ABSTRACT:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides us with two rights namely, Right to life and Personal Liberty. This right is fundamental to all the other existing rights. Initially this right was limited to include only the mere physical existence of an individual. But over the time the judiciary has widened the scope of this right and has introduced us to a whole new ambit of rights which includes extensive values which even the framers of the constitution might not have foreseen then. The main intent behind this right is to safeguard the basic human rights available to all the people and it must be applied without any discrimination. Embryonically the scope was very limited and later due to the changing dynamics of the law the courts interpreted its scope widely by applying a purposive approach to the law. The omnipotent nature of this right can be used even during the emergency period and no one has the right to suspend it.
In this case, the paper aims to study how the scope of this article has expanded over time and some of the avant-garde interpretation done by the judiciary by providing relief to the people whose rights got violated.
Key words: Life, Liberty, Person, Article 21, Constitution.
INTRODUCTION:
“All men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Article 21 of our Constitution grants two rights namely: Right to life and Right to personal liberty. Initially, the scope of this article was very limited. The scope was limited to mere physical existence. But, now the scope has expanded broadly to great lengths. Article 21 is undoubtedly the heart of all the fundamental rights. So, the article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[1] Little did the framers of the Constitution knew that the scope of this article would expand extensively. The Court moved from a traditional approach to the purposive approach in constructing this article under our Constitution. Article 21 is available to citizens of the country as well as to the non-citizens. The idea behind this is to safeguard the human rights and to prevent people from exploitation. Article 21 is supreme that it can’t be suspended even during the emergency period. All the human beings have the right to live with dignity and no one has the right to exploit others. Article 21 of the Constitution is very fundamental to the existence of human kind and living merely without any meaning is worthless. So the bare necessities, the minimum basic requirements are inevitable for a person and it is the core concept of right to life. The term Personal Liberty means the liberty given to an individual to do his or her things freely without any restrains imposed. Personal Liberty means the freedom given to an individual to behave as one pleases except for those restrains imposed by laws and codes of conduct of the society in which one lives to safeguard the physical, moral, political and economic welfare of the others. This paper deals with the enormous scope of Article 21 and the changes it went through.
RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY:
Dignity is the right of a person to be respected and reputed for their own cause, and to be treated ethically. Generally, all human beings are born free and equal in rights and dignity.Fundamental rights are assured by the Indian Constitution to all the people without any discrimination. The provision of the fundamental rights maintains and safeguards the human dignity. Every person has an indefeasible right to live with dignified life without discrimination. It is one of the prominent duties of each state to take care of the fundamental rights to the human dignity and to implement welfare schemes in order to upgrade the dignified life of the citizens.
In the case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21 and held that, “the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.”[2]
Also in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union territory of Delhi, the Court held that, “the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings.”[3]
RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
According to Black’s Law dictionary, Privacy means, “right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned.”[4] The right to privacy is a component of various legal traditions to control governmental and private actions which jeopardizes the privacy of individuals. Nearly 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. Privacy is a fundamental right cherished in numerous International Human Rights instruments. It also assists and reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression, information and association.
The right to privacy is also certified as basic human rights under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948 that states as: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”[5] And Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, 1966 states that, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”[6]
The Constitution of India, 1950, doesn’t specifically assure the right to privacy, however through various decisions over the years the courts of the country have interpreted the other rights in the Constitution and gave rise to a right to privacy prominently through Article 21.
In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that“the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the constitution.”[7]
Telephone tapping would infringe Article 21 of the Constitution, unless it is permitted “under procedure established by law”[8]. Proceeding from the right to privacy is the question of tapping of the telephone. In the case of R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that the telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against wrongful or high handed interference by tapping the conversation.[9] The protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants. Telephone tapping is acceptable in India under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and it lays down the circumstances and grounds when an order for the tapping of a telephone may be passed, but no procedure for making the order is laid down therein.
The Supreme Court has also included the Right to travel abroad contained in by the expression “personal liberty” within the meaning of Article 21 under the interpretation of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi. [10]
RIGHT TO SLEEP:
“…our lack of sleep is a slow form of self-euthanasia…” ― Matthew Walker
Sleep deprivation causes serious health problems. The right to sleep is a fundamental right. Everyone has the right to get a sound sleep. Justice Chauhan mentioned clearly that the fundamental right to sleep should be treated on par with other basic rights such as right to food, privacy and life under Article 21. The Supreme Court has further diversified the gamut of Article 21 by including the right to sleep peacefully. The state should not unlawfully deprive the sleep of any person. A very important case which deals with the right to sleep under Article 21 of the constitution is Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors. (2012) In this case a protest was held in Ramlila Maidan led by Baba Ramdev against corruption and black money. The protestors were sleeping peacefully. A large number of CRPF, Delhi Police force and Rapid Action Force personnel arrived at the venue and caused a scrimmage among the people and tortured them by throwing tear gas on them.
The court held that every citizen is entitled to get a sound and comfortable sleep. If anyone tries to interrupt anyone’s sleep without any lawful justification, then it would amount to torture and violation of Human rights. In this case the court held that the act of causing widespread havoc to the protestors was unlawful. Every machine needs rest, similarly every human beings require proper amount of rest. Making people work all day without giving proper rest is against humanity.Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar were unanimous on their verdict that sleep is essential for human beings to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival. Sleep is, therefore, a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itself would be in peril.
