Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Legal provision

• Article 21: no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Article 359(1): during a Proclamation of Emergency, the President may suspend the right to move a court to enforce Part III rights, except those in Articles 20 and 21.
• Article 22: safeguards on arrest and preventive detention.
• Article 21A: free and compulsory education for children of six to fourteen years, inserted by the 86th Amendment (1 April 2010).

Meaning and definition

Article 21 protects every person, citizen or not, against the State. "Life" and "personal liberty" are not defined. The Court gives them wide meaning case by case. The phrase "procedure established by law" asks how the State may take life or liberty. It is not the American phrase "due process", which lets a court test the fairness of a law's procedure itself.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: Gopalan, the narrow reading (1950)

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, a communist leader was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. By 5:1, the Court struck down section 14 of the Act, which barred disclosure of the grounds of detention to a court, and upheld the rest. The majority held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are mutually exclusive fields. "Procedure established by law" meant any procedure validly enacted. Fazl Ali, J. dissented.

Step 2: Maneka Gandhi, the fair-procedure test (1978)

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, a seven-Judge Bench heard a challenge to the impounding of a passport by a letter of 2 July 1977 that gave no reasons. The Court held that personal liberty includes the right to go abroad. A law affecting it must prescribe a procedure that is "fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary". Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive, so a law must pass all three. The Court read a right to be heard into the Passports Act. This linked reading is the Golden Triangle.

Step 3: life means a life with dignity

In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, a British national was held at Tihar jail under the COFEPOSA Act. The jail allowed her one family visit a month and lawyer visits only in front of a Customs officer. The Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity. It struck down both limits as arbitrary and directed at least two family interviews a week and lawyer interviews at any reasonable hour.

Step 4: privacy

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Case), a nine-Judge Bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 and the freedoms in Part III. It overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they said otherwise. Privacy is not absolute. A restriction needs a law, a legitimate aim and proportionality.

Step 5: other rights read into Article 21

The list is illustrative, not closed.

• Speedy trial: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979).
• Free legal aid: M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978).
• Livelihood: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), decided by a five-Judge Bench.
• Pollution-free water and air: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991). The petition itself failed on its facts.
• Shelter: Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996).
• Health and emergency medical aid: Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996).
• Rights of prisoners: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978).
• Protection from custodial violence: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996), which also allows compensation under Articles 32 and 226.
• Safe workplace for women: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997). Sexual harassment of a working woman breaches Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. The Court framed binding guidelines until Parliament legislated.
• Gender identity: National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014). The Court upheld each person's self-identified gender and said insisting on surgery is illegal.
• Death with dignity: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), passive euthanasia with safeguards.

Step 6: the Emergency

In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case), a 4:1 Bench held in 1976 that no habeas corpus petition could be heard while an Article 359 order suspended Article 21. Khanna, J. alone dissented. His view is now the accepted position. The 44th Amendment then barred any Article 359 order from touching Articles 20 and 21.

Don't confuse: Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi

Common mistakes

• Saying Article 21 uses the words "due process". It uses "procedure established by law".
• Saying only citizens are protected. Article 21 covers every person.
• Saying Maneka Gandhi struck down the Passports Act. The Act survived. A hearing was read in.
• Treating the rights read into Article 21 as a closed list. The list is open.
• Saying Article 21 can be suspended in an Emergency. Article 359(1) now excludes Articles 20 and 21.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

  Facts. A communist leader detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 challenged the Act.

  Principle. By 5:1, section 14 was struck down and the rest upheld. Articles 14, 19 and 21 were treated as separate fields.

  Why it matters. It is the narrow reading that Maneka Gandhi displaced.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  Facts. A passport was impounded by a letter of 2 July 1977 that gave no reasons.

  Principle. The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive.

  Why it matters. It gave the Golden Triangle.

• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981)

  Facts. A detainee at Tihar jail was limited to one family interview a month.

  Principle. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity.

  Why it matters. It widened the meaning of life.

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Case) (2017)

  Facts. A challenge to the Aadhaar scheme raised the question whether privacy is a Fundamental Right.

  Principle. The nine Judges unanimously held that it is. Restrictions need legality, a legitimate aim and proportionality.

  Why it matters. It overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh on this point.

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

  Facts. A petition by activists and organisations sought protection of working women from sexual harassment.

  Principle. Sexual harassment breaches Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. The Court laid down binding guidelines.

  Why it matters. It filled a gap in the law.

• Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) (1976)

  Facts. Detainees held during the 1975 Emergency filed habeas corpus petitions.

  Principle. By 4:1, no petition could be heard while Article 21 was suspended. Khanna, J. dissented.

  Why it matters. The 44th Amendment protects Article 21 from suspension.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Article 21 protects every person. Text: "procedure established by law".
• Gopalan (1950): any valid procedure; Articles 14, 19, 21 separate.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978): fair, just, reasonable procedure; the Golden Triangle.
• Francis Coralie (1981): life means life with human dignity.
• Puttaswamy (2017): privacy is a Fundamental Right; proportionality test.
• Rights read in: speedy trial, legal aid, livelihood, clean air and water, shelter.
• Article 359(1) cannot suspend Articles 20 and 21.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Right to Education
• Protection against Arrest and Preventive Detention
• General Principles relating to Fundamental Rights(Art.13)