Protection of Life and Persona

liberty (Art. 21)

Submitted
by:
Mandeep
B.A.LL. B.
2nd yr, MITS
Article 21 lays down that no person
shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except acc. to
procedure established by law'
Article 21 uses four crucial expressions, viz:
Life: as here used, something more is meant than mere animal
existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all
those limbs and facilities by which life is enjoyed.

Personal liberty: In art.21 it is of widest amplitude & it covers

a variety of rights which go to constitute personal
liberty of man
&some ofthem have been raised to status of distinct FRs.
Law: constitution make no distinction in principle b/w a law
made by the legislature & ordinance issued by president, both
are equally subject to limitation which the constitution has
placed upon that power
Procedure established by law: it extends both to
substantive as well as procedural law.A procedure not fulfiling
these attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of art.21
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Maneka's passport was impounded by the

Central govt. under the passport Act in the
interest of the general public. Maneka filed a

writ petition challenging the order on the

ground of violation offundamental right under
major ground of challenge was the
Art. 21. The
order impounding the passport was null and
void as it had been made without affording her
an opportunity of being heard in her defence
 Right to Right to
medical care
Right to food livelihoodd

Right to Right to
Shelter privacy
Article
21

Right to
Right to
education healthy
environmnt
 Right to
livelihood eevika
Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation - AIR

1986SC 180
The right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life, as
no person can live without the means of living, that
is, the means of livelihood.
It 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
deprived him of means of livelihood to the point of
abrogation.
 bindass Right to
privacy Privacy

Mr. Xv. Hospital 2' (AIR 1999 SC 495)

The Supreme Court explained that Article 21 of
the Constitution entitles a person to lead a healthy
life and therefore the women who was to marry a
person was entitled to know whether her
prospective husband has any deadly and
communicable disease.
 Registered Society
V.

Union of India AIR 1996

The Supreme Court had given directions to

Subordinate Courts to dispose of long pending cases.
Criminalcases was quite consistent with the spirit
underlying Part Ill of the Constitution, Telephone
tapping was held to be violation of right to privacy
 Parmanand Katara V Union of
India AlFR 1989
The SC has considered a very
serious problem existing at
present: in a medico legal case
(such as accident) the doctor
RIGHT TOo usually refused to give immediate
a medical aid to the victim untill
MEDICAL
the legal formalities are
CARE
completed. In some cases, the
injured die for want of medical
aid. The SC has now very
specifically clarified that
preservation of life is of
paramount importance.
 RIGHT TO HEALTH

Vincent v. Union of lndia AIR 1987

The SC held that a healthy body is the very
foundation of all human activities. Even Art.
47, a directive principle, lays stress on
improvement of public health unprohibition of
drugs injurious to health as one of the primary
duties of the State.
 RIGHT TO0
EDUCATION
Mohini Jain V. State
of Karnataka
AIR 1992
"The right to education flows directly from the
right to life," and the right to education being
concomitant to the fundamental right, "The
state is under a constitutional mandate to
provide educational institutions at all levels for
the benefit of the citizens."
 Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1997
The SC has declared sexual
harassment of a working
SEXUAL woman at her place of work
HARASSIMENT as amounting to violation of
rights of gender equality and
right to life and liberty which
is clear violation
of Article 14,15 and 21
 RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT

Subash The SC has held that enjoyment

Kumar of pollution free environ ment is
V.
included in the right to life under
Bihar
AIR
Art. 21
1991
 Quit Smoking
Murali S.
Deora
V.

Union of
India

Since a non-smoker is afflicted to various

diseases including lung cancer or of
heart, only because he is required too go to
public places and it is indirectly depriving
of his life without any process of law.
Hence smoking in public places was
banned
 It was held that the
direction to convert all
buses operating in
M.C. Mehta Delhi to CNG fuel
v. Union of mode was given for
India safeguarding health
of people and would
override the
provisions of othe r
statutes