case study on article 21

Cases of Article 21 Indian Constitution with Short explanation

Written by admin

Updated on: April 11, 2024

Table of Contents

 Cases of Article 21 Indian Constitution

• What do we include in ‘life and personal liberty’.
• What is ‘procedure establish by law’.

Due process of law

• American constitution  follows this principle.
• Checks whether any law in question is fair and not arbitrary.
• Principle provided very wider power to the Judiciary to while protecting the interest of its citizens.

Procedure Established by Law

‘Procedure established by law’ means that a law that is duly enacted by the legislature or the body in question is valid if the procedure to establish it has been correctly followed.

1. AK Gopalan V State of Madras:

Procedure established by law.

A rigid and inflexible following of the procedure established by law may raise the risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to unjust law made by the law-making authorities.

2. Maneka Gandhi V UOI

Right to have fair procedure-.

The 7 Judges bench was held that Article 19 and Article 21 must be read together and the procedure established by the law restricting there rights should stand the scrutiny of the other provisions of the Constitution as well- including Article 14. This case also held that Article 14, 19 and 21 is the ‘golden triangle’ of the Indian Constitution.

Facets of ‘Life and Liberty’

3. hussainara v home sec , bihar right to legal aid-.

Supreme Court held that “under-trial prisoners, in jail for period longer than what they would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal as being in violation of Article of 21.”

5. Right to go abroad- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi,

6. Right to privacy-

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P

“The meanings of the expression’s “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 were considered by this court in Kharak Singh’s case. Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no explicit guarantee of a “right to privacy”, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilization.”

7. Right against solitary confinement

Sunil Batra v. Delhi  Administration

SC held that the “right to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

8. Right against hand cuffing Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration

9. Right to Medical Care- Parmananda Katara v. Union of India 10. Right to Health- Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India 11. Right to Social Security and Protection of Family- L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre 12. Right to Shelter- Chameli Singh v. State of U.P

13. D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress

Right To Livelihood-

14. D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis

Right to reputation-, 15. vishakha v. state of rajasthan.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace-

16. Right To Live with Human Dignity- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 17. Right against Bar Fetters-Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration-

18. Right to Write a Book-State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang

19. Right against Delayed Execution: Sher Singh v. State of Punjab

20. Right against Public Hanging : Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi

21. Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21- Deena v. Union of India 22. Right to Bail.- Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 23. Right to Fair Trial- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 24. Right to Speedy Trial- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar.

25. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal-

26. Right against Illegal Detention- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 27. Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases- Mr. X v. Hospital Z 28. Tapping of Telephone- PUCL v. Union of India 29. Right Against Noise Pollution- In Re: Noise Pollution 30. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India- smoking in public place 31. Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air- Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar.

33. Euthanasia and Right to Life-Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

34. right to work- olga tells v bmc.

35. Right to Marriage- Mr. X V Hospital Z 36. Right to Food- PUCL v UOI 37. Right to Legal Aid- Sheela Barse v UOI 38. Right to Education- Mohini jain v state of karnatka

39. Right to have clean Environment- MC Mehta v UOI 40. Right to have shelter-chameli v state 41. Right to receive compensation – Rudal Shah v state of Bihar

Cases of Article 21 Indian Constitution for CLAT PG | Judicial Services

Recognition of State in International Law

20 important supreme court of india judgments / orders march 2018.

Related Post

AOR Exam Leading Cases Supreme Court

Cuet pg llm syllabus 2024: subject-wise syllabus details, what to look for in a criminal lawyer, sources and schools of hindu marriage act, 1955, leave a comment cancel reply.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Latest News

4th Bombay Bar Association – GLC International Law Summit, 2024 

Interpreting Emojis in Legal Battles: A Case Study

Redemption and Release of Gold under the Customs Act, 1962

Key legal tips everyone should know: understanding serious offenses.

Online Law Internship in IPR & Technology Law at Our Legal World

TAX LAWS CLUB

Privacy Policy

© Ourlegalworld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Sitemap

© OurLegalWrld | All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | About Us | Contact Us

Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer

Article 21 (and its many interpretations) is the perfect example of the transformative character of the Constitution of India. The Indian judiciary has attributed wider connotation and meaning to Article 21, extending beyond the Constitution makers’ imagination. These meanings derived from the ‘right to life’ present unique complexities. It is impossible to understand the expansive jurisprudence on Article 21 within the length of this piece. Therefore, Riya Jain understands the various components of freedom that stem from the ‘right to life’. She presents a straightforward and comprehensive explainer on the case laws that have interpreted the right.

By Riya Jain, UILS Panjab University.

*The piece was first published by Riya in 2015, this is the updated form. 

Introduction of Article 21

Article 21 of Indian constitution reads:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”

In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 ’embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society’. Further, Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty’.

Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution . It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1)  Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

It prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

It is also fundamental to democracy as it extends to natural persons and not just citizens. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner to the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

This Article is an all tell for Article 21. The first part will understand the meaning and concept of ‘right to life’ as understood by the judiciary. Further, the piece will lay out how several violations of the body, reputation and equality have been understood and brought under the purview of the right to life and the right to live with dignity.

Meaning, Concept and Interpretation of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21

‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’

The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Section will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India , 1950 provides,

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider, including, including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc.

The right to life is fundamental to our very existence, without which we cannot live as human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from the core concept of the right to life.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [i] , the Supreme Court quoted and held:

By the term ‘life’ as here used, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [ii] , the Supreme Court approved the above observations. It held that the ‘right to life’ included the right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. In addition, it consists of the Right to live and sleep in peace and the Right to repose and health.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [iii] , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The Court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the same view, the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi [iv]  observed:

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., 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 and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”

Another broad formulation of life to dignity is found in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [v] . Characterising Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the Court gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. “These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

Following the above-stated cases, the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [vi] , held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bhagwati J. held that rights and benefits conferred on workmen employed by a contractor under various labour laws are intended to ensure basic human dignity to workers. He held that the non-implementation by the private contractors engaged for constructing a building for holding Asian Games in Delhi, and non-enforcement of these laws by the State Authorities of the provisions of these laws was held to be violative of the fundamental right of workers to live with human dignity contained in Art. 21 [vii] .

In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad [viii] , it has been held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and decency. Therefore, keeping of beauty contest is repugnant to the dignity or decency of women and offends Article 21 of the Constitution only if the same is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene or intended for blackmailing. Therefore, the government is empowered to prohibit the contest as objectionable performance under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [ix] , the Court struck down a provision of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Thi provision provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1 per month to a suspended government servant upon his conviction during the pendency of his appeal as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Sexual harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21.

“The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to compass all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. “

The above statement by Justice Verma in the famous Vishakha judgment liberalised the understanding of Article 21. Therefore, making it even more emancipatory.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [x] , the Supreme Court declared sexual harassment at the workplace to violate the right to equality, life and liberty. Therefore, a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

In this case, in the absence of a relevant law against sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to ensure gender parity in the workplace:

This meant that all employers or persons in charge of the workplace, whether in the public or private sector, should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment.

• Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace should be notified, published and circulated inappropriate ways.
• The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
• As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the prohibitions above in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Appropriate work conditions should be provided for work, leisure, health, and hygiene to ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at workplaces. No employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.
• Where such conduct amounts to specific offences under IPC or under any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.
• The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek the transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer.

