Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of fundamental rights, guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty. This discussion delves into the nuances of Article 21, exploring its scope, judicial interpretations, landmark cases, and related concepts like euthanasia and suicide.
Understanding Article 21
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.”
This fundamental right is available to every person, regardless of citizenship. It encompasses two key aspects:
-
Right to Life: Not merely survival, but a life of dignity and meaning.
-
Right to Personal Liberty: Freedom from arbitrary restrictions and the freedom to make personal choices.
This right is primarily guaranteed against State action, meaning the government and its various bodies. Private individuals encroaching on these rights do not fall under Article 21, but remedies may be sought under Article 226 or general law.
Judicial Interpretation of Article 21
The scope of Article 21 has been significantly widened through judicial intervention, with landmark judgments shaping its interpretation:
-
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950): Initially, the Supreme Court held that “procedure established by law” meant state-made law, not natural justice, embodying the British concept of personal liberty.
-
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case (1978): This landmark case broadened the scope of Article 21, stating that it includes many rights under Article 19, and that any procedure under law for deprivation of life or liberty must be fair, reasonable, and just, not arbitrary.
-
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): Reaffirmed that any procedure for deprivation of life or liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just.
-
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Stated that any procedure depriving fundamental rights should conform to fair play and justice.
-
Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): Upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life, including various rights such as privacy, the right to go abroad, shelter, and education.
Rights Encompassed Under Article 21
Based on various judgments, Article 21 encompasses a wide range of rights, including:
-
Right to privacy
-
Right to go abroad
-
Right to shelter
-
Right against solitary confinement
-
Right to social justice and economic empowerment
-
Right against handcuffing
-
Right against custodial death
-
Right against delayed execution
-
Right to doctors’ assistance
-
Right against public hanging
-
Protection of cultural heritage
-
Right to pollution-free water and air
-
Right of every child to a full development
-
Right to health and medical aid
-
Right to education
-
Protection of under-trials
Right to Life and Suicide
-
Decriminalization of Suicide: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, decriminalized suicide in India, recognizing that individuals who attempt suicide need counseling and medical help rather than punishment.
-
Presumption of Stress: The law states that those attempting suicide are presumed to be under severe stress and should not be tried under the Indian Penal Code.
Right to Life and Euthanasia
-
Euthanasia Defined: The practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering.
-
Types of Euthanasia:
-
Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawing treatment for a terminally ill person.
-
Active Euthanasia: Intentionally ending a life with lethal substances.
-
Voluntary Euthanasia: Carried out with the patient’s consent.
-
Non-voluntary Euthanasia: Carried out when the patient is unable to consent.
-
Involuntary Euthanasia: Carried out against the will of the patient.
-
-
Euthanasia in India: Passive euthanasia is legal in India under strict guidelines, while active euthanasia is illegal.
-
Living Will: A legal document specifying actions to be taken for health if a person is unable to make decisions.
Key Cases and Interpretations
-
Behram vs. State of Bombay (1995): Fundamental rights are based on public policy and are primarily for the benefit of individuals.
-
Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. (1963): Article 21 requires authority of law even for restrictions on personal liberty.
-
Ramsharan vs. Union of India (1989): Deprivation of life must involve a direct and tangible act.
-
Chairman, Railway Board vs. Mr. Chandrama Das (2000): The term “person” includes foreign nationals.
-
Murali S. Deora vs. Union of India (2001): Smoking in public places was banned as it deprives non-smokers of their right to life.
-
All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2002): Directions were issued to increase the judge strength to address the backlog of cases.
-
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2001): Directions were issued to convert all buses in Delhi to CNG to safeguard public health.
-
State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh (2004): Rape was declared violative of the right to life.
-
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (2004): Support to terrorist organizations is not an offense unless committed with criminal intent.
-
Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. APO (1967): No one can be deprived of their right except according to the procedure prescribed by law.
-
Chameli Singh V. State of U.P. (1996): The right to shelter includes all infrastructure necessary to enable a person to live a life of dignity.
-
Subhash Kumar v. Bihar (1991): The right to a pollution-free environment is included in the right to life.
-
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay V Dilip Kumar (1983): The right to life includes the right to livelihood.
-
CERC v. Union of India (1995): Right to human dignity includes the right to health and medical aid.
Key Takeaways
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a dynamic and expansive right that ensures not just survival but a life of dignity, encompassing various aspects of human existence. It has been continuously interpreted and expanded by the judiciary, leading to the inclusion of various rights related to health, environment, education, and livelihood. Understanding Article 21 is crucial for appreciating the scope of fundamental rights in India and their role in protecting the well-being of all individuals.