Institute of Social and Cultural Engineering

Expansion of Article 21 of Indian Constitution

 (Aditya Sengupta) 

Fundamental Rights are described as most important feature of Indian constitution. Every Fundamental Rights have equal importance and acknowledged as essential to human presence and requisite for social development. Among all rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution, Article 21 guarantees a right which is the most important for the survival of the humankind. Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."  As compared to Article 32, Article 21 may also referred as “Heart and Soul of Indian Constitution.”  According to P.N. Bhagwati “Article 21 comprises a constitutional value of paramount significance in democratic society”. Roots of this article has very long while many of important sources are here to clarified : Magna Carta (1215),  the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946 and Article 40(4) of the Constitution of Eire, 1937. At the time of Constituent Assembly Article 21 was not there itself rather it had passed as Article 15 which provided that “No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty without the due process of law.” After that Drafting Committee recommended two improvements to Article 15. First, the inclusion of the word ‘personal’ before the word ‘liberty.’ Second, replacement of the expression “without due process of law” with “except according to the procedure established by law.”  And nowadays we can see this provisions within Article 21. After that the primary objective of this particular article is to serve as a safeguard to counter infringement on a person's liberty or dignity. This assistance is accessible to every ‘person’ whether or not they are nationals of India, as ascertained in the case of The Chairman, Railway Board & Others vs Mrs Chandrima Das & Others.

:: Provisions in Article 21 ::

Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."   As we see this article has mainly two major rights – (i) Right to Life  and (ii) Right to Personal Liberty. As compare to other rights these two rights are most significant fundamental right. But still Article 21 provides for the reasonable restrictions on the same by way of procedure established by law, as to avoid the situations of ambiguity in the society.

** RIGHT TO LIFE

** RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

**  RIGHT TO LIVLIHOOD

** RIGHT TO SHELTER

** RIGHT TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

** RIGHT TO EDUCATION (Article 21A)

** RIGHT TO PRIVACY

** RIGHT TO HEALTH

** RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

** RIGHT TO REPUTATION

** RIGHT TO INFORMATION

** RIGHT AGAINST INHUMAN TREATMENT

 Expanding Nature of Article 21 (Arbitrary Action of Executive & Arbitrary Action of Judiciary)

  

The scope of Article 21 has extended over the years through judicial precedents. The expansion of this Article is like a journey started with the case of A.K. Gopalan and is twisting its way, back from the Maneka Gandhi case till today.

 

In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) court split 4-1 decision, held that the Preventive Detention Act, under which Gopalan was detained, did not violate Article 21. Justice H.J. Kania, writing the majority opinion, took a narrow interpretation of Article 21, stating that personal liberty could not be deprived through a procedure established by law, even if such law was arbitrary or unjust. This decision led to a controversial view that fundamental rights could be restricted as long as there was a law permitting it. This dissenting opinion by Justice Fazl Ali argued for a broader interpretation of Article 21, emphasizing that personal liberty should not be arbitrarily curtailed.

 

Over time, subsequent Supreme Court decisions, notably in the Maneka Gandhi Case (1978), expanded the scope of Article 21, interpreting it more expansively to protect individual liberties. In this case Supreme Court reversed the Gopalan decision. Here, S.C. stated that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight chambers. The term “Personal Liberty” under Article 21 has broad scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The Court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under the law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. That’s why nowadays we have seen many important rights under Article 21 after interpretation of Court.

 

Article 21 states that the protection under this article is only available against the Arbitrary Action of Executive not for the Arbitrary Action of Judiciary which we have seen in A.K. Gopalan Case (1950). But during the period of Emergency (1975-77), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her government took several arbitrary actions, including suspension of fundamental rights. The government detained individuals without proper legal procedures, leading to widespread criticism. The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976) court upheld government’s authority to suspend the right to life and personal liberty during the emergency, which was widely criticized for compromising individual freedoms. Later in the Kesavananda Bharati Case, this decision was overruled, emphasizing the supremacy of fundamental rights.

 

 

§  Conclusion :

                               Article 21 states, “Right to Life Personal Liberty” holds a broad epicycle which is only developing over time. There has been growing recognition about the point of views of a person’s life, which he is approved to control and would, this way, help increases of improvement in the quality of life. This right has defined as the “Heart and Soul” of our Constitution by the Highest point of Court and definitely proves to be so – serving the basic needed things of human life. But these meant rights developing under the extent and epicycle of Article 21 is often taken up to Court for judging as it is specifically not granted under the Constitution. Because of this, in reality, there is no guarantee spelt out in our Constitution for people (who lawfully live in a country, state, etc.) to secure their claim as a subject of the right to lead life with opportunity and honour. Article 21 needs to be expanded further to guarantee all wisdom reemphasized from time to time in the basic of structure of our Constitution settled in its’s statement at the beginning of a larger written work.