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra [xi] , the Supreme Court reiterated the Vishakha ruling and observed that:

“There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in the violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India…. “In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated….”

Understanding Article 21 Through Against Sexual Assault and Rape 

Rape has been held to be a violation of a person’s fundamental life guaranteed under Article 21. Therefore, the right to life would include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and worth living.

In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [xii] , the Supreme Court observed:

“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Art 21”.

Right to Reputation and Article 21

Reputation is an essential part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human civilisation that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referred to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis [xiii] in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [xiv] . It said:

“good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.”

The same American decision has also been referred to in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust [xv]. The Court held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to enjoy life, liberty and property.

It has been held that the right equally covers a person’s reputation during and after his death. Thus, any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would undoubtedly come under the scope of Article 21.

State of UP v. Mohammaad Naim [xvi] succinctly laid down the following tests while dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law. These are:

• whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself.
• whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks.
• Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct, it has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial. It should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve.

In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani [xvii] , a two-member commission got appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in the Bhagalpur district on  October 24, 1989. The commission made certain remarks in the report, which impinged upon the respondent’s reputation as a public man without allowing him to be heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation, and one also had the right to protect it.

The Court further said that if any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to have his say in the matter. Finally, the Court observed that the principle of natural justice made it incumbent upon the authority to allow the person before any comment was made or opinion was expressed, likely to affect that person prejudicially.

Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram [xviii] , a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21. The Court said curtly:

“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument that the word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”

But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 was read broadly. The Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni [xix] , came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to livelihood’.

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xx] , popularly known as the ‘Pavement Dwellers Case’, is important. Herein, a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:

“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

If the right to livelihood is not treated as part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation [xxi] .

In the instant case, the Court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

Emphasising upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the Court stated:

“That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life [xxii] .”

Article 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and, for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Article 21 insists is that such lack ought to be according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore, anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can challenge such deprivation as being against Article 21 and get it declared void [xxiii] .

In DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [xxiv] , the Court was hearing a matter where an employee was laid off by issuing a notice without any reason. The Court held that the same was utterly arbitrary and violative of Article 21.

In M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd [xxv] , it was held that when a government servant or one in a public undertaking is suspended pending a departmental disciplinary inquiry against him, subsistence allowance must be paid to him. The Court has emphasised that a government servant does not have his right to life and other fundamental rights.

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable and in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.

In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [xxvi] , the SC held that the state acquired a landowner’s land following the procedure laid down in the relevant law of acquisition. So even though the right to livelihood of the landowner is adversely affected, it is not violated.

The Court opined that the state acquires land in exercising its power of eminent domain for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in place of land. Therefore, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable.

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors [xxvii] , the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does protect livelihood. However, the Court added a rider that its deprivation could not be extended too far or projected or stretched to the recreation, business or trade detrimental to the public interest or has an insidious effect on public moral or public order.

The Court further held that regulating video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not violative of Article 21, nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair or unjust.

An important case that needs to be mentioned when speaking about the right to livelihood is MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY [xxviii].   In this case, the Court had held that a person could not be denied employment if they tested positive for HIV. And they cannot be rendered ‘medically unfit’ owing to the same. In interpreting the right to livelihood, the Court emphasised that the same couldn’t hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority.

Is Right to Work a Fundamental Right under Article 21?

In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [xxix] , the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to carry on any trade or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g). Regarding the same, the Court held that the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. Thus, Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and business.

The petitioners in the case were hawkers doing business off the paved roads in Delhi. They had claimed against the Municipal authorities who did not allow former to carry out their business. The hawkers claimed that the refusal to do so violated their Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court opined that the petitioners had a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their choice. However, they had no right to do so in a particular place. Hence, they couldn’t be permitted to carry on their trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to conveniently accommodate the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all or permitted once a week.

The Court also held that footpaths, streets or roads are public property intended to several general public and are not meant for private use. However, the Court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. Therefore, the two rights were too remote to be connected.

The Court distinguished the ruling in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xxx]. In the case the Court held:

“in that case, the petitioners were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes existing in the midst of filth and squalor and that they had to stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in the city. It was not the case of a business of selling articles after investing some capital.”

In Secretary, the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [xxxi] , the Court rejected that right to employment at the present point of time can be included as a fundamental right under Right to Life under Art. 21.

Right to Shelter

In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited [xxxii] , the right to shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured under Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The state has to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses to make the right meaningful for the poor. [xxxiii] .

Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable accommodation in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [xxxiv] , the Court held:

“The Right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need for an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.

The Court advanced:

“For the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home, particularly for people in India, can even be a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.”

In Chameli Singh v. State of U P [xxxv] , a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen. And the same was read into Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘right to shelter’ was considered encompassing the right to life, making the latter more meaningful. The Court advanced:

“Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being [xxxvi] .”

Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of the family. K. Ramaswamy J., in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose [xxxvii] , held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under Art. 21. The learned judge explained:

“right to life and dignity of a person and status without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations for meaning the right to life and that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were an integral part of the right to life.”

In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [xxxviii]  (Chakmas Case), the SC said that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. Further, it cannot permit anybody or a group of persons to threaten another person or group of persons. No state government worth the name can tolerate such threats from one group of persons to another group of persons. Therefore, the state is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults. If it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations.

In  Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde [xxxix] , it was held that the right to economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed Dalits was a fundamental right to make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.

In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa [xl] , the Supreme held that security against sickness and disablement was a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Section 39(e) of the Constitution of India.

In LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre [xli] , it was further held that right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured.

Further, Surjit Kumar v. State of UP. [xlii] is a crucial case that reads Article 21 as extending protection against honour killing.  In the case, a division bench of Allahabad high court took serious note on harassment, ill-treatment, and killing of a person for wanting to get married to a person of another caste or community. The accused justified the harassment and killing, claiming that the victim had brought dishonour to the family. The Court said that such a practice of ‘honor killing’ was a blot on society and inter-caste marriage was not against the law. Therefore, the Court directed the police to take strong measures against the accused.

Right to Health and Medical Care

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla [xliii] , it was held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ‘ambit the right to health and medical care’.

In Vincent v. Union of India , [xliv] the Supreme Court   emphasised that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. Further, Article 47, a Directive Principle of State Policy, lays stress note on the improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs detrimental to health as one of the primary duties of the state [xlv] .

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India [xlvi] , the Supreme Court laid down:

“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity requires the state to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilised living. The health and strength of worker, the Court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Art. 21.”

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India [xlvii] , the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that ‘once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored’. [xlviii] It was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with by the police.

Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those in charge of the community’s health to protect life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. No law can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession.

The Court also observed:

“Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the state to preserve life. The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment…. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.”

This link between the right to medical care and health and Article 21 played out most vividly during the pandemic. Especially since the state couldn’t manage the crisis and many people were left to fend for themselves.

To read about the right to health and Article 21, click here

Coming back to understanding the right to medical care pre-covid era, another case that understands this interlink better is Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal. [xlix] In this case, a person suffering from severe head injuries from a train accident was refused treatment at various hospitals on the excuse that they lacked the adequate facilities and infrastructure to provide treatment.

Through this case, the Supreme Court developed the right to emergency treatment. The Court went on to say that the failure on the part of the government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect to such a right. Still, it maintained that the state needed to provide for the resources to give effect to the people’s entitlement of receiving emergency medical treatment [l] .

