1

Topic: The importance of Article 21 and its non-suspendability

Abstract:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, that is right to life and personal liberty is the most
cherished and pivotal fundamental human rights around which other rights of the
individual revolve. It emphasizes its importance in maintaining the sanctity of human
dignity and freedom. This paper explores the significance of Article 21, highlighting its
comprehensive scope, which has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to
include various derivative rights essential for a dignified existence. The unique feature
of Article 21 is its non-suspendability, even during times of emergency, distinguishing
it from many other fundamental rights. This attribute underscores the foundational
nature of the right to life and liberty in a democratic society. Through a detailed
examination of judicial interpretations and constitutional provisions, this paper aims to
underscore the paramount importance of Article 21 and its critical role in safeguarding
human rights in India.

Keywords:
Article 21; Constitution; law; fundamental rights; non-suspendability; etc.

Objectives:
The primary objectives of this paper are as follows:
1. Examine the Scope of Article 21:
o To provide a comprehensive overview of Article 21, analysing the
extensive judicial interpretations that have expanded its meaning.
o To identify and discuss the various derivative rights that stem from
Article 21
2. Analyse Judicial Pronouncements:
o To review significant Supreme Court judgments that have interpreted
and broadened the scope of Article 21
o To evaluate the impact of these judicial decisions on the legislative and
executive branches of government.
3. Discuss Non-Suspendability:
o To investigate the constitutional provision of non-suspendability of
Article 21, even during emergencies, and understand its significance in
the context of preserving fundamental human rights.
 2

o To compare the non-suspendability of Article 21 with the suspension of

other fundamental rights during emergencies.
4. Assess Impact on Indian Democracy:
o To assess how the protection of life and personal liberty under Article
21 has strengthened democratic values and the rule of law in India.
o To explore the role of Article 21 in ensuring accountability and
transparency within the government.

Research Methodology: Purely doctrinal research.

Introduction:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." It means an
individual can be deprived of his life and personal liberty only under a law passed by
legislature and by laying down a procedure for such deprivation’
This provision has been interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court to encompass a broad
range of rights, including the right to dignity, privacy, and safe working conditions. The
importance of Article 21 lies in its status as a non-derogable right, meaning that it
cannot be suspended even during times of emergency. This ensures that the most basic
human rights are protected and upheld at all times, regardless of the circumstances. The
non-suspendability of Article 21 underscores its crucial role in safeguarding the rights
and freedoms of individuals in India, making it an essential component of the country's
constitutional framework.
Prior to Meneka Gandhi’s1 Decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal
liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not form
legislative action. The state could not interfere with the liberty of citizens if it could
support its action by a valid law. But now it protects the right to life and personal liberty
of citizens not only from the Executive action but from the Legislative action also.
A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if some conditions are complied
with, they are:
1. There must be a valid law.
2. There must be a procedure prescribed by that law.
3. The procedure must be just fair and reasonable.
The law must satisfy the requirements of Art. 14 and 19.2

1
Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2
J.N.Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 285 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 57th edn.,2020)
 3

Scope of Article 21and its various interpretation:

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, often referred to as the 'heart and soul of the
Constitution,' guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. Right to Life means
the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted
meaning. It is something more than surviving or animal existence. The meaning of the
word life can’t be narrowed down and it will be available not only to every citizen of
the country. Court often quoted the following observation in the Munn v Illionsby Field
J., in an American case, “by the term ‘life’ used here, something more is meant than
mere animal existence. The inhabitation against its deprivation extents to all those limbs
and faculties by which life is enjoyed.”3
Article 21 of the Constitution expanded and now meaning of “life" is not only the
physical act of breathing. The Supreme Court of India included ‘Right to life’ in so
many dimensions. The right to health, right livelihood, right to live with human dignity,
which includes free air, and the right to pollution free environment.
In Unni Krishnan’s4 case it was seen that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights
and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the
education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life. The meaning
of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right to
rehabilitation after release, right to livelihood by legal means and decent environment.
Article 21 of the constitution cover so many rights, development and found
nourishment. In Maneka Gandhi’s case ‘individual freedom' which means to expand
the right to life was also added.
Livelihood under Article 21 included the word "life" as the question was for the first
time before the Supreme Court in Re Sant Ram's5 case. Supreme court’s Chief Justice
Sinha held that, “Individual freedom cannot be suppressed, and this life into the concept
of “right livelihood” court did not rule out entirely the right was rejected.” Chief Justice
Sinha was of the opinion that as "right livelihood" mentioned in Article 19, freedom or
Article 16 in the limited sense.”
Judicial Approach of Article 21
The traditional view of the Supreme Court is difficult to fully appreciate the
development of the right to life without observing the traditional view. The traditional
interpretation of Art. 21 as envisaged in the case A. K. Gopalan v Union of India6 was
that the person could be only deprive from his right to life only in accordance with the
procedure established by the law. The judiciary interpretation in this regard was nothing
more or less but a release from arrest and detention against the wrongful or falsely
implicated imprisonment of the physical body of the individual. Thus, "personal
freedom" simply means freedom relating to the person or body of the person, and in
this sense, it was opposed to physical restraint or coercion. Over time, the accustomed
and confined view of the Supreme Court while interpreting the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India started changing.

