1

SVKM’S

JITENDRA CHAUHAN COLLEGE OF LAW, VILE PARLE (MUMBAI).

TOPIC OF THE PROJECT –

SIGNIFICANCE OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY : LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF

SUPREME COURT

SUBJECT –

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

NAME –

YASHI TANSUKH JAIN

DIVISION AND ROLL NO. –

C – 136

SUBMITTED TO –
 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the accomplishment of this project successfully, many people have bestowed upon me

their blessings, guidance and support, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all of

them.

Primarily, I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Priya Shah, Principal, Jitendra Chauhan

College of Law for constant guidance and encouragement throughout my ongoing academic

course.

I express deep and sincere gratitude to whose guidance, valuable

suggestions, very constructive instructions and kind supervision have contributed immensely

to the evolution of my ideas on this project.

Lastly, I will be forever grateful for the support extended by my parents, friends and

classmates and for being immensely helpful in various phases of completion of the project.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR NO. PARTICULARS PG NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. MEANING AND CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND 5
PERSONAL LIBERTY

3. SUPREME COURT LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS 5

 RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY - Kharak Singh v. 5
State of Uttar Pradesh and Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration
 RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY - Maneka 6
Gandhi v. Union of India

 RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSEMENT AT 6

WORKPLACE - Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

 RIGHT TO SHELTER - Chameli Singh v. State of U.P 7

 RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND PROTECTION 8

OF FAMILY - N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh,
(Chakmas Case),
 RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE- Parmananda Katara v. 8
Union of India
 RIGHT TO CLEAN ENVIRONMENT - M.C. Mehta v. 8
Union of India (1988), , M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1997), Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
 RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD - Maneka Gandhi v. 9
Union of India
 RIGHT TO INFORMED- R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian 9
Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.,
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti,
 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - Triple Talaq Case 10
4. OTHER RIGHTS THAT COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF 10
ARTICLE 21

5. CONCLUSION 11
6. BIBILOGRAPHY 11
 4

INTRODUCTION

Article 21 reads as:

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

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

importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural
magna carta protective of life and liberty.

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive
provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.

Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty”
by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not
within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien.
Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right
to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

MEANING AND CONCEPT OF ‘RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY’

„Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.‟ The right to life is
undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in
question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights
can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense
primary, since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it. There
would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted
in its original sense. This Section will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by
the Supreme Court of India.
 5

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” „Life‟ in
Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote
mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning
which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to
pollution free air, etc.

Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as a human
being and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a man‟s life meaningful,
complete, and worth living. It is the only article in the Constitution that has received the
widest possible interpretation. Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found
shelter, growth, and nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic
requirements that are essential and unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to
life.

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS ELABARATING THE ARTICLE

21 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

 RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Supreme Court quoted
and held that:

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 armored 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.

The meaning of the term „personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in
the Kharak Singh‟s case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of
the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary
visits and secret picketing. Oddly enough both the majority and minority on the bench
relied on the meaning given to the term “personal liberty” by an American judgment

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/619152/
 6

(per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois2, which held the term „life’ meant something more
than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all
those limits and faculties by which the life was enjoyed.

This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an
arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body
through which the soul communicated with the outer world. The majority held that the
U. P. Police Regulations authorizing domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a
form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional.
The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the
right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person,
whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to
all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen
except only those „necessarily‟ lost as an incident of imprisonment

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 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.

 RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India3, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21
and held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the
right to live with human dignity.

 RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARRASEMENT AT WORKPLACE

Art. 21 guarantees the right to life right to life with dignity. The court in this context
has observed that:

2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munn_v._Illinois
3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/
 7

“The meaning and content of fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution of India
are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality including
prevention of sexual harassment or abuse.”

Sexual Harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of
the most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in
Art. 21.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan4, the Supreme Court has declared sexual

harassment of a working woman at her work as amounting to the violation of rights of
gender equality and rights to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Articles 14,
15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in the
absence of enacted law to provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights of
gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment laid down the following
guidelines:

1. All employers or persons in charge of workplace whether in the public or

private sector should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment.
Without prejudice to the generality of this obligation they should take the
following steps:
a. Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace
should be notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways.
b. The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to
conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual
harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the
offender.
c. As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid
prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946.
d. Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure,
health, and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment
towards women at workplaces and no employee woman should have
reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her
employment.
2. Where such conduct amounts to specific offenses under I.P.C, or under any
other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with
law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.
3. The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of
perpetrator or their own transfer.

4
https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-analysis-vishaka-ors-v-state-of-rajasthan-ors-1997-6-scc-241-landmark-case-on-
sexual-harassment/
 8

 RIGHT TO SHELTER

In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P5, a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court had
considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every
citizen and it was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as encompassing
within its ambit, the right to shelter to make the right to life more meaningful. The
Court observed that:

however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and

spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent
structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water,
electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy
access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere
right to a roof over one‟s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable
them to live and develop as a human being

 RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF FAMILY

In N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (Chakmas Case)6, the supreme court said that
the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or
otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons to threaten other person or group
of persons. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of
persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from
such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as
statutory obligations.

 RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India7, the Supreme Court has very specifically
clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that
„once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored.‟ It was held that it is the professional
obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured
immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with the police.

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18928039/
6
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767216/
7
https://www.legalbites.in/parmanand-katara-v-union-of-india-1989/
 9

 RIGHT TO CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment
free from the dangers of diseases and infection. 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.