It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing emergency medical care. Again, in Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others [li] , it was held that a hospital is duty-bound to accept accident victims and patients who are in critical condition and that it cannot refuse treatment on the ground that the victim is not in a position to pay the fee or meet the expenses or on the ground that there is no close relation of the victim available who can give consent for medical treatment [lii] .

The Court has laid stress on a crucial point, viz., the state cannot plead lack of financial resources to carry out these directions meant to provide adequate medical services to the people. The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical assistance to people on account of financial constraints.

But, in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [liii] , the Supreme Court recognised that provision of health facilities could not be unlimited. The Court held that it has to be to the extent finance permits. No country has unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects.

In Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India [liv] , the right to get free and timely legal aid or facilities was not held as a fundamental right of ex-servicemen. Therefore, a policy decision in formulating a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay a one-time contribution does not violate Art. 21, nor is it inconsistent with Part IV of the Constitution.

No Right to Die

While Article 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, does it also confers a right to a person to end their life? If so, then what is the fate of Section 309 Indian Penal Code (1860), which punishes a person convicted of attempting to commit suicide? There has been a difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the statute book.

This question came for consideration for the first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal. In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to die. The Hon’ble High Court struck down Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for an attempt to commit suicide on a person as unconstitutional.

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India [lv] , a two-judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court took cognisance of the relationship/contradiction between Section 309 IPC and Article 21. The Court supported the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case held that the right to life embodies in Article 21 also embodied in it a right not to live a forced life, to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking.

The Court argued that the word life in Article 21 means the right to live with human dignity, and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the Court concluded that the right to live of which Article 21 speaks could bring in the right not to live a forced life. The Court further emphasised that an ‘attempt to commit suicide is, in reality, a cry for held and not for punishment’.

The Rathinam ruling came to be reviewed by a full bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvi] . The question before the Court was:  if the principal offence of attempting to commit suicide is void as unconstitutional vis-à-vis Article 21, then how abetment can thereof be punishable under Section 306 IPC?

It was argued that ‘the right to die’ had been included in Article 21 (Rathinam ruling) and Sec. 309 declared unconstitutional. Thus, any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in enforcing his fundamental Right under Article 21.

The Court overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Art.21 is a provision guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life’ be read to be included in the protection of life. The Court observed further:

“……’Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life”

However, in this regard, in 2020, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the central government. The Court had asked the center to explain its stance on the conflict between Section 309 and the Mental Healthcare Act, promulgated in 2017 (MHCA). As opposed to Section 309, which criminalises attempts to suicide, the MHCA proscribes prosecution of the person attempting it. Given that the Section is colonial legislation, many have vocalised to do away with the same altogether. Additionally, in 2018, in a 134-page-long judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud said it was ‘inhuman’ to punish someone who was already distressed .

Euthanasia and Right to Life

Euthanasia is the termination of the life of a person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvii] , the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and an attempt to commit suicide.

The Court held that death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent, and the process of natural death has commenced. Therefore, these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating the conclusion of the process of natural death that has already started.

The Court further held that this might fall within the ambit of the right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. However, this cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.

Sentence of Death –Rarest of Rare Cases

The law commission of India has dealt with the issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment, collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views expressed by western scholars. The commission recommended the retention of capital punishment in the present state of the country.

The commission held recognised the on-ground conditions of India. By that, it meant the difference in the social upbringing, morality and education, its diversity and population. Given all these factors, India could not risk the experiment of the abolition of capital punishment.

In Jagmohan v. State of U P [lviii] , the Supreme Court had held that the death penalty was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. It was said that the judge was to make the choice between the death penalty and imprisonment for life based on circumstances, facts, and nature of crime brought on record during trial. Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance with the procedure established by law as required under article 21

But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P. [lix] , Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the majority, held that capital punishment would not be justified unless it was shown that the criminal was dangerous to society. The learned judge plead for the abolition of the death penalty and said that it should be retained only for ‘white collar crimes’

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [lx] , the leading case of on the question, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court explained that article 21 recognised the right of the state to deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It was further held that the death penalty for the offence of murder awarded under section 302 of IPC did not violate the basic feature of the Constitution.

Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar [lxi] , it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution-free water and air which is included in ‘right to live’ under Art.21 of the Constitution. The Court observed:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.32 of     the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”  

Right to Clean Environment

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created if not checked.

The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article 21:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) [lxii] , the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries polluting the water.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) [lxiii] , the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [lxiv] , the Court took cognisance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. As a result, the Court issued several directions to deal with the problem.

In Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan [lxv] , the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” means clean surroundings, which leads to a healthy body and mind. It includes the right to freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas.

In  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) [lxvi] , the Court held that the blatant and large-scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi violated the right to a salubrious sand decent environment. Taking note of the problem, the Court issued directives to the government on the same.

In  Murli S. Deora v. Union of India [lxvii] , the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of the act of sTherefore, rights. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.

Right Against Noise Pollution

In Re: Noise Pollution [lxviii] , the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious noise levels due to the bursting of crackers during Diwali. The Apex Court suggested to desist from bursting and making use of such noise-making crackers and observed that:

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the life and personal liberty to all persons. It guarantees the right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort, and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him.”

Continued…

“No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises that would travel beyond his precincts and cause the nuisance to neighbors or others. Any noise, which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man, is nuisance…. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 [lxix] “.

Right to Know

Holding that the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court in RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the conduct of affairs of the state.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong link between Art.21 and the right to know, particularly where secret government decisions may affect health, life, and livelihood.

Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, ruled that the citizens who had been made responsible for protecting the environment had a right to know the government proposal.

Read more about right to know here .

Personal Liberty

The liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As long as 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that,

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned… but… by the law of the land.

The smallest Article of eighteen words has the greatest significance for those who cherish the ideals of liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India, the concept of ‘liberty’ has received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognised as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The meaning of the term’ personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh’s case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits secret picketing.

Oddly enough, both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term ‘personal liberty’ by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois , which held the term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which life was enjoyed.

This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorising domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional.

The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those ‘necessarily’ lost as an incident of imprisonment

Right to Privacy and Article 21

Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy was considered a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. After the KS Puttuswamy judgment, the right to privacy has been read and understood by the Court in various landmark judgments.

The Supreme Court has culled the right to privacy from Article 21 and other provisions of the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Although no single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy, various statutes had provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserved this right . [lxx]

For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of UP , [lxxi] the Court questioned whether the right to privacy could be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came before the Court. “Surveillance” under Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations constituted an infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation 236(b), which permitted surveillance by “domiciliary visits at night”, was held to violate Article 21.  A seven-judge bench held that:

“the meanings of the expressions “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 were considered by this Court in Kharak Singh’s case. Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no explicit guarantee of a “right to privacy”, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation”

In a minority judgment, in this case, Justice Subba Rao held that:

“the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where he lives with his family, is his ‘castle’; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty”.

This case, especially Justice Subba Rao’s observations, paved the way for later elaborations on the right to privacy using Article 21.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [lxxii] , The Supreme Court took a more elaborate appraisal of the right to privacy. In this case, the Court was evaluating the constitutional validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which provided for police surveillance of habitual offenders including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects. The Supreme Court desisted from striking down these invasive provisions holding that:

“It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to surveillance.”

The Court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an emanation from Arts.19(a), (d) and 21. Mathew J. observed in the instant case,

“The Right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a process of case by case development.        Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty. the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them that one can characterise as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute….. …… Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest.”

