Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article 21
Article 21
ARTICLE 21
JOURNEY FROM GOPALAN TO MANEKA
1
05-10-2023
2
05-10-2023
• The counsel for the detenu wanted the procedure established by law should
be interpreted to mean fair and reasonable procedure established by law and
• not any procedure prescribed by a system of positive law irrespective of the
fact that it was wholly capricious and arbitrary.
Majority (Kania CJ etc.)
• refused to accept the aforesaid arguments
• - He read the expression ‘ procedure established by law’ to mean any
procedure prescribed by a piece of positive law.
• - He noted the fact that the framers designedly used the words ‘Procedure
established by law’, which carried a definitive meaning, in place of the vague
phrase ‘due process of law’.
JUSTICE MUKHERJEA
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• held that law in Article 21 meant the state-enacted law and did not
carry with it any abstract notion of justice or fairness
• it would give no guarantee against possible legislative vagaries
• was a matter of constitutional policy which the courts could not
correct
• he referred to the provisions of the Japanese and the Iris constitution
in this respect
3
05-10-2023
Justice Das
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
7
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
4
05-10-2023
9
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
10
5
05-10-2023
11
12
6
05-10-2023
…KHARAK SINGH
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
13
● Two judges (minority) - held that the rest of the regulation was also void for
violation of Articles 19 (1) (a) and (d)
● personal liberty is wide enough in its meaning so as to include the right to
privacy
● right to personal liberty under Article 21 had many attributes, some of which
were already guaranteed under article 19 (1)
● this would mean that a law interfering with some such aspect of personal liberty
must satisfy the requirements of both articles 19 and 21.
14
7
05-10-2023
● It was held that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel
abroad.
● Chief Justice Subba Rao speaking for the majority, said that the essence of
personal liberty lay in the right of free movement.
● Since movement within the territory of India is covered under Article 19 (1)(d)
● the residue, i.e. the right to move outside the territory of India, must be understood
to be comprised of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
15
• Question- can a petitioner call into question a law both under Article 19
(1) and Article 21 on the ground that the rights under the two provision
overlap?
• - in Gopalan, the majority refused to adjudge the constitutionality of the
preventive detention law on the touchstone of Article 19.
• - this has been construed as representing the thesis that each article
embodying a fundamental right was a separate Island, conceptually
separated from other fundamental rights.
• -this is one of the sins attributed to Gopalan decision, and the accusation
has been repeated in several cases, including in Maneka Gandhi
ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS
16
8
05-10-2023
17
18
9
05-10-2023
7 JUDGES
After the Supreme Court decision in Satwant Singh that personal liberty under article 21 included
within its fold the right to travel abroad, Parliament passed the Passport Act 1967, and clothed the
then existing executive authority of the Government of India with law in the matter of-
● Issue
● impounding and
● cancellation of passports
• Section 10 (3) (c ) - The passport officer as well as the Government of India have the power to
impound the passport for various reasons including the ‘interest of the general public’.
• Section 10 (5) - Reasons must be recorded for taking the decisions and supplied to the aggrieved
person if he demands. But this may be withheld for certain regions including the ‘interest of the
general public’.
• Section 11 - If the decision is of an authority other than the central government, an appeal can be
preferred to the central government under the Act.
19
…MANEKA GANDHI
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
FACTS:
● Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government
● When she asked the reasons for the decision, she was told that the same could not be disclosed
in the ‘interest of the general public.
● She filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the order and
that of section 10 (3) (C), for violation of Article 14 because of their arbitrary nature.
● The petition was amended and it was also contended that the impugned order and the provisions
of the Passport Act, 1967 also violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 and Article 19
(1) (a) and (g).
● At the hearing, the attorney-general gave an undertaking that the government would consider
expeditiously any representation made by the petitioner, and that, in case the decision was finally
to impound the passport, it would not be for more than 6 months.
20
10
05-10-2023
…MANEKA GANDHI
1. The right to travel abroad was a part of the right under Article 21 and not that of Article 19 (1) (a) or 19
(1) (g)
2. If a citizen was prevented from going abroad so as to interfere with the exercise of his right under
Article 19 (1) (a) and (g), the action of the government will have to satisfy the requirements of not only
Article 21 but also of Article 19(2) or (6) as the case may be
3. Fundamental rights guaranteed under different articles overlapped with each other and did not
constitute exclusive separate zones
4. Content of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 to a large extent also partook of the rights
guaranteed under Article 19 (1)
5. The ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 meant ‘fair and reasonable procedure’ and not an
arbitrary procedure.
