Module: 17- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)

Suggested Readings

Resources

1. Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights by S. N. Ray Review by: Z. M. Quraishi The Indian Journal

of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 3 (JULY-SEPTEMBER 1974), pp. 289-290

2. D. Nagasaila and V. Suresh, “Can Right to Education Be a Fundamental Right?,” Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 27, No. 45 (Nov. 7, 1992), pp. 2442-2443

3. R. Blackford, “Stem Cell Research on Other Worlds, or Why Embryos Do Not Have a Right to Life,”

Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Mar., 2006), pp. 177-180

4. A. G. Noorani, “Right to Privacy,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 9 (Feb. 26 - Mar. 4,

2005), p. 802

5. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, “Narcoanalysis: A Dangerous Mirage,” Economic

and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 27/28 (Jul. 14-20, 2007), pp. 2857-2859

6. Jean Drèze, “Democracy and Right to Food,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 17 (Apr.

24-30, 2004), pp. 1723-1731

7. John C. Chambers, Lesley A. M. Evans, Joe Brierley, Andrew G. Rivett, Nanjegowda Vijayashankara,

William O. Tarnow-Mordi and Birte Twisselmann, “Right To Die,” BMJ: British Medical Journal,

Vol. 330, No. 7504 (Jun. 11, 2005), pp. 1388-1389

8. The Emergency, Future Safeguards and the Habeas Corpus Case: A Criticism by H. M. Seervai,

Review by: Colin Turpin, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Nov., 1978), pp. 368-369

Web links

1. http://www.jstor.org

2. http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/

3. http://www.tandfonline.com/

4. http://home.heinonline.org/

5. http://www.manupatra.in/Asp/DataBaseDirectory.aspx
 6. http://www.journalcra.com/sites/default/files/5842_0.pdf

Interesting Facts

 The Supreme Court in Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary,
Union of India and others, decided on 23 February, 2012, noted that even if an assembly was
illegal, the action of police under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) without
giving any hearing to the sleeping individuals was not reasonable. Therefore, the court
declared that right of privacy of sleeping individuals was immodestly and brutally outraged by
the State police action. the lessons of life, and imparted knowledge, and further also damage
their ability to learn to deal with the diversity of India, and gain access to knowledge of its
problems, so that they can appreciate how they can apply their formal knowledge in concrete
social realities they will confront.

 The Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, recognized the right to marry as a
fundamental part of right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court said
that a major person can marry any person of his own choice in the free and democratic world.

 In Selvi v. State of Karnataka , the Supreme Court held that compulsory administration of any
of the techniques, like narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and brain Electrical Activation
Profile(BEAP) test, is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It was
also recognized that forcible intrusion into a person‟s mental processes is also an affront to
human dignity and liberty, often with grave and long-lasting consequences. This is for the
first time when the court recognized an individual‟s mental privacy in India.

Points to Ponder

Points to Ponder:

• The concept of personal autonomy as a part of right to life and personal liberty in India is yet
to be developed.

• The coordination between the executive policies and execution of judicial decisions still to be
strengthened.

• Currently, the freedoms of association and peaceful protest are in issue. Balanced rules and
regulations are required.

• India‟s obligation under International law regarding the protection of human rights is required
to be clarified.
• In the era of liberalisation, privatization, and globalisation, it is necessary to develop the
concept of „state‟ liberally so that fundamental rights of the individuals get protected.

• It is required to analyse the situation where private entities performing public functions are
accused of violating the subjects‟ fundamental rights.