Scope and Content of Right to Privacy Pre-Puttaswamy Judgment

Read more about the right to privacy as part of Academike’s Constitutional Rights Series here

Tapping of Telephone

Emanating from the right to privacy is the question of tapping of the telephone.

In RM Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that Courts would protect the telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen against wrongful or high handed’ interference by tapping the conversation. However, 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 permissible in India under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 . The Section lays down the circumstances and grounds when an order for tapping a telephone may be passed, but no procedure for making the order is laid down therein.

The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India held that in the absence of just and fair procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens under Section 19 and 21. Accordingly, the Court issued procedural safeguards to be observed before restoring to telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Act.

The Court further ruled:

“right to privacy is a part of the right to ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”. The Court has further ruled that Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.”

Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

In Mr X v. Hospital Z [lxxv] , the question before the Supreme Court was whether the disclosure by the doctor that his patient, who was to get married had tested HIV positive, would be violative of the patient’s right to privacy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy was not absolute and might be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.

The Court explained that the right to life of a lady with whom the patient was to marry would positively include the right to be told that a person with whom she was proposed to be married was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable.

Since the right to life included the right to a healthy life to enjoy all the facilities of the human body in prime condition, it was held that the doctors had not violated the right to privacy.

Right to Privacy and Subjecting a Person to Medical Tests

It is well settled that the right to privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken to prevent crimes or disorder or protect health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. If there is a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, which advances public morality would prevail.

In the case Sharda v. Dharmpal [lxxvi] , a three-judge bench ruled that a matrimonial court had the power to direct the parties in a divorce proceeding to undergo a medical examination. A direction issued for this could not be held to violate one’s right to privacy. The Court, however, said that there must be sufficient material for this.

Right to Privacy: Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

A woman’s right to make reproductive choices includes the woman’s right to refuse participation in the sexual activity or the insistence on using contraceptive methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. The woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth subsequently raise children.

Right to Travel Abroad

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi [lxxvii] , the Supreme Court has included the right to travel abroad contained in the expression “personal liberty” within the meaning of Article 21.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [lxxviii] , the validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967, which empowered the government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of the general public, was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of the right to “personal liberty” the impugned Section didn’t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was violative of Art. 21.

The Court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that the right to travel abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding a passport under the Passport Act. Bhagwati, J., observed:

The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be “‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Right against Illegal Detention

In  Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxix] , the petitioner was detained by the police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days. Taking serious note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during the investigation:

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled if he so requests to have a friend, relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

In the case of  DK. Basu v. State of West Bengal [lxxx] , the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and detention. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the guidelines be followed till legal provisions are made on that behalf as preventive measures. It also held that any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Article 21 and Prisoner’s Rights

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not deprived of all the fundamental rights they otherwise possess by mere reason of their conviction. Following the conviction of a convict is put into jail he may be deprived of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed under Article 21, and he shall not be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by a procedure established by law [lxxxi] .

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21. The Court has interpreted Article 21 to have the widest possible amplitude. On being convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty following the procedure established by law. Article 21 has laid down a new constitutional and prison jurisprudence [lxxxii] .

The rights and protections recognised to be given in the topics to follow.

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

In  M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [lxxxiii] , while holding free legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure, the Court explained:

“the two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as government charity.”

In other words, an accused person, where the charge is of an offence punishable with imprisonment, is entitled to be offered legal aid if he is too poor to afford counsel. In addition, counsel for the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defence. Breach of these safeguards of a fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction.

Right to Speedy Trial

In  Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [lxxxiv] , the Supreme Court observed that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of law.

The Court noted the situation and observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such long periods without trials.

The Court held that detention of undertrial prisoners in jail for a period more than what they would have been sentenced to if convicted was illegal. And the same violated Article 21. The Court ordered to release of undertrial prisoners who had been in jail for a longer period than the punishment meted out in case of conviction.

In  A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [lxxxv] , a Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court dealt with the question and laid down specific guidelines for ensuring speedy trial of offences some of them have been listed below [lxxxvi] :

Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.

Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision, and retrial.

The concerns underlying the right of the speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are:

The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.

The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and

Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend him.

While determining whether the undue delay has occurred, one must regard all the attendant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the number of accused and witnesses, and the Court’s workload concerned. Every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. An accuser’s plea of denial of the speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the accused did at no time demand a speedy trial

In the case of  Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [lxxxvii] , the Supreme Court directed the Judges of the High Courts to give quick judgments, and in certain circumstances, the parties are to apply to the Chief Justice to move the case to another bench or to do the needful at his discretion.

Right to Fair Trial

The free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme Court in  Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [lxxxviii] said that the right to free and fair trial to the accused and the victims, their family members, and relatives and society at large.

Right to Bail

The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to bathe present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which insists merely on financial security from the accused and their sureties. Many of the undertrials being poor and indigent are unable to provide any financial security. Consequently, they have to languish in prisons awaiting their trials.

But incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offences during the pendency of trial cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. In Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxxix] , the Court held that the right to bail was included in the personal liberty under Article 21. Its refusal would be the deprivation of that liberty, which could be authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Anticipatory bail is a statutory right, and it does not arise out of Article 21. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.

Right Against Handcuffing

Handcuffing has been considered prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. It has been held to be unwarranted and violative of Article 21.

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration [xc] , the Supreme Court struck down the Rules that provided that every undertrial accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. Instead, the Court ruled that handcuffing should be resorted to only when there was “clear and present danger of escape” of the accused under  -trial, breaking out of police control.

Right Against Solitary Confinement

It has been held that a convict is not wholly denuded of his fundamental rights, and his conviction does not reduce him into a non – person whose rights are subjected to the whims of the prison administration. Therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison system is conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguard.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [xci] , the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Delhi session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high Court. He was detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement.

It was contended that Section 30 of the Prisoners Act does not authorise jail authorities to send him to solitary confinement, which by itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could be imposed by a court of law. Therefore, it could not be left to the whim and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner’s argument and held that the imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of Article 21.

Right Against Custodial Violence

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of having committed crimes are routine. There has been a lot of public outcry from time to time against custodial deaths.

The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities, intimidation, harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has classified these as being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with human dignity and the same are available against torture.

Death by hanging is Not Violative of Article 21

In  Deena v. Union of India [xcii] , the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging was challenged as being “barbarous, inhuman, and degrading” and therefore violative of Article 21.

The Court, in this case, referred to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949, the opinion of the Director-General of Health Services of India, the 35 th Report of the Law Commission and the opinion of the Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts. Finally, it held that death by hanging was the best and least painful method of carrying out the death penalty. Thus, not violative of Article 21.

Right against Public Hanging

The Rajasthan High Court, by an order, directed the execution of the death sentence of an accused by hanging at the Stadium Ground of Jaipur. It was also directed that the execution should be done after giving widespread publicity through the media.

On receipt of the above order, the Supreme Court in  Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi [xciii] held that the direction for the execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.

It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice. Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric, it would be a shame on the civilised society to reciprocate the same. The Court said,

“a barbaric crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.”

Right Against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [xcv] , the Supreme Court held that the delay in execution of a death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection under Article 21 and the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of the delay is immaterial. The accused himself may be the cause of the delay.

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [xcvi] , the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for the execution of a death sentence is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure, and the only way to undo that is through Article 21.