The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article 21:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988)8, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of
tanneries that were polluting water.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997)9, the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and
directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental
degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India10, the Court took cognizance of the
environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources,
rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. The Court issued several directions
to deal with the problem.

 RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11, the validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act
1967, which empowered the government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest
of the general public was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

8
https://lawtimesjournal.in/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-ganga-pollution-
case/#:~:text=Union%20of%20India%20%E2%80%93%20Ganga%20Pollution%20Case%20%E2%80%93%2
0Case%20Summary&text=Ganga%20is%20a%20trans%2Dboundary,flowing%20through%20India%20and%2
0Bangladesh.&text=Mehta%20filed%20a%20writ%20petition,effluents%20in%20the%20Ganga%20river.
9
https://lawtimesjournal.in/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-1986-taj-trapezium-case-case-
summary/#:~:text=The%20Court%20directed%20the%20UP,of%20the%20industries%20from%20TTZ.
10
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTA0NA==/Case-Analysis-Vellore-Citizens-Welfare-Forum-vs-Union-
of-India
11
https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
 10

It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of the right to “personal liberty” the
impugned section didn‟t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it
was violative of Art. 21.

The court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order
to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that as the right to travel
abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of
impounding passport under the Passport Act. BHAGWATI, J., observed:

“The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential

element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence
and that It must be “„right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive;
otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be
satisfied.”

 RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

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.12, observed that
if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain
the conduct of affairs of the State.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti13, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong
link between Art.21 and Right to know, particularly where “secret government decisions may
affect health, life, and livelihood.

 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

Triple Talaq Case:

Shayara Bano vs Union of India and others14,A multi-faith bench heard the controversial
triple talaq case in 2017.Though two judges upheld validity of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat),
the three other judges held that it was unconstitutional, thus barring the practice by 3–2
majority.One judge argued that triple talaq violated Islamic law.The bench asked the central
government to promulgate legislation within six months to govern marriage and divorce in

12
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351834/
13
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1319748/
14
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115701246/
 11

the Muslim community.The court said that until the government formulates a law regarding
triple talaq, there would be an injunction against husbands pronouncing triple talaq on their
wives.

 FOLLOWING ARE FEW RIGHTS WHICH COMES UNDER THE AMBIT

OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY WHICH ARE
SUPPORTED BY JUDGEMENTS OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT.

1. RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID - M.H. Hoscot vs. Maharashtra15,Right to

free Legal Aid is Fundamental Rights under Article 21.

2. RIGHT TO GET BAIL - In the case of Babu Singh v. State of Uttar

Pradesh16, the Court held that right to bail was included in the personal liberty
under Article 21 and its refusal would be the deprivation of that liberty which
could be authorized in accordance with the procedure established by law.

3. RIGHT AGAINST PUBLIC HANGING - the Supreme Court in Attorney

General of India v. Lachma Devi17, held that the direction for execution of
the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.

4. RIGHT TO WRITE A BOOK - In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar

Pandurang18, he 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.

5. RIGHT TO PRIVACY - Govind vs. State of M.P19,Supreme Court accepted

a limited Fundamental Rights to Privacy under Articles 19(1) (a) (d) & 21.

15
https://www.legisscriptor.com/post/m-h-hoskot-v-state-of-maharashtra-1978-air-1548-1979-scr-1-
192#:~:text=The%20block%20maker%20suspecting%20something,511%20of%20Indian%20Penal%20Code
16
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608eb53e4b01497111184ff
17

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b0fee691cb22da6d03c4#:~:text=This%20Court%20has%20recei
ved%20from,through%20the%20media%20%E2%80%94%20of%20the
18
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850821/#:~:text=can%20be%20restricted.-
,As%20there%20is%20no%20condition%20in%20the%20Bombay%20Conditions%20of,law%20whereunder%
20he%20is%20detained.
 12

CONCLUSION

The drafters of the Constitution has framed it in such a way that it neither makes any
mandatory provisions regarding various rights for the citizens nor makes any citizen free
from certain fundamental duties that must be followed by every citizen of the country. It has
also looked deeply into the socio-economic scenario of India so that no rights or duties will
be omitted.

Apart from certain fundamental rights, the Constitution also provides certain other rights and
duties towards the citizen which are enclosed in Part IV of the Constitution known as
‘Directive Principles of State policy. Such provisions are framed under the notion that
rights of each and every individual change accordingly and such rights cannot be considered
as fundamental but have to be enforced.

One of the merits of our Constitution is that it neither restricts a person from enforcing his
fundamental rights, nor it provides full freedom to a person in such a manner that he exploits
or violates such rights himself or against the society. Perhaps this feature of our Constitution
makes it different from any of the other major Constitutions of the world.

BIBILOGRAPHY

1. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/rule-of-law-in-india-2/visited
2. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=triple%20talaq
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/golden-triangle-indian-constitution/
4. http://www.lawsenate.com/case-studies/
5. http://www.legalservices.in
6. M.P.Jain,Indian Constitutional Law ( 5th edition)
7. N.H Jhabvala – Constitutional Law ( 2018 edition)

19

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/436241/#:~:text=Govind%20vs%20State%20Of%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20%26
%20Anr%20on%2018%20March%2C%201975&text=PETITIONER%3A%20GOVIND%20Vs.,STATE%20O
F%20MADHYA%20PRADESH%20%26%20ANR.&text=32%2C%20challenged%20the%20validity%20of,un
der%20the%20Police%20Act%2C%201961.