INTORODUCTION

The sanctity of human life is probably the most fundamental of human social values. It is recognised in all
civilized societies and their legal systems, as well as in internationally recognized statements of human rights.
Every person is entitled to live their life on their own terms, with no unfair interference from others. A
successful democracy can only be one that guarantees its citizens the right to protect their own life and liberty.

In India, the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty is a Fundamental Right granted to citizens under Part III of
the Constitution of India, 1950. These Fundamental Rights represent the foundational values cherished by the
people and are granted against actions of the state, meaning that no act of any state authority can violate any
such right of a citizen except according to the procedure established by law. Article 21 of this part states that
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by
law”, and this is known as the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Hence, this Article prohibits the encroachment upon a person’s right to life and personal liberty against the state.
The state here refers to all entities having statutory authority, like the Government and Parliament at the Central
and State level, local authorities, etc. Thus, violation of the right by private entities is not within its purview.

Scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution : Right to Life and Personal Liberty

After elucidating upon the expansion of purview of Article 21, it is important to understand the wide array of
different rights and privileges this single right holds as per its meaning in the present era. This part discusses
various case laws to examine the various aspects of Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Right to live with human dignity

It is not enough to ensure that a person has a Right to Live. An essential element of life is one’s dignity and
respect; therefore, each person has been guaranteed the right to live with dignity – which means having access to
the necessities of human life as well as having autonomy over one’s personal decisions.

Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014)

Facts

In this case, a non-profit organization filed a petition seeking guidelines for occupational safety and health
conditions in various industries, especially thermal power plants. This was in view of the various skin diseases,
lung abnormalities, etc. suffered by their workers due to unhealthy working conditions. It also called for
compensation to victims of occupational health disorders.

Judgement

The court recognised the State’s duty to protect workers from dangerous or unhygienic working conditions and
remanded the matter to various High Courts to check the issue of thermal power plants in their respective states.
Thus, in this case, the protection of health and strength of workers and their access to just and humane
conditions of work were taken as essential conditions to live with human dignity.

Right over one’s intimate relations

The Supreme Court, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), said that the Right to dignity
means the right to “full personhood”, and “includes the right to carry such functions and activities as would
constitute the meaningful expression of the human self.” In this case, a very important aspect of human dignity
was talked about – the control over one’s own intimate relations.

Right to nutritional food

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors. (2002)
Facts

This case was filed by PUCL against overflowing of grains in godown, leading to food wastage, and concerns
over increasing starvation and the deaths of poor people in India.

Judgement

The Supreme Court explicitly established a constitutional human right to food under Article 21. The court
reconfigured specific government food schemes into legal entitlements, setting out the minimum allocations
of food grains and supplemental nutrients for India’s poor in a detailed manner. It also clearly articulated the
ways in which those government schemes are to be implemented and identified the public officials who can be
held accountable in the event of non-compliance. FCI was requested to provide food grains to the people in
the drought hit area.

Right against illegal detention

Meera Nireshwalia v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991)

Facts

In this case, a woman was allegedly illegally detained by the policemen while she was complaining about some
miscreants who tried to damage the structure of her house. It was also alleged that she was denied food or
water and even information about the grounds on which she was detained. She was also taken to a mental
hospital without letting anything known to her family.

Judgment

In its judgment, the court ordered the State of Tamil Nadu to pay her compensation of Rs 50,000 as she was
illegally detained, depriving her of her right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was held that one of the ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented
and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured is to mulct its violaters in the payment of
monetary compensation.

Right to privacy

Right to Privacy sounds like a very basic and obvious right to possess, but for a long time, it was not recognised
as a distinct right by the Government because of not being mentioned explicitly by the drafters in the
Constitution of India. Over time, there has been a growing recognition of a person’s autonomy over his or her
personal body, mind and information which has been given due emphasis by the courts in various judgements.
The Right to Privacy first saw mention in the following case.

Right to privacy and Aadhaar Card

One of the most important judgements related to Right to Privacy came in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) v. Union of India (2015). This case established the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right granted to
the citizens by the Constitution.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2015)

Facts

The case was brought by a retired Karnataka High Court Justice before a nine-judge Constitutional bench,
challenging the government’s scheme of making the Aadhaar card (a uniform system of biometrics-based
identity card) for all citizens. He claimed that it was a violation of the Right to Privacy, and the fact that there
were no strict data protection laws in India meant that people’s personal information could be misused. The
Attorney General argued that the Constitution did not guarantee a separate Right to Privacy.

Judgement

The bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy was a part of one’s Right to Life granted by Article 21 and
included the right to keep personal information private. While it upheld the constitutional validity of the
Aadhaar Card, it struck down certain provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Right to a healthy environment

Nature has showered us with its gifts since the beginning of time, and these gifts and resources act as the
backbone of human existence. A clean, healthy and harmonious environment is one of the necessities for the
true enjoyment of life, and thus, it comes as no surprise that our right to live in a pollution-free environment is
included in the expansive Right to Life.

The rapid growth of technology beginning with the Industrial Revolution and growing over the centuries has,
however, not helped the environment at all. The establishment of more and more industries and a rise in the
demand for products manufactured by them has increased the waste churned out by them. Where does all
this waste go? Unfortunately, it ends up in the land, water, and air.

Several court judgements have led to the establishment of our right to a healthy environment and the
measures to curb the pollution of the Earth.

Right to get pollution-free water and air

Without clean drinking water, we can’t last half a week, and without air, we can’t even last half an hour. It is
very important to have access to pollution-free water and air for a sound mind and body. The case of Subhash
Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) emphasized this right as a part of Article 21.

Right to fair trial

A fair trial is a trial characterized by the complete impartiality and fairness of judges during the hearings. What
use is the trial for the accused if the people making the decisions are inherently biased towards them?

Every person undergoing a trial should be given a fair chance, so as to ensure the application of fundamental
elements of human rights and proper administration of justice. It forms part of International Law as well, given
under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.