But the Court held that this could not be taken as the rule of law and applied to each case, and each case should be decided upon its own facts.  

Procedure Established by Law and Article 21

The expression ‘procedure established by law’ has been the subject of interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in judicial interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression.

The Supreme Court took the view that ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American ‘due process of law’.

But, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘right, just and fair’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’.

It also held that otherwise, it would be no procedure, and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration said:

“(though) our Constitution has no due process clause (but after Maneka Gandhi’s case) the consequence is the same, and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of the due process clause in American Constitution.”

In December 1985, the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for killing two young women by setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move, the Court ordered both prisoners to be publicly executed.

In response to a review petition by the Attorney General against this judgment, the Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings, observing that ‘a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty’.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the execution of a death sentence by public hanging violates Article 21, which mandates the observance of a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

Thus, an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground, among other things, that it was violative of Article 21. Again, in Sher Singh v State of Punjab , the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death sentence violates Article 21.

The Supreme Court has taken the view that this Article read is concerned with the fullest development of an individual, ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Therefore, every procedure must seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just’.

The right to life and personal liberty has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity.

The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be proportional to protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and the right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favour of the state is not reasonable, fair and just, even though the state cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood for all.

Under this doctrine, the Court will examine whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair and just. And whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable manner.

This has meant, for example, the right to a speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable, fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State action covering civil, criminal and administrative action.

In one of the landmark decisions in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India , the Supreme Court of India observed that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law.

The Court observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any process of law. Considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed the prohibition of smoking in public places.

It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take adequate steps to ensure the prohibition of smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions etc.

In this manner, the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon to include the rights of non-smokers.

Further, when there is an inordinate delay in the investigation – it affects the right of the accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can be no cause of action.

But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation, then the provisions of Article 21 are attracted. The right is against actual proceedings in Court and against police investigation.

The Supreme Court has widened the scope of ‘procedure established by law’ and held that merely a procedure had been established by law, a person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

Hence, it is well established that to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty must be done under a ‘procedure, established by law’. Such an exception must be made in a just, fair and reasonable manner and must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Therefore, for the procedure to be valid, it must comply with the principles of natural justice.

Article 21 and The Emergency 

In ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla [xcviii] , popularly known as the habeas corpus case, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty.

Therefore, if the presidential order suspended the right to move any court to enforce that right under Article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for challenging the legality of his detention.

Hence, such a wide connotation of Article 359 denied the cherished right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established that during the emergence of 1975, the people’s fundamental freedom had lost all meaning.

So that it must not occur again, the constitution act, 1978, amended article 359 to the effect that during the operation of the proclamation of emergency, the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential order.

Given the 44 th amendment, 1978, the observations in the above-cited judgments are left merely of academic importance.

India, legal Service. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – the Expanding Horizons , www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Scribd , Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India.

Math, Suresh Bada. “10. Rights of Prisoners.” Nimhans.kar.nic.in , www.academia.edu/1192854/10._RIGHTS_OF_PRISONERS.

“SC Agrees to Examine Right to Shelter for PAVEMENT DWELLERS-INDIA News , Firstpost.” Firstpost , Sept. 2013, www.firstpost.com/india/sc-agrees-to-examine-right-to-shelter-for-pavement-dwellers-1108073.html.

admin on August 31, 2016 4:32 PM, et al. Human Rights and Jurisprudence: Right to Life / Livelihood Archives , www.hurights.or.jp/english/human_rights_and_jurisprudence/right-to-lifelivelihood/.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India – DISCUSSED!” Your Article Library , 24 Feb. 2014, www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-discussed/5497/.

“Honour Killing.” LAW REPORTS INDIA , 29 Apr. 2011, lawreports.wordpress.com/category/honour-killing/.

Grewal, Puneet Kaur. “Honour Killings and Law in India.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science , vol. 5, no. 6, 2012, pp. 28–31., doi:10.9790/0837-0562831.

Annavarapu, Sneha. “Honor Killings, Human Rights and Indian Law.” Economic and Political Weekly , www.academia.edu/5386926/Honor_Killings_Human_Rights_and_Indian_Law.

Nandimath, Omprakash V. “Consent and Medical Treatment: The Legal Paradigm in India.” Indian Journal of Urology : IJU : Journal of the Urological Society of India , Medknow Publications, July 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779959/.

http://www.hrln.org/hrln/peoples-health-rights/pils-a-cases/1484-sc-reaffirms-workers-right-to-health-and-medical-care.html

Cases as appearing in the Article:

[i] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[ii] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[iii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[iv] 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

[v] 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

[vi] 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

[vii] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42 nd Ed. (2005), p. 222

[viii] AIR 1998 AP 302

[ix] 983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327

[x] AIR 1997 SC 3011 : (1997) 6 SCC 241

[xi] AIR 1999 SC 625

[xii] 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490

[xiii] 55 American LR 171

[xiv] 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 20

[xv] AIR 1989 SC 714.

[xvi] 1964 AIR 703, 1964 SCR (2) 363

[xvii] AIR 2003 SC 3357

[xviii] AIR 1960 SC 932

[xix] AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC 124

[xx] AIR 1986 SC 180

[xxii] http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf

[xxiii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5 th Ed. (2003), p. 1315

[xxiv] AIR 1991 SC 101

[xxv] AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679

[xxvi] Air 1996 SC 1051 : (1996) 2 SCC 549

[xxvii] AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC

[xxviii] AIR 1997 Bom. 406

[xxix] AIR 1989 SC 1988

[xxx] Supra Note ( 10 to be corrected.. olgatellis)

[xxxi] 2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806.

[xxxii] AIR 1996 SC 114

[xxxiii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India

[xxxiv] AIR (1990) SC 630 : (1990) 92 BOMLR 145 : JT 1990 (1) SC 106

[xxxv] 1996 AIR 1051, 1995( 6 )Suppl. SCR 827, 1996( 2 )SCC 549

[xxxvi] http://nsm.org.in/2008/08/29/judicial-activism-on-right-to-shelter-rights-of-the-urban-poor/

[xxxvii] AIR (1992)573 :(1991) SCR Supl. (2) 267 (Minority Opinion)

[xxxviii] AIR (1996) 1234 :(1996) SCC (1) 742

[xxxix] (1995) Supp 2 SCC 549

[xl] AIR 1995 SC 1811

[xli] AIR (1995)1811 :(1995) SCC (5) 482

[xlii] AIR 2002 NOC 265

[xliii] AIR (1997) SC 1225

[xliv] 1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468

[xlv] Supra note p.1639

[xlvi] AIR (1995) 922, (1995) SCC (3) 42

[xlvii] AIR (1989) 2039, (1989) SCR (3) 997

[xlviii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6 th (2010), p. 1616

[xlix] 1996 SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43

[l] http://blog.medicallaw.in/supreme-court-of-india-on-emergency-healthcare/

[li] II (2005) CPJ 35 NC

[lii] Supra note 41 paschim bagga case online like at end of paragraph

[liii] AIR 1998 SC 1703 : (1998) 4 SCC 117

[liv] AIR 2006 SC 2945 : (2006) 8 SCC 199

[lv] 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

[lvi] 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

[lvii] Ibid

[lviii] AIR 1973 SC 947

[lix] AIR 1979 SC 916

[lx] AIR 1980 SC 898

[lxi] 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

[lxii] AIR 1988 SC 1037 : (1987) 4 SCC 463

[lxiii] AIR 1997 SC 734 : (1997) 2 SCC 353

[lxiv] AIR 1996 SC 2721 : (1996) 5 SCC 647

[lxv] (2007) 2 SCC 413

[lxvi] (2006) 3 SCC 399

[lxvii] AIR 2002 SC 40 : (2001) 8 SCC 765

[lxviii] Writ Petition (civil) 72 of 1998

[lxix] Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution v. Union Of India &Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3136 : (2005) 5 SCC 439