21
22
11
05-10-2023
• Justice Bhagwati accepted the viewpoint of Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh, on the
meaning of personal liberty and the interrelationship between article 19 (1) and Article 21.
• Holding has some important implications:
1. A non-citizen like a corporation can invoke Article 21 for claiming the right to freedom of the
press under Article 19 (1) (a) and the right to freedom of trade and business under Article 19
(1)(g)
2. When Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 containing property rights have been deleted by the
Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978,
-it remains a practical possibility that the essence of the right to property may be held
to form part of personal liberty in Article 21.
23
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
ARTICLE 21
EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT TO ‘LIFE’ AND ‘PERSONAL LIBERTY’
24
12
05-10-2023
RIGHT TO LIFE:
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• This way it cannot be alleged that the judges are translating their own
personal preferences as part of enforceable constitutional law.
• And in the process a large number of unenumerated rights have been
judicially created most of these rights are part of the right to life.
25
1. If the constitution uses a term which has the potential of having a very broad
meaning, for example,
• the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 (1) (a) or the right to personal liberty in
Article 21,
• it becomes a matter of pure policy and practicability regarding how much of it should be
earmarked as part of a legally or constitutionally protected right.
2. But the courts, at times, also resort to creating concomitant rights, rights which help
to make the expressly guaranteed rights more effective and meaningful.
• For example the right to life in its narrowest meaning will be the right to remain alive.
• Little broader meaning of the term will bring into its fold the right to the sanctity of bodily
Limbs and sense-organs as well.
• A concomitant meaning will add things which help to sustain life, like food, shelter and
clothing.
26
13
05-10-2023
27
28
14
05-10-2023
• the right to the sanctity and security of the limbs and sense faculties of the body would be
considered to have been violated whether the impairment was total or partial, permanent or
temporary.
• He stated:
• “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 and facilities
for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving, about mixing and co-
mingling with fellow human beings”.
29
For the sake of clarity, we shall discuss the judicially recognised interests
related to the right to life by putting them into three categories:
1. Rights which are purely constitutional in character and possess an
element of legal sanction
2. Rights which are simultaneously ordinary legal rights and constitutional
rights and carry legal sanction at both the levels.
3. Interests which are judicially recognised but still fall short of the
standard required for calling them a right, legal or constitutional.
30
15
05-10-2023
In this category, we shall discuss two rights - the right to education and the right to
livelihood.
Right to Education:
• After the enactment of the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act 2002 Article 21-A
has been inserted into the Constitution.
• It says that “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 45 in part IV now read that “the state shall endeavour to provide early childhood
care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years”. therefore,
now the right to education is no more unenumerated.
31
32
16
05-10-2023
…MOHINI JAIN
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
33
…MOHINI JAIN
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• Article 21 was violated because the right to life included the right to education, and
the same was violated
• Justice Kuldeep Singh conceded that the right to education was not guaranteed as
a fundamental right in the constitution.
• but he referred to the Preamble and articles 38, 39 (a) and (b), 41 and 45 in part IV
containing Directive Principles of State Policy.
• He argued that Article 21, read cumulatively with the above provision, left one in no
doubt that the framers of the Constitution made it obligatory for the state to provide
education for its citizens.
• the state could discharge its aforesaid obligation either directly through state
Institutions or indirectly through private institutions.
• the private institutions, after getting recognition from the state, were converted into
state agencies, and they could not be doing something which the state itself was
prohibited from doing.
ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS
34
17
05-10-2023
1993 SC 2178
• A constitution bench of the court slightly modified the
scope of this right and Limited it to education at the primary
level.
• whether limited to the primary stage or extended to the
stage of Higher Education,
• the right remained a judicially created un-enumerated right
• Until The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act made primary
education an enumerated right in Article 21A of the
Constitution.
ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS
35
… UNNI KRISHNAN
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• Unni Krishnan did not reverse the creative advance made by the Supreme Court in Mohini Jain.
HELD:
• while the right to primary education including upper primary was a fundamental right,
• the right to education at other levels was dependent on the states resources, its financial capacity and the
comparative priority given to it in the midst of other basic demand.