3
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1189 (LexisNexis, 8th edn., 2023).
4
AIR 1993 SC 217.
5
AIR1960SC932.
6
AIR 1960 SC 27.
 4

In the case of Maneka Gandhi, a dramatic change can be found by the Court in the
regard of manner or interpretation of the Article 21 is interpreted, so that the content of
Article 21 contains ‘due process of law’. Thus, the new interpretation ushered a new
dimension in the expression of horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. As a
result, this right till present times covers various aspects of the human rights.

New Dimensions of Article 21

In addition to the traditional approach, the Supreme Court observed Article 21 in the
sense of social justice and while interpreting the same at a certain period made and gave
extended dimension to Article 21 after the post Maneka Gandhi era. Some of the
landmark decisions are mentioned below:

1. Right to Education - Right to education is considered as third eye of man

without which no one can lead good, decent and dignified life. Earlier right to
education was a part of directive principles of state policy.7 In Mohini Jain v.
State of Karnataka8 and Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh9, the Supreme
Court ruled right to education as a guaranteed fundamental right and thus
included under the right to life because it directly influences the mental and
physical capacity and also responsible for the individual growth in society. In
case of Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India10, it was held that the Right of
Education includes Right to safe education.
2. Right to Livelihood - Right to livelihood is the outcome of the right to life
because no person can live without sustenance. Rejecting livelihoods is not only
rejecting the effective content and meaningful life but also making life
impossible. Right to livelihood has been declared as an integral facets of the
right to life. The Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation11 held that the concept of “right to life and personal liberty”
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the “right to live with
dignity” which in turn includes right to livelihood
3. Right to Pollution free environment - A right to clean environment is
fundamental to the very existence of human being. Human existence without
clean air or water is injurious to his integral existence. It is a risk to the health
of the person and is also violation of the right to health and in turn right to life
of the person. This right to environment came to be read as a fundamental right
through a number of cases most of which are public interest litigations. In
Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar12 the Court observed that ‘right to life
guaranteed by article 21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water
and air for full enjoyment of life.’

7
Art. 51 A of the Indian Constitution.
8
AIR 1992 SC 1858.
9
Supra note 5.
10
(2009) 6 SCC 398.
11
(1985) 3 SCC 5.
12
AIR 1991 SC 420.
 5

4. Right to claim Compensation - The Supreme Court of India has also shown its
dynamic and activist role in compensatory jurisprudence. In Nilabati Behera v State
of Orissa13, the Supreme Court held right to compensation as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Earlier it was the discretion of the Court
wherein it has awarded compensation to the victim. In Rudal Shah v State of Bihar14
the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 35000/- to the petitioner who was kept in jail for
14 years despite of his acquittal order.

5. Right to Privacy - For the first time, the issue was raised in Kharak Singh v State of
Tamil Nadu15, Justice Subba Rao in his minority judgment said that the right to
privacy flows from the expression personal liberty. This minority judgment paved
path for the further development. In R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu16, the
Supreme Court observed that the Right to Privacy is nothing but ‘right to be let
alone and it is implicit in right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21
of Indian Constitution.

Non-Suspendability of Article 21
The non-suspendability of Article 21, even during a state of emergency, underscores its
paramount importance. Article 359 of the Indian Constitution permits the suspension
of certain rights during an emergency. However, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978
ensured that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even under such circumstances.
Article 359(1) specifies that the President may declare that the right to move any court
for the enforcement of such rights as conferred by Part III of the Constitution shall
remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation is in force. However,
Article 359(1) explicitly states that this does not apply to Article 21 and Article 20
(protection in respect of conviction for offenses).
This amendment was a direct response to the excesses witnessed during the Emergency
period of 1975-1977, when fundamental rights were grossly violated. By explicitly
prohibiting the suspension of Article 21, the framers of the Constitution sought to
prevent any future arbitrary infringement of this fundamental right, thus upholding the
sanctity of individual liberties. This constitutional safeguard serves as a bulwark against
potential abuses of power and stands as a testament to the enduring commitment of the
Indian state to protect the basic rights of its citizens

