Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands as one of the most vital provisions safeguarding individual freedom and dignity. It guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, thereby ensuring a constitutional shield against arbitrary actions by the State. Over the years, judicial interpretation has significantly expanded its meaning, transforming it into a source of numerous human rights recognised under Indian law.

Background and Constitutional Context

Article 21 is enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights. Unlike certain other rights confined to citizens, Article 21 extends to all persons, including foreigners, refugees, and non-citizens residing within India’s territory. Its broad applicability reflects the framers’ intent to secure basic human dignity for everyone.
Originally, Article 21 was narrowly interpreted to mean protection against arbitrary executive action. However, through progressive judicial interpretation, especially from the late 20th century onwards, the Supreme Court of India expanded its scope to encompass a range of derivative rights essential for living with dignity.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting Article 21, evolving it into a comprehensive charter of human rights.

• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964): The Court recognised that the right to privacy is implicit in the concept of personal liberty. Although not expressly stated in the Constitution, it was derived as an essential component of Article 21.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case marked a turning point, broadening the interpretation of the phrase “procedure established by law.” The Court held that such procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, thus aligning Article 21 with the principle of due process of law.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Court connected the right to life and liberty with the right to work in a safe environment, issuing guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court explicitly declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21, thereby strengthening the framework for personal autonomy and dignity.

Through these and several other decisions, Article 21 has become a dynamic provision, capable of adapting to changing social and technological contexts.

Rights Derived from Article 21

Judicial pronouncements have recognised a wide range of rights under the ambit of Article 21. These include:

• Right to live with human dignity
• Right to livelihood
• Right to health and medical care
• Right to education
• Right to shelter
• Right to a clean and pollution-free environment
• Right to privacy
• Right to speedy trial
• Right to legal aid
• Right to die with dignity (recognised in the context of passive euthanasia)

These interpretations have allowed the judiciary to ensure that life under Article 21 does not mean mere animal existence, but a life worthy of human respect and moral value.

Procedural Safeguards and Limitations

While Article 21 guarantees protection, it is not absolute. It allows deprivation of life or liberty through a valid legal procedure, provided such procedure meets the test of fairness and reasonableness. Arbitrary, oppressive, or unjust laws are invalid under the Constitution.
Preventive detention laws, such as the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), permit limited deprivation of liberty. However, such laws are subject to constitutional safeguards, including judicial oversight and periodic review, to prevent misuse.

Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation

The evolution of Article 21 owes much to judicial activism and the emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. Through PILs, citizens and organisations have brought forward issues affecting collective life and liberty, leading to progressive rulings. For instance:

• Recognition of the right to a healthy environment in environmental cases.
• Enforcement of labour rights and human dignity for workers and marginalised groups.
• Expansion of women’s rights and child protection within the ambit of the right to life.

Such interventions have transformed Article 21 into a living instrument of social justice.

Impact on Legislation and Governance

The broad judicial interpretation of Article 21 has directly influenced legislative developments in India. Many welfare and human rights legislations have been enacted to give effect to its spirit, including:

• Right to Information Act, 2005 – promoting transparency as part of the right to live with dignity.
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ensuring safety and equality in personal spaces.
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – realising the right to education.
• National Food Security Act, 2013 – ensuring food as an essential element of the right to life.

These laws reflect the constitutional commitment to securing not only physical existence but also the conditions necessary for a dignified life.

International Human Rights Perspective

Article 21 is closely aligned with global human rights principles, particularly Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which asserts that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Similarly, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) echoes this commitment.
India’s judicial and constitutional approach to life and liberty demonstrates its adherence to international human rights obligations, harmonising domestic jurisprudence with global standards.

Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

In the modern context, Article 21 faces new challenges arising from technological advancement, surveillance mechanisms, and digital privacy concerns. The balance between individual rights and state security remains a matter of continuing debate. Issues such as data protection, cyber surveillance, and national security measures are continuously tested against the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and procedural justice embodied in Article 21.