is immaterial, the accused himself may be the cause of the delay.
In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab63, the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for
execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only
way to undo that is through Article 21. But the Court held that this cannot be taken as the rule of
law and applied to each case and each case should be decided upon its own faces.
Overruling its earlier judgement in Bhullar v. NCT Delhi64 in the case of Shatrughan
Chauhan v. Union of India65, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark
judgment on the death penalty: holding, in particular, that an excessive delay in carrying out the
death sentence was an essential mitigating factor in a plea for commutation.
62
AIR 1981 SC 643
63
AIR 1983 SC 465.
64
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar & Anr. v. State Of NCT of Delhi, WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) D.NO. 16039 OF
2011.
65
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013.
26 | P a g e
7. Right Against Solitary Confinement
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration66, the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Delhi
session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high court. He was
detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of
conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement. It was contended that
Section 30 of Prisoners Act does not authorize jail authorities to send him to solitary
confinement, which by itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could be imposed by a court of law and it could not be left to the
whim and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the argument of the
petitioner and held that imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of
Article 21.
8. Right Of A Prisoner To Write A Book
In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang67, the petitioner while under detention in

jail wrote a book on science and sought the permission from the Government to send the
manuscript of the book to his wife for publication, to which the Government refused. The Court
held that this was an infringement of personal liberty and that Article 21 included the right to
write the book and get it published.
9. Death By Hanging Not Violative Of Article 21
In Deena v. Union of India68, the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging
was challenged as being “barbarous, inhuman, and degrading” and therefore violative of Article
21. Referring to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949; the opinion of the Director
General of Health Services of India, the 35th Report of the Law Commission; and the opinion of
the Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts, the Court held that death by hanging was
the best and least painful method of carrying out the death penalty, and thus not violative of
Article 21.
66
Supra note 3.
67
AIR 1966 SC 424.
68
AIR 1983 SC 1155.
27 | P a g e
C. INTERRELATION BETWEEN ARTICLES 21, 19 & 14
There has been no controversy about the relationship between Articles 21 and 14 and that
validity of law providing for deprivation of personal liberty has been tested under Article 14.
As regards the relationship between Articles 21 and 19, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras69, the Supreme Court held that these two Articles dealt with different subjects. While,
Article 19 empowered the State to impose responsible restrictions on the freedoms contained
therein, Article 21 provided that the State could deprive a person of his life or personal liberty in
accordance with procedure established by law. The Court ruled that such a procedure would not
be required to meet the challenge of Article 19.
But in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India70, the Supreme Court overruled Gopalan’s
ruling and held that Article 21 was controlled by Article 19. That, a procedure established by law
under Article 21 to deprive a person of his life and liberty must satisfy the requirements of
Article 19 also.
Thus, it was held that a law depriving a person of personal liberty has not only to stand
the test of Article 21 but it must also satisfy the requirements of Articles 19 and 14.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu71, the Supreme Court ruled that Articles 14, 19
and 21 represented the foundational values, which formed the basis of judicial review apart from
the rule of law and separation of powers. These Articles, the Court ruled, “is the golden triangle,
the basic feature of the Constitution, as it stands for equality and rule of law.
69
Supra note 35.
70
Supra note 37.
71
AIR 2007 SC 861.
28 | P a g e
D. RIGHT TO EDUCATION
The 86th(Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution
which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children
from the age of six to 14 years (fundamental right). The Parliament enacted the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to give effect to this amendment.
Article 21-A reads:
“The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to
fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.”
Article 21-A added by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002 makes the education
from 6 to 14 years old, fundamental right, within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution.
Article 21-A may be read with the new substituted Article 45 and new clause (k) inserted
in Article 51-A by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002.
While the new Article 45 calls upon the State “to endeavour to provide early childhood
care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years” Clause (k) inserted
in Article 51-A imposes a fundamental duty on parent/guardian “to provide opportunities for
education to his child or, as the case may be, ward, between the age of six and fourteen years.”
In Associated Management of (Government Recognised Unaided English Medium)

Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. State of Karnataka72, a full Bench of
Karnataka High Court held that by virtue of Article 21-A, the medium of instructions was to be
entirely the choice of the parents and the student and that no one could claim to know better than
the parents about the child, to decide as to what the child required in the sphere of education, the
shape the career and destiny.
In its landmark judgment of Society For Un-Aided P.School vs U.O.I & Anr.73, the
Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the Right to Free and Compulsory
72
AIR 2008 (NOC) 2790 (Kar.).
73
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 95 OF 2010.
29 | P a g e
Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which mandates a minimum of 25% free seats for children
belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups (EWS) in all private unaided primary
schools. In particular, Section 12 (1)(c) of the RTE Act stipulates that the 25% reservation be
implemented while admitting students to Class 1.
30 | P a g e
ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY
In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla74, popularly known as habeas corpus case, the supreme
court held that article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty and
therefore, if the right to move any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by the
presidential order under Article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for
challenging the legality of his detention.
Such a wider connotation given to article 359, resulted in the denial of the cherished right
to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established that during the emergence
of 1975, the fundamental freedom of the people had lost all meanings.
In order that it must not occur again, the constitution act, 1978, amended article 359 to
the effect that during the operation of the proclamation of emergency, the remedy for the
enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a
presidential order.
74
AIR 1976 SC 1207.
31 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is guaranteed in Part III under the category of
Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) and particularly under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.
The Supreme Court of India in the famous Gopalan Case in 1950 held that protection
under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not against arbitrary
legislative action. However, in the Maneka Gandhi Case in 1973 the Supreme Court overruled
its judgement in the Gopalan Case by widely interpreting Article 21. It stated that protection
under Article 21 should be available not only against arbitrary executive action but also against
arbitrary legislative action.
As stated above in several cases, the Supreme Court of India played a significant role
while interpreting Article 21 of the constitution. In this way the Supreme Court has expanded the
liabilities, duties and responsibilities of the State and its authorities thorough its interpretative
and activist judicial process.
It is quite possible that in course of time, the Court may possibly be able to imply some
more rights for the people in interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution because the concept of
dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 seems to be inexhaustible in range and scope.
32 | P a g e

Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 21 of The Constitution of India

ARTICLE 21: IN BRIEF………………..………………………...……………………8

PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY………………………………8-29

DIFFERENT FACETS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE………………………..9-16

1. Right to Live with Human Dignity………………………………..…….10

DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY…...18-27

1.3.Right To Privacy And Disclosure Of Information…………………...19-20

ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER RIGHTS……………………………….22-27

1. Right To Free Legal Aid & Right To Appeal…………………………….22

ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY………………………………………………..31

SR. NO. CASE PAGE NO.

17. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861. 28

39. Re Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932. 11

ARTICLE 21: IN BRIEF

PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

Article 21 reads as:

Article 21 secures two rights:

 Right to life; and

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme

 DIFFERENT FACETS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE

1. Right To Live With Human Dignity

The Supreme Court referring to an American Decision in the case of State of

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation13, popularly known as the “Pavement

In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress15, a regulation

5. Right To Clean Environment

7. Right To Know Or Right To Be Informed

8. Right To Social Security & Protection Of Family

9. No Right To Die Or Commit Suicide

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India32 a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, supporting

B. RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

“Personal Liberty” is used in Article 21 as a compendious term to include within

“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it

 DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

1.1. Right To Privacy & Telephone Tapping

Delivering the majority judgement, Bhagwati J. upheld the constitutionality of impugned

3. Right Against Illegal Detention

 An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have a friend,

 ARTICLE 21 AND PRISONER RIGHTS:

2. Right To Speedy Trial

3. Right To Get Bail

4. Right Against Handcuffing

5. Right Against Bar Fetters

6. Right Against Delayed Execution

7. Right Against Solitary Confinement

8. Right Of A Prisoner To Write A Book

In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang67, the petitioner while under detention in

9. Death By Hanging Not Violative Of Article 21

C. INTERRELATION BETWEEN ARTICLES 21, 19 & 14

Article 21-A reads:

In Associated Management of (Government Recognised Unaided English Medium)

ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY

You might also like