1. Constitutional Safeguard:

Article 21 is non-suspendable even during a state of emergency under Article

359 of the Constitution. This was affirmed in the landmark judgment of
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla17, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus
case was a significant but controversial judgment where the Supreme Court
held that during the Emergency, the right to approach the court for
enforcement of Article 21 could be suspended. This decision faced severe
criticism for undermining fundamental rights and was later overruled by the
44th Amendment, restoring the inviolability of Article 21. Although the
13
1993 SCR (2) 581.
14
(1983) 4 SCC 141.
15
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
16
AIR 1995 SC 264.
17
AIR 1976 SC 1207.
 6

majority upheld the suspension of habeas corpus during the Emergency,

Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent highlighted the indomitable nature of the right to
life and personal liberty, which later influenced constitutional amendments
and judicial approaches.

2. Impact of the 44th Amendment:

The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, explicitly provided that the rights guaranteed
under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency, rectifying
the excesses of the Emergency period and reinforcing the non-suspendable
nature of Article 21.

3. Current Perspective:

In contemporary times, the non-suspendability of Article 21 ensures that even

in extraordinary situations, such as national emergencies or public health
crises, the fundamental right to life and personal liberty remains protected.
This provision acts as a safeguard against potential abuses of power and
ensures a balance between state authority and individual freedoms.

4. Importance in Democratic Society:

The non-suspendability of Article 21 reinforces the concept of constitutional supremacy

and the rule of law, fundamental to any democratic society. It acts as a barricade against
potential authoritarianism, ensuring that individual freedoms are not at the mercy of
arbitrary state actions. This provision guarantees that even in dire circumstances, the
state must operate within the bounds of legality and respect the inherent dignity of every
individual.

The Indira Gandhi period marks as a significant episode relating to the suspension of
fundamental rights during an emergency. In 1975, facing legal and political challenges,
the then Prime Minister recommended the imposition of emergency to President
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on grounds of internal disturbance. The emergency was
declared under Article 352 of the Constitution. With the declaration of Emergency,
Indira Gandhi’s government invoked Article 359 which empowered the President to
suspend the enforcement of fundamental rights. The imposition of emergency gave rise
to the consolidation of power in the hands of the centre during which opposition leaders
were arrested, censorship was imposed on media and civil liberties of individuals were
curtailed. Many saw the suspension of fundamental rights during the emergency as an
attempt to suppress political opposition, imposition of parliamentary supremacy over
the basic and fundamental rights of the citizens and a blow to the constitutional set up
of the country.
Due to the grave miscarriage of justice in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant
Shukla(1976), also known as the Habeas Corpus case; it was and still is heavily
criticised. This judgement is viewed as the darkest chapter in the history of Indian
 7

Courts as it jeopardised the fundamental rights of the citizens by giving primacy to

power of the government over fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the
Constitution. Basically in this case, Shivkant Shukla, a political activist, was arrested
during the emergency and detained without a trial under the Maintenance of Internal
Security Act, 1971( MISA). His wife filed a writ of habeas corpus. The main issue in
this case was whether the courts had the power to inquire into the detention of Mr.
Shivkant and whether the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended during
an emergency. The SC held that Article 21 could be suspended and courts did not have
the authority to interfere with the detention of individuals under MISA.

A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976): This case is seen as a black spot on the
record of the Supreme Court regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of the
citizens. In this case, the scope of preventive detention under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act( MISA) was questioned.
Facts
This case arose from the Emergency declared in India in 1975. Many civil liberties and
fundamental rights were suspended during this period. Shivkant Shukla, a political
activist, was arrested during the emergency and detained without trial under the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act. Shukla’s wife filed a writ of habeas corpus that
mandates the detained person to be presented before the court.
Issue
1. Whether Article 21 of the Constitution can be suspended during an emergency?
Judgement
The court upheld the validity of MISA and held that even Articles 20 and 21 can be
suspended during an emergency. The decision in this case is highly criticised. Justice
H.R. Khanna was the only judge in this case who gave a dissenting opinion and stated
that Article 21 is the sole repository of one’s right to life and personal liberty. ‘The
moment the right to move any court for enforcement of Article 21 is suspended, no one
can complain to the court of deprivation of life and personal liberty for a redress sought
from the court on that score would be enforcement of Article 21’. Justice Khanna lost
his due post of Chief Justice of India due to his dissent in this case. This case was
overruled in the case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

13
1993 SCR (2) 581.
14
(1983) 4 SCC 141.
15
AIR 1963 SC 1295.
16
AIR 1995 SC 264.
17
AIR 1976 SC 1207.