• Though the court was not ready to equate private educational enterprise with private commercial
Enterprise, it, nevertheless, could not ignore the basic fact that an unaided institution have to find
resources somewhere.
• in the absence of any better alternative, the court could not say that the institution should be disabled
from charging extra fees from the candidate to be admitted, especially when there were many who
were willing to pay,
• But, then, education could not be allowed to go to the highest bidder.
• The court created a judicially enforceable right to education in a limited sense as part of the right to life
under article 21 of the constitution.
36
18
05-10-2023
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
OLGA TELLIS V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
37
38
19
05-10-2023
• The Chief Justice also referred to Articles 39(a) and 41 in the chapter on Directive
Principles of State Policy.
• The former provision provides that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that
all citizens, both men and women, have the right to adequate means of livelihood.
• The latter provision directs the state within the limits of economic capacity and
development to make effective provisions for securing the right to work.
• He conceded that given the constraints of Article 37 the directives are not specifically
enforceable by a court of law. But they are fundamental in the Governance of the country
and they are to be kept in view in the making of laws.
39
…OLGA TELLIS
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
40
20
05-10-2023
…OLGA TELLIS
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• Considering everything the Court asked the corporation not to evict any
pavement dweller until one month after the end of the monsoon season.
• The Court strongly recommended that the State government and the
corporation do their utmost to find some suitable place where the
petitioners could take shelter and that such place should not be too far off
from their place of work or occupation.
41
• In this category, one is the right to the sanctity of life and limbs.
• The other is the right to live in a pollution-free environment.
• These rights are constitutionally guaranteed, but they already had their existence in
ordinary law.
• At the constitutional level the rights have been guaranteed against the state while
ordinary legal rights were expected to be claimed against private parties.
• the practical differentiation between the two levels or categories of rights is noticed
chiefly at the remedial level.
• It is guaranteed that the constitutional rights shall be enforced by public law remedies,
and
• these remedies are not available for the enforcement of ordinary legal rights if an equally
effective alternative remedy is available.
42
21
05-10-2023
• To start with the courts were very particular in maintaining the distinction between constitutional
rights and ordinary rights. But we shall see that their attitude is visibly relaxed now.
• In the cases dealing with anti-pollution laws or constitutional guarantees against environmental
pollution, private parties and public authorities are together joined as respondents.
• Similarly, despite the availability of remedy in ordinary law in a rape case, the Supreme Court has
dealt with some such cases, involving the infringement of article 21.
• the Supreme Court appears to have thought it fit to entertain complaints in suitable cases to
highlight the importance of the right involved, and in the process has also given a lead to the lower
courts.
• Moreover, the Supreme Court has evolved a noble remedy against sexual harassment the kind of
which did not exist earlier in the law.
43
44
22
05-10-2023
There is no doubt that the right to life includes the right not to be killed
except in accordance with the law and in this right the discussion is divided
into three parts:
1. award of damages for loss of life or limbs or for being subjected to
torture
2. award of damages in rape cases and
3. protection against sexual harassment
45
• Furnishes an example of custodial violence against women prisoners in police lock-up in the city of Bombay.
• The court directed the taking up of several measures including the putting up of women prisoners and
suspects in separate lockups manned by women constables and its surprise inspection by judicial officers.
• perhaps the most atrocious example of custodial violence and violation of the right to the protection of the
limbs of the body is the famous Bhagalpur blinding case ( Khatri vs State of Bihar (1981) 1SCC 627)
• The court in a series of hearings passed several orders with a view to ensuring proper treatment of the victims
and their possible rehabilitation in life.
• The court also proceeded to examine if it could grant compensation to the prisoners for violation of their
fundamental rights. This was contested by the state of Bihar.
46
23
05-10-2023
(1983) 4SCC 41
• Chief justice Chandrachud rejected the contention that a writ petition could not be used
for awarding compensation.
• He said that if compensation was demanded for a violation of a fundamental right the
court was competent to award the same.
• The petitioner had been kept in illegal detention for 14 long years.
• The court ordered the state to pay him rupees 30000 in addition to the rupees 5000 it
had already paid.
• But, the court called it palliative and not compensation and left it to the petitioner to bring
a regular suit for damages if he so desired.
47
illegal detention,
• the court unhesitatingly characterized as compensation.
• In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 While awarding Rs.
150000/- as compensation to the petitioner’s mother for the death of her son in
police custody,
• Justice Verma said that there was a basic distinction between the award of
compensation as a public law remedy under articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution for violation of a fundamental right and the private law remedy of
damages in action for tort.