[lxx] https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/ii-legal-framework-0

[lxxi] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[lxxii] 1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946

[lxxiii] 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632

[lxxiv] AIR 1997 SC 568

[lxxv] AIR 1995 SC 495

[lxxvi] AIR 2003 SC 3450

[lxxvii] 967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525

[lxxviii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[lxxix] AIR 1994 SC 1349

[lxxx] AIR 1997 SC 610

[lxxxi] Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India 47 th Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 269

[lxxxii] See Kumar, Narender, The Constitutional Law of India, 1 st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009, p-158

[lxxxiii] AIR 1978 SC 1548

[lxxxiv] AIR 1979 SC 1360

[lxxxv] AIR 1992 SC 170

[lxxxvi] Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6 th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010, p.1200

[lxxxvii] AIR 2001 SC 3173

[lxxxviii] AIR 2006 SC 1367

[lxxxix] AIR 1978 SC 527

[xc] AIR 1980 SC 1535

[xci] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[xcii] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xciii] AIR 1986 SC 467

[xciv] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xcv] AIR 1981 SC 643

[xcvi] AIR 1983 SC 465

[xcvii] AIR 1966 SC 424

[xcviii] AIR 1976 SC 1207

Related Posts:

47 thoughts on “Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer”

The information is quite helpful. Thanks

above the information sufficient for my case……….thanks

thanks ? If u need any help please let me know

very very informative…thanks..god bless you for spreading knowledge….

Awesome .this is 360′ information canopy .

very well presented…very useful and informative article

it is very nice work to 21 artices i am very heipful in all my acadimc year .LLb

what about right to choice falling under the same article?

I would expect, that falls within the ambit of “personal liberty.”

Sir how could I get natural justice as poor man, I am not able to afford fees of court etc. Help me. Facts with related land disputed.

Very Well drafted after depth research on the topic. Good reference specially to the judgments/law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. THANK YOU for serving society. Very useful for everyone.

Good work. It is very helpful to everyone to know about Article 21, especially to law students.Thanks a lot.

Thanks for the details

it’s good relay helping to the staudy

1. Thanks for a very exhaustive discussion and its footnotes. 2. I am an accused in a fake criminal case filed by my sibling about misappropriation of funds from our father’s firm. Based on this the IO sealed all bank accounts belonging to my father, me, my wife etc., in year-2014. They continue to be sealed. 3. My father died in 2016, so anyways the banks have sealed his accounts till a successor is decided. The charge sheet was filed in Feb-2017. 4. There is a nexus between my sibling and the IO and whatever information that I provide to the IO reaches my sibling, which is detrimental to me. 5. U/s 173(8) CrPC, (ongoing investigation), can the IO force me to provide details of my new bank accounts, which I started after the date when he sealed all accounts in 2014? 6. Can I refuse to provide the IO this information using the protection offered by Article 21 of the Constitution? 7. Thanks.

It’s really help me for my clat preparation ….

can a resident of society ,write on Facebook /social media that association members are goonda/goons ,related to apartment owners association

thank u for the wonderful explanation

Thank u so much This information is really helpful

its very effective

A wonderful article

Is there any special format for filing cases in supreme court for the violation of dignity?

Floods, due to human negligence and loss of human lives, loss of livestock and agricultural loss that disrupts Right to Life which also comes under Article 21, have not been covered in the article.

People are fighting for resarvations these days why? Art 21 of our constitution embodies Equal right to life and liberty still why they fight for Resarvations why?

Reservation is politically motivated, every political party wants to continue reservation for seeking votes, since in our country caste and religion play a vital role In every election. The only solution is to give up reservation by those who don’t really need it.

It is in article 15 where suoreme court held that the state is permitted to make any provision for the advancement of any social and educationally backward classes. I prefer you to go through RIGHT TO EQUALITY article(14-18) Its clear all your fought regarding reservation and quota etc

If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

It is my first comment. If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

If you are going for finest contents like me, simply go to see this site daily as it offers quality contents, thanks

Is premature termination from employment without any reason against Article 21 of our Constitution?

Awesome post.

thankyou your feedback

The whole Article is explained in a very easy laungage, with land mark cases this is the best example of compilation of the work. I appreciate the efforts taken by the author

reservations in education and jobs are supposed to be for 10 years. But they appear to be perennial. In this context in have got certain doubts. 1. Did Dr Ambedkar suggest reservations only based on cast. regardless of merit,aptitude and capability? 2. Is it fair for a collector or doctor to retain the reservation facility for his children? 3.Reservation is snatching away opportunities from poor eligible, so called upper class candidates. Is it not against his fundamental right to live ?

The very purpose of Reservations is Adequate Representation in all feilds mandated by the Indian Constitution.But people from certain communities think Reservations means earmarking certain number of posts in the field of employment for the SC and ST communities.Here one more thing is to mention. Reservations are extended after every ten years.Why? Becasue in the knowledge of Govt the goals set by are not acheived. But the occupancy in high level posts by the non reserved communities is abnormal.It is an open secret but nobody questions.The answer is best known to the people who points their finger at the SC and STs only.

what is the relation between liberty and life

Excellent Information provides To read more visit the link :

‘The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ Can somebody please cite the case in which this was held by Supreme Court of India?

This article is so informative and yet not too exhaustive to understand! Thankyou so much, it’s of great help

Greetings, Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. You’re doing a great job, Keep it up. You can check out this article, might be of help 🙂

it is very useful

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Thanks, I’m not interested

• Law Articles

14 Famous Cases Related to Article 21

Case Laws Related To Article 21

Right To Life And Personal Liberty

○ A.K Gopalan vs. the State of Madras, 1951 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available only against the executive action. But legislative may deprive a person by making a law.

○ Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 1978 In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available not only against executive action but also against legislative.

In simple words, the legislature cannot deprive a person of the right to life and personal liberty even by making a law.

Scope Of Article 21

The right to life does not mean only animal existence. Under this article right to life means all the aspects of life which make human life dignified.

Must Read : Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Explained in Simple Words

○ Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP and Others The right to privacy is included in the right to life.

○ Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration Protection to the convicted and accused person. In this case, the Supreme Court held that fatal cuffs are unconstitutional for a convicted person because it is an inhuman behaviour with the prisoners, and it is a violation of Article 21.

○ Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration Hon’ble Supreme court held that handcuffing is also unconstitutional because it is violative of Article 21.

○ Mohini Jain vs. the State of Karnataka, 1992 SC Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to education also.

○ Unni Krishnan vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 SC Supreme court held the right to education is a fundamental right, as decided in Mohini Jain Case. But in such case, Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the age that it is a fundamental right to the children for the age of 6-14 years.

In the light of two above judgements, the parliament enacted the Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

○ Satwant Singh vs. APO Delhi In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that right to go abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Subhash Kumar vs. the State of Bihar The right to get the pollution-free air is also a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Olega Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.M.C) In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is included in Article 21.

