Meaning and Interpretation of Article 21

Meaning

Article 21 provides protection to individuals against the state and ensures the right to life and liberty. It upholds the concept of “natural justice”, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in legal procedures. The right to life is not just about the right to survive, it also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning. This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. Supreme Court describe it as the “heart of fundamental rights”.

Article 21 provides two rights:

1. Right to personal liberty: it implies the freedom of an individual to act freely within the boundaries of the law. Liberty includes various facets such as freedom from arbitrary detention and protection of personal privacy.
2. Right to life: it is not merely limited to physical existence but also includes the right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of “life” to encompass the right to live a meaningful, complete, and dignified life.

Interpretation

The judiciary has played a critical role in broadening the ambit of article 21. Some key interpretations include:

1. Expanded rights under article 21: the judiciary expanded some rights like right to privacy, right to education, right to clean environment, right to health and medical care.
2. Protection against arbitrary action: article 21 ensures that no individual is deprived of life or liberty without following due legal processes.
3. Implications in Criminal Law: the judiciary provides relaxation in criminal law by providing some rights like right against custodial death, protection against arbitrary arrest, right to legal aid.
4. Contemporary Developments: some developments have been seen in this article, surrogacy and reproductive rights, digital privacy.

The Court gave a list of rights that Article 21 covers based on earlier judgments. Some of them are:

1. Right to privacy
2. Right to go abroad
3. Right to shelter
4. Right against solitary confinement
5. Right to social justice and economic empowerment
6. Right against handcuffing
7. Right against custodial death
8. Right against delayed execution
9. Doctors’ assistance
10. Right against public hanging
11. Protection of cultural heritage
12. Right to pollution-free water and air
13. Right of every child to a full development
14. Right to health and medical aid
15. Right to education
16. Protection of under-trials

Article 21 is Absolute right or not ?

No, article 21 is not absolute right. While it provides a fundamental safeguard for life and personal liberty. It is subject to certain conditions and restrictions. The protection under article 21 can be curtailed if it is done through a procedure is fair, just, and reasonable.

Example: Arrest and detention under criminal law after following prescribed legal procedures.

Circumstances where article 21 can be restricted:

1. Emergencies: during a state emergency, fundamental rights under article 21 cannot be suspended. However, after 44th amendment, article 21 is safeguarded even during emergencies.
2. Preventive Detention: laws like Maintenance of Internal security Act (MISA) or NSA can restrict liberty in certain cases.
3. Death Penalty: Life can be taken away under article 21 in accordance with “procedure established by law”, such as death penalty for heinous crimes.

Case Laws

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Facts: In June 1976, a female journalist named Maneka Gandhi obtained her passport for work-related travel abroad.
However, in July 1977, she received a letter from the passport office informing her that the government was confiscating her passport “for public interest” under a specific law. She was instructed to return the passport within a week. Promptly, Maneka requested the reasons for this decision, as she was entitled to do under the law.
The government replied that they would not disclose the reasons “in the interest of the general public.” In response, she filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the government’s actions were illegal and violated her fundamental rights to equality under Article 14 and freedom of speech under Article 19.
Issue: Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 connected with each other or are they mutually exclusive?
Should the procedure established by law be tested for reasonability which in this case was the procedure laid down by the Passport Act of 1967?
Judgement: The court observed that the language used in Article 21, “procedure established by law,” indicates that such a procedure must not be arbitrary or irrational. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for the procedure to be anything less than fair, just, and reasonable. The court overruled the Gopalan case, stating that there is a relationship between the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and that each law must meet the standards set by these provisions. The court emphasized that personal liberty should not be interpreted narrowly and strictly, but rather in a liberal and broad sense. It affirmed that the right to travel abroad is guaranteed under Article 21. The court also noted that Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) represent administrative orders, which can be challenged on the grounds of being unreasonable, made in bad faith, denying natural justice, or being ultra vires. The court determined that the law allowing the government to revoke passports (Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act) was flawed. It was too vague, granting passport authorities excessive unchecked power, which violates the right to equality (Article 14). Additionally, it infringed upon the right to equality by not allowing individuals the opportunity to present their side of the story. Moreover, it violated the right to personal liberty (Article 21) because the process was neither fair nor reasonable. Despite recognizing these issues, the court did not immediately strike down the law. Instead, they ruled that the passports would remain with the authorities until a further decision was made.

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

Facts: Aadhaar was created to provide individuals with a unique identification card. In 2009, the government established the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue these cards, with the goal of giving everyone a single, non-duplicating identity number. Over 1.1 billion people have been enrolled in the program.
However, the Aadhaar project faced legal challenges. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Mr. Pravesh Khanna were among the first to contest it in court, arguing that Aadhaar violated citizens’ right to privacy—an aspect they claimed is part of the right to life enshrined in the constitution. When the Aadhaar Act became law in 2016, many others filed similar lawsuits, and all these cases were eventually consolidated into one.
Issue: Whether the Aadhaar Act violates the right to privacy and is unconstitutional on this ground?
What is the magnitude of protection that needs to be accorded to collection, storage and usage of biometric data?
Judgement: Nine Supreme Court judges unanimously agreed that privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. It encompasses freedom, respect, and the ability to make personal choices. The Court stated that privacy gives individuals the right to control their personal lives and prevents both the government and others from interfering. This right is intrinsically linked to equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life. Privacy includes:
1. Keeping one’s body private.
2. Controlling personal information.
3. Making personal life choices.
The Court emphasized that privacy is a natural right that individuals are born with and cannot be taken away. When assessing whether a law infringes on privacy, it must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” as well as proportional to the issue it aims to address. The Aadhaar system, which collects extensive personal data, was identified as a potential threat to individuals’ freedom. This ruling also marked a shift in the Court’s interpretation of privacy compared to earlier decisions made in 1954 and 1963. Court ruling confirmed that privacy is a fundamental constitutional right, offering essential protection for individuals against intrusions by both the government and private entities.

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India

Facts: Several individuals belonging to the LGBTQ+ community filed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 377, a colonial-era law, criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which was interpreted to include consensual homosexual acts. The petitioners argued that Section 377 violated their fundamental rights, including the right to equality (Article 14), the right to freedom of expression (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy and dignity (Article 21). The Union of India largely left the decision to the wisdom of the Court.
Issue: Whether their right under article 21 is violated?
what is the constitutional validity of section 377 IPC?
Judgement: The Court recognized that sexual orientation is a natural, innate, and immutable aspect of an individual’s identity. Discrimination based on this intrinsic trait is arbitrary and violates the principle of equality. The Court found that Section 377, in criminalizing consensual same-sex relations, created an unreasonable classification with no intelligible differentia (a distinguishing characteristic) that had a rational nexus (reasonable connection) to a legitimate state objective. The law treated individuals in same-sex relationships differently without a valid reason. The Court held that criminalizing private, consensual acts between adults based on their sexual orientation was manifestly arbitrary, as it lacked a sound and reasonable basis and was discriminatory on its face. Arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, and any law that is arbitrary violates Article 14. The Court emphasized that the touchstone for the validity of laws is constitutional morality, which encompasses the fundamental rights and values enshrined in the Constitution, rather than social morality, which can be based on prejudice and discriminatory norms. Constitutional morality demands equality and non-discrimination for all individuals, including LGBTQ+ persons. The Court noted that sexual orientation is analogous to sex, which is a prohibited ground for discrimination under Article 15 of the Constitution. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is thus a violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.