• The defence of sovereign immunity as decided in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 375 was not available in a public law
remedy.
48
24
05-10-2023
• Rape is a crime under the Indian Penal Code and no principled objection can be raised if
the victim of the crime simultaneously sought compensation.
• The Criminal Court itself is expected to award some compensation to the victim by
imposing on the offender fine as well.
• Rape is, obviously, the most serious affront to the dignity of a woman.
• It is also an atrocious way of violating the sanctity of the person of a lady.
• Therefore, there is no doubt that the right to life under Article 21 is violated.
• But, the violation appears to be taken care of so completely by the available ordinary law
remedies that, to a layperson, invocation of Article 21 may appear to be an avoidable
luxury.
49
• a criminal case had been filed against Bodhissattwa Gautam in the court of magistrate by a girl
• she had been sexually exploited by the accused for many years, first with a promise of marriage
and then by undergoing the process of a secret, possibly fake, marriage.
• The allegation was that he impregnated her twice and both the times the pregnancies were
terminated at his instance and under his pressure.
• the accused had gone to the Gauhati High court under section 482 of The Criminal Procedure
Code, for the quashing of the complaint.
• There he lost the case and appealed to the Supreme Court where again he lost the case.
• In addition, the Supreme Court asked the magistrate to order that the accused should pay to the
complainant interim compensation at the rate of rs. 1000/- per month during the pendency of the
case, starting from the date the complaint was filed.
• The entire judgement of the court is thoroughly infused with the new emerging spirit of article 21.
50
25
05-10-2023
51
52
26
05-10-2023
• The right to live in a pollution-free environment can be considered to be one of the most
significant contributions of the Supreme Court of India to the human rights jurisprudence
of the country.
• First, group right which is enjoyed by the people collectively.
• Second, under ordinary law, pollution of the environment amounts to nuisance against
which remedies are available in the law of torts, environmental legislations and under
the Criminal Procedure Code.
• But now the right has acquired a constitutional dimension.
• One of the infirmities of the ordinary law remedy has been that legislation would legalise
the illegality.
• But that is not possible with regard to constitutional rights.
• In most of the cases that reached the Apex Court the alleged polluter is some private
party, and the public authorities are joined as parties mostly as co-respondents for failing
to prevent the private polluter from harming the ecology.
ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS
53
• The Supreme Court has taken the view that the right to life also relates to the
quality of life and article 21 entitles every person to live in a pollution-free
environment.
• The insertion of Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment
Act 1976) has enabled the court to draw on these provisions to interpret the
scope of Article 21 in this respect.
• The Parliament has also enacted
1. the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974,
2. the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and
3. the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Two International events also occurred which have impacted our Supreme Court
jurisprudence in this area. These are:
1. the declaration of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment, adopted at
Stockholm on 16th June 1972 and
2. the Rio declaration of 1992 on Environment and Development.
54
27
05-10-2023
55
(1996) 3 SCC
56
28
05-10-2023
57
58
29
05-10-2023
59
60
30
05-10-2023
• The Supreme Court directed that in medico-legal cases the doctor who is
approached must treat the patient first to save his life even though the
case did not come within the jurisdiction of the hospital to which he
belonged.
• The court emphasized that rules and regulations demarketing the
respective jurisdiction of the hospitals could not override either the right to
life under article 21 of the Constitution or the ethical duty which the doctor
owed to humanity.
61
62
31
05-10-2023
• One Hakim Sheik had fallen from the train and was seriously injured.
• His injury included some serious head injuries, and he possibly needed neurological surgical
operations and care.
• Hospitals, where this facility was available, were limited and Sheik visited almost all of them but
was refused admission on the ground that at the time no beds were available.
• Thereafter, he was admitted to a private hospital which cost him rs. 17000/-. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court asked the state to compensate him by paying rs. 25000/-.
• In arriving at its decision, the court reasoned that the state in India being a welfare state was
under a duty to provide the necessary medical aid to the needy and
• for this it must improve and enlarge the necessary medical facilities.
• The two-judge bench which decided the case also insisted that the state could not take the plea of
the paucity of financial resources.