○ Lachma Devi vs. Attorney General of India Supreme Court held that the execution of a death sentence at a public place is unconstitutional, and it is violative of Article 21.

○ Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar Supreme Court held that equal justice and free legal aid of an accused person is a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Rudal Shah vs. the State of Bihar In this case, the Supreme Court held that to get compensation in case of illegal imprisonment is a fundamental right of a prisoner.

○ Chandrima Das vs. Railway Chairman Board The compensation to the rape victim is also a fundamental right under Article 21.

Read Next : What Is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

• Latest Posts

• Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024

Let us all support financially also and strengthen the hands.

Thank you very much for your kind words.

It is a great website for studying law.. Notes… 😊😊

Thank you for your kind words.

It’s good snap shot notes..really useful for long answer

Thank you very much for your appreciation. Your comment has made my morning better.

So helpful, i would suggest you to put citations too. And hoping to get case law for article 32, 226, 136. As these are most important for maintainability.

Thankyou so much

Sure. In near future, I would make law notes on these.

Comments are closed.

How to Start Studying Law – For New, Existing, and Old Students

How to Study and Prepare for Judiciary Exams (13 tips)

11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024

How to Write the Best Answer in Judiciary Mains Exam

10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024

Best Books for Judiciary Exam Preparation in 2024

My name is Ankur . I am a law graduate. I was my college topper for five years. In March 2018, I started  WritingLaw.com . The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean and comfortable.

Everything is going well . This is because of law students, advocates, judges and professors like you, who give me satisfaction, hope and the motivation to keep working. Thank you for your love and support. I hope you have a fruitful time here.

Law Study Material

© 2018-2024 | About Us |  Contact Us | Privacy Policy | T&C | Disclaimer | Cookies | Sitemap

• IAS Preparation
• NCERT Notes for UPSC
• Polity Notes UPSC
• Right to Life (Article 21)

Right to Life (Article 21) - Indian Polity Notes

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is assured by the Indian Constitution under Article 21. This is a very important and wide topic and has several implications for the citizens of India. In this article, you can read all about Article 21 and what it entails for the UPSC IAS exam .

Right to Life – Indian Polity Download PDF Here

Right to Life

According to Article 21 :

“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: 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, citizens and foreigners alike.
• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty
• The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that the Constitution guarantees.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’ . 
• The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only . State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
• Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be under Article 226 or under general law.
• 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.
• The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.

Interpretation of Article 21

Judicial intervention has ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widening by several landmark judgements .

A few important cases concerned with Article 21:

• AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’.
• Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. Here, the SC said that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. Read the Maneka Gandhi case in detail in the linked article.
• Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): In this case, the court held that any procedure for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.
• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case reiterated the stand taken earlier that any procedure that would deprive a person’s fundamental rights should conform to the norms of fair play and justice.
• Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life.

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

• 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
• 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

Given below are a few other important links related to Indian law and rights, aspirants can refer to the same for UPSC preparation:

Right to Life and Suicide

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes attempted suicide a criminal offence which is punishable with imprisonment and fine. 

• There were many debates on whether this should continue since mental health experts have argued that people who attempt suicide need adequate counselling and not punishment. 
• The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was passed by the Parliament and the law came into force in 2018. This Act is meant to provide “for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare and services.”
• This law decriminalises suicide in India. 
• The law states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code”.

Arguments against decriminalising suicide:

• No person has a complete autonomy with respect to his/her life. He/she has a duty with respect to his family. In many cases, a person’s suicide could lead to a family being destitute.
• Decriminalising suicide might lead to decriminalising the abetment to suicide . The counterargument to this point is that suicide alone can be decriminalised by having the necessary amendments or legal provisions to cover abetment to suicide.

Arguments in favour of decriminalising suicide:

• This is the only case where an attempt to a crime is punishable and not the crime itself (because a person becomes beyond the reach of law if suicide is complete).
• Suicide is committed/attempted by people who are depressed and under severe stress. People who attempt suicide need counselling and medical help, not a jail warden’s severe authority.
• Decriminalising an attempt to suicide is different from conferring the ‘right to die’.

Right to Life and Euthanasia

There are many debates on whether the right to life also extends to the right to die, especially to die with dignity. Euthanasia is a topic that is frequently seen in the news. Many countries have legalised euthanasia (the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg). 

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life in order to relieve suffering and pain. It is also called ‘mercy killing’. 

There are various types of euthanasia: Passive and Active.

Passive Euthanasia: This is where treatment for the terminally-ill person is withdrawn, i.e., conditions necessary for the continuance of life are withdrawn.

Active Euthanasia: This is where a doctor intentionally intervenes to end someone’s life with the use of lethal substances.

This is different from physician-assisted suicide where the patient himself administers the lethal drugs to himself. In active euthanasia, it is a doctor who administers the drugs.

Voluntary euthanasia: Under this, euthanasia is carried out with the patient’s consent.

Non-voluntary euthanasia: Under this, patients are unable to give consent (coma or severely brain-damaged), and another person takes this decision on behalf of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: Euthanasia is done against the will of the patient, and this is considered murder.

International Position on Euthanasia:

In the Netherlands and Belgium, both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal.

In Germany, euthanasia is illegal while physician-assisted suicide is legal.

Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in India, Australia, Israel, Canada and Italy.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia has been made legal in India.

• In 2018, the SC legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state.
• This decision was made as a part of the verdict in the famous case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been living in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades until her death in 2015.
• The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. Active euthanasia is illegal in India .
• As there is no law regulating euthanasia in the country, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law.
• Passive euthanasia is legal under strict guidelines.
• Living Will: It is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make such decisions for themselves due to illness or incapacity.
• When the executor (of the living will) becomes terminally ill with no hope of recovery, the doctor will set up a hospital medical board after informing the patient and/or his guardians.

You can read all about the concept of euthanasia at the linked article.

Kickstart your UPSC 2024  Preparation today!

Complement your IAS exam preparation with the links given below:

UPSC Questions related to Right to Life

What is article 21 a.

Article 21 A states that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may by law determine. Read more on the Right to Education Act .

Is Article 21 an absolute right?

No, it is not an absolute right. The State can impose restrictions on the right to life and liberty but it should be fair, reasonable and just, and as per the procedure established by law.

Can Article 21 be suspended during an emergency?

Article 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency. The 44th Amendment of the Constitution provided that this article could not be suspended even during an emergency.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Right to Medical Aid Under Article 21 – A Case Study of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India

In the case of parmanand katara v. union of india, the supreme court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. it was the constitutional right of… read more ».

In the case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the Supreme court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. It was the constitutional right of accident victims to get life-saving treatment and this right could not be taken away by any enactment.

Introduction

The medical profession is considered an honourable and noble profession because the medical professionals exercise their expertise, skill, knowledge, and caution to save lives. People look up to doctors and consider them as the only ray of hope for a person hanging on a tightrope between death and life.

Apart from having a noble side, the medical profession also has an undesirable side where people are refused treatment solely on the basis that the hospital and the doctors do not want to get involved in a legal quagmire of formalities, police questioning, court summons, and cross-examinations. Unfortunately, there have been instances where doctors have refused treatment to injured patients simply because they were not handling medico-legal cases.