RIGHT TO EDUCATION:
India is one of the youngest country in the world. But it also true that one-third of the world’s illiterate people domiciles in India. Education is the process of constructing things learned and acquisitions of knowledge, skills, beliefs and habits and helps to promote those who belong to economically and socially marginalized groups. The Right to Education Act (RTE) came up with free and compulsory education to all the children of the age of six to fourteen years in 2009 and it was guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21-A. The Right to Education performs as a building block to certify that every child has his or her right to get a standard elementary education. India has become one of the 135 countries to enforce the right to education as a fundamental right assured in our Constitution of India under Article 21A to every child. The Right of children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 speaks to the noteworthy enactment visualized under Article 21 which implies every child has a right to full time basic education of tasteful and evenhanded quality in a formal school that satisfies certain basic standards and benchmarks.[11] Generally, Part IV of the Constitution of India, 1950, Article 45 and Article 39(f) of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), has a provision for state funded as well as impartial and accessible education.
In the case of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that, “Right to education is the essence of the right to life and directly flow and interlinked with it and life living with dignity can only be assured when there is a significant role of education”.[12]
In the case of J.P Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that,” Right to education means citizen has the right to call up the state to provide the facilities of education to them in according to the financial capacity”.[13]
RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE:
This pandemic has made people to realize the significance of health and hygiene. It is the duty of the state to protect the people by providing them proper medical facilities. The state cannot intervene and gain control by inducing the people in medical profession to act according to its needs and coerce them by making them delaying their service. Every doctor has a professional obligation to extend his service with due expertise in protecting the life of an individual.
In the case of State of Punjab v M.S Chawla[14], it was held that the right to life under article 21 includes the right to get proper health and medical care. Life under article 21 doesn’t limit itself to the mere act of breathing and existing. It has a capacious importance which incorporates the right to live healthily with proper medical assistance. Even though the directive principles of state policies provides certain provisions relating to the health care it is not as powerful as Article 21 because DPSPs are not enforceable in the court of law. Even though our constitution has not expressly recognised the right to medical and health care, the court has interpreted the right under this article in various cases.
In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal[15], the court held that refusal on part of the hospitals in providing timely and effective treatment during emergency would result in violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of our constitution.
Inthe case of Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others[16], the court held that the hospitals cannot refuse to admit the patients and accident victims who are in critical condition merely because of the reason that they are not in the position to bear the expenses. The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide the requisite medical services to people on account of financial constraints. . In this enigmatic fight against the Covid-19 pandemic the Delhi High court expressly stated that the “State has failed in its fundamental obligation in protecting basic fundamental right” i.e. right to life under the article.
RIGHT TO DIE:
Life is precious. No one has the right to take the life of other. But what if a person decides to end his own life? Is it a right under Article 21? Whether right to life includes right to die? People get frustrated due to their excruciating difficulties in life and decides to end their life. They won’t realize the sanctity of their life. Let us keep the question of whether it is morally correct or not to end one’s own life aside. If we look at this legally the courts have interpreted it differently and has given contradicting opinions over different period of time.
It all started with the case of State .v. Sanjay Kumar[17] where the court criticized the section 309 of the IPC to be outdated and a paradox. This decision was followed by two cases with conflicting decisions. First in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal[18], the court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes right to die and the court struck down the section 309 of IPC which provides punishment for attempt to suicide as unconstitutional. Later the same decision was followed in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India[19] and accepted that section 309 was void and inhumane in nature. However, the decision was eventually challenged in the case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[20]. In this case the constitutional validity of section 306 and 309 was challenged. Here, the judgment given in the previous case was overruled and it was held that Section 309 of the IPC was not unconstitutional and that Section 306, criminalizing abetment to suicide, was Constitutional. The court concluded that suicide being an unnatural termination of life was against the concept of Right to Life. Hence right to life does not include the right to die. The court should not generalize the situation and should examine it individually keeping in mind the circumstances surrounding the case.
CONCLUSION-
“The right to life is the first among human rights.”
Every human being in this world has the right to live. No one has the right to take away the lives of others. Even though it is legally contemplated in various issues like abortion, euthanasia, war, etc., it is morally wrong and unjust to take away the life of an individual. Right to life and personal liberty under this article is one of the most consequential and pivotal right and it assumes great importance when compared to the other available rights. Various interpretations of this article in various judicial decisions have diversified the realm and scope of the right to life. The ambit of this right is vast and would still evolve in the future. A general awareness needs to be provided to the people about the various rights which he/she is entitled to. Any ludicrous or bizarre act of the state in depriving the life and personal liberty of any individual is against humanity.
[1] INDIA CONST.art.21.
[2] Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978), AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621(India).
[3] Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union territory of Delhi, (1981), AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516 (India).
[4] Suprateek Neogi, Right to Privacy and Social Media, RGNUL Student Research Review (Oct. 27, 2018), http://rsrr.in/2018/10/27/right-to-privacy-and-social-media/#:~:text=A%20more%20comprehensive%20definition%20of,the%20public%20is%20not%20necessarily
[5] Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948 art.12.
[6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, 1966 art.17.
[7] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2018), SCC OnLine SC 1642: AIROnline 2018 SC 237: 2018 (12) SCALE 1 (India).
[8]PM BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 90 (16th ed. 2019).
[9]R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973), AIR 157, 1973 SCR (2) 417 (India).
[10] Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi (1967), AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525 (India).
[11] NISHATHA JASWAL, ROLE OF SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY, 438-439 (Oct. 28 2008).
[12] Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992), AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658 (India).
[13] J.P Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594 (India).
[14] State of Punjab v M.S Chawla (1996), 113 PLR 499 (India).
[15] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43 (India).
[16] Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others (2005), II (2005) CPJ35 (NC) (India).
[17] State .v. Sanjay Kumar (1985), 1986 (10) DRJ 31 (India).
[18] State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1986), 1987 (1) BomCR 499, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589 (India).
[19] P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394 (India).
[20] Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648 (India).