63
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
64
32
05-10-2023
65
… HUSSAINARA KHATOON
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• On the next date of the hearing the counsel for the state informed the court about the order
that had been issued by the state government. In terms of this order, the following categories of
internees were to be released forthwith:
1. Persons who had been charged with a petty offence under the forest Act, Exercise Act,
Police Act and Motor Vehicles Act, if they had already been imprisoned for six months or more;
2. Persons interned under section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code who had been under
imprisonment for 6 months or more;
3. Persons suffering from leprosy or other dangerous infectious diseases, who had already
been under imprisonment for six months or more;
4. All persons who had been in jail for a period longer than the maximum period of
imprisonment that could be imposed in law for the offence they were charged with:
5. Persons who had been in jail for more than two years without the investigation of their
cases having been completed, except where the delay in the investigation was justified or
where the dropping of the investigation would not be in the Public Interest.
66
33
05-10-2023
… HUSSAINARA KHATOON
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• Held:
The court gave certain additional directions to the state government
which included the following:
1. To release the prisoners against whom a charge sheet has not been filed
and the period of limitation had expired as prescribed in the Criminal
Procedure Code and
2. To release the women and children who had been kept in the so-called
protective custody or who are required to appear as witnesses.
67
RIGHT TO GO ABROAD
MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR1978 SC 597
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
• Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.
• In the United States also the right to travel abroad does not find explicit mention in the
Constitution but it has been held to be included in the guarantee of the Vth amendment,
• The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh v. D. Ramrathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836, interpreted the
term personal liberty to include this right and affirmed this view again in Maneka Gandhi .
• Justice Krishna Iyer answered such objection with finality when he said in Menaka that the
right to travel abroad meant that the Indian state would not hinder the movement if the
foreign state was willing to admit.
68
34
05-10-2023
69
• justice A. B. Rohatgi of the Delhi High Court characterized the invoking of constitutional
law principles into matrimonial matters as introduction of a bull in a China shop.
• He diferred from the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision basically on the meaning of
restitution of conjugal rights.
• In his view, tho sex was an important part of the matrimonial relations however it was
necessarily not an essential part.
• A decree for restitution of conjugal rights merely afforded an opportunity to the estranged
couple to reconcile and it did not amount to coercion to have sex with someone against
one’s will.
• In Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar (1984) 4 SCC 90, the Supreme Court endorsed the
view of the Delhi High Court.
70
35
05-10-2023
PRIVACY
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
71
• it was held that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under articles 14
19 and 21 of the constitution
• Privacy includes at its core the
• preservation of personal intimacies,
• the sanctity of family life,
• marriage,
• procreation,
• sexual orientation.
• Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone.
• Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her
life.
• Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy.
• Privacy is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being.
72
36
05-10-2023
73
RIGHT TO DIE
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD.) SOCIETY V. UNION OF INDIA,
AIR 2018 SC 1665
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
THE 538 PAGE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY THE FIVE-JUDGES' CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH COMPRISING THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, MR.
JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, MR. JUSTICE, A.K. SIKRI, MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, MR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND MR. JUSTICE ASHOK
BHUSHAN.
• FACTS: To draw attention to the suffering of people with terminal illnesses whose
natural lifespan is being unnaturally stretched by unwelcome medical treatments,
Common Cause, a non-governmental organisation, filed a PIL
• This petition makes the case that it is inhumane to artificially extend life without
taking the patient’s wishes into consideration.
• Through this appeal, the Court is urged to legalise passive euthanasia.
• It declares that it is not attempting to legalise active euthanasia, which entails
taking steps like administering lethal medications to end a person’s natural life.
• When a patient’s natural life is approaching its end, passive euthanasia, on the
other hand, signifies that nothing will be done to artificially extend it.
• the petitioners asked the Court to establish rules for the execution of living wills
as well as passive euthanasia
74
37
05-10-2023
• Expressing the view on passive euthanasia and Article 21, the Court stated that –
• it recognises that the right of a person to live with dignity includes right to die with dignity by
executing a will during his/her life time as to the manner in which he/she would like to die
when he/she is terminally ill or is in a persistent vegetative state.
• Thus, under Article 21, a terminally sick individual or one who is in a permanent vegetative
condition might choose to have his life end prematurely.
• This is a fundamental human right.
• Article 21 permits only passive euthanasia.
• Additionally, the Bench issued guidelines to avoid any potential abuse of those directives
and provided for the manner in which those directives should be applied to ensure a
balance between law and bioethics.
--------------------
75
38