Countless lives have been lost to delay and non-cooperation of hospitals to treat accident cases just because they involved a medico-legal question. It is this question that was brought up before the Supreme Court of India for its consideration in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India [1] through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Background of the Case

Human life holds paramount value in the world. Protection of humanity is one of the several aspirations which governments across the globe strive to achieve and safeguarding the health of people is an aspect of the same. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life of people, but hospitals and medical practitioners across the country had been refusing treatment to accident victims solely because they were not authorized to handle medico-legal cases or simply because they did not want to handle a police case. This lack of sensitivity shown by the hospitals was costing many accident victims their life, amounting to a violation of their right to protection of life under Article 21.

Therefore, in 1989 in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the question came before the Supreme Court for its consideration in the form of a PIL filed by petitioner Parmanand Katara. The apex court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. It was the constitutional right of accident victims to get life-saving treatment and this right could not be taken away by any enactment.

Facts of the case

A medico-legal case is one wherein in any case of injury, the attending doctor after performing a clinical examination and taking the history of the patient considers whether the investigation by law enforcement agencies is necessary to ascertain the circumstance and to fix responsibility for the said injury according to the law. [2]

The petitioner, Parmanand Katara, had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, making the Union of India the respondent. The petitioner was a human rights activist fighting for the causes in the general public’s interest. The petition was based on a newspaper report published in the Hindustan Times titled – “ Law Helps the Injured to Die ”.

The newspaper report claimed that a scooterist was hit by a speeding car. The injured scooterist was picked up from the road by a person and taken to a nearby hospital. On reaching the hospital, the doctors refused to treat the injured scooterist as the hospital was not authorized to handle medico-legal cases and asked the person to take the injured scooterist to another hospital twenty kilometres away which was authorized to treat such cases.

The good citizen lost no time to take the scooterist to the other hospital, but owing to the delay in availing of medical treatment, the victim succumbed to the injuries on the way.

Provisions referred to in the case

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, was referred to in the case along with clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970.

Issues Raised

The issue raised by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was of utmost importance. It was: Whether an accident victim could be allowed treatment by a hospital without the hospital having to comply with several legal formalities before giving medical aid to the person?

Ordinarily, the contending parties raise arguments that favor their case best and usually have opposing arguments to counter the other. However, in this case, the arguments of the respondent were in line with the arguments raised by the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that a direction should be given to the respondent stating that every injured person brought to a hospital for treatment should be given the necessary medical care to preserve the life of that person. Further, the petitioner prayed that to avoid death caused by negligence, only after medical treatment had been given to that person should the procedural criminal code be allowed to operate.

If such direction is breached then appropriate compensation must be awarded to the victim, apart from any action that might be taken for negligence. Consequently, The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India, the Medical Council of India, and the Indian Medical Association were added as respondents to the petition.

The respondent, The Secretary of the Medical Council of India , drew the court’s attention to clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970. Clause 10 of the 1970 Code stated that a physician is not bound to treat everyone who seeks his/her service except in case of emergencies for the sake of preserving life and that they should assist in treating the sick and should always remember that the lives of others are entrusted to his/her skill, care, and attention.

Clause 13 of the said Code stated that a medical practitioner is free to choose whom they will treat, but should always render his/her skills for assisting in emergency cases. Once the medical practitioner has undertaken a case, they should not neglect the patient and should not withdraw from the case without giving notice in advance to the patient, the patient’s relatives, or friends. The clause further states that a medical practitioner should not wilfully commit negligence that might deprive the patient of medical care.

The respondents, the Medical Council of India, argued that it was expected of medical professionals to look after the injured at once and to avail them timely medical care irrespective of whether the victim was in an accident or otherwise, and that any legal formalities given in any law should not prevent a medical practitioner from treating injured patients. Any legal formalities to be completed must be undertaken after giving primary care to the patient.

Further, they stated that it was their view that the government should amend all the provisions in existing laws and if required then make provisions that allow medical practitioners to offer instant medical assistance to the injured person without any delay and without waiting for legal formalities to be completed before the police. They also requested that the medical practitioners should be indemnified against any action which may be brought against them for not completing the legal formalities before treating the patients since they would only be performing their duty and abiding by the oath undertaken by them.

The Council further requested that doctors working in public, as well as private hospitals, should be free from fear of being prosecuted for not fulfilling legal formalities before giving treatment. Doctors should not be encumbered while extending medical care to patients in such cases fearing they would be hassled by the police or taken to the court. They also requested that the Evidence Act of 1872 , should be amended so that the doctor’s diary which has all the details of accident cases should be accepted as evidence in the court without requiring the physical presence of the doctors themselves to prove the same.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare apprised the honorable Supreme Court of the meeting held by it on behalf of the Union of India and highlighted the essential decisions taken in the meeting. First, whenever a medico-legal case arrived at the hospital, the medical practitioner should inform the name, gender, and age of the patient, and place and time of occurrence of the incident to the police constable on duty and start the required treatment of the patient without waiting for completion of legal formalities or arrival of the police.

The constable must inform the concerned police station or superiors about the same. A full medical report of the case should be prepared by the medical practitioner and should be handed over to the police after the treatment has been given to the patient.

Second, the zonal classification of cities for medico-legal cases would apply only to those cases which were brought by the police. The medico-legal cases coming to the hospitals on their own should not be refused treatment, nor referred to other hospitals, even if the case occurred in the area of another zonal hospital.

Irrespective of whether a case was medico-legal or otherwise, all the government hospitals and medical institutes should provide instantaneous treatment to all the patients. The practice of refusing patients simply because it is a medico-legal case is unacceptable. After providing primary care, the patient could be referred to another hospital if the expertise or facilities required for further treatment of the patient are not available at the hospital.

The Union of India and the Medical Council of India also submitted that there was no law justifying the conduct of the doctors and that none of the laws prevented medical professionals from attending to an accident victim immediately, before the arrival of the police, or before the completion of legal formalities. On the contrary, it was the duty of medical professionals to treat the patients as soon as they were brought to the hospital. It was the doctor’s paramount obligation and duty to save human life. However, despite all this, the problem of refusing accident patients continues in the hospitals and clinics across the country.

Both the judges, honorable Justice Ranganath Misra and Justice G. L. Oza gave concurring judgments.

• The Supreme Court recognized that the preservation of human life and its value came before all else and it was the necessary duty of medical professionals to save the life of any patient who came to them for treatment.
• The medical professionals must treat all patients, whether an innocent citizen or a criminal liable to be punished by the law, so that the life of the innocent citizen could be saved and the crime of the offender could be punished because social laws do not see death by negligence as equal to legal punishment.
• Article 21 of the Constitution says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”, and puts an obligation on the state to preserve life. Hence, a doctor serving at government hospitals, or at private hospitals, or otherwise has a professional obligation to exercise their skill, knowledge, and due expertise to save and protect life. Therefore, no laws or state action can interfere in the discharge of this paramount obligation cast upon medical professionals, and shall hence give away.
• No doctor contravenes any law of the land when they treat an injured victim brought to the hospital. Everyone connected with the case, be it a medical professional, a police officer, or a normal citizen, should give paramount consideration to saving the life of the person.
• Medical professionals should not be harassed for interrogation, should not be called to the police station again and again for investigation and for other legal formalities. It should be avoided as much as possible.
• The courts should not summon medical professionals to give evidence unless the evidence is extremely necessary. Whenever summoned to the court, attempts should be made to not keep them waiting for long. In cases where the facts are clear, medical professionals should not be harassed by adjournments and cross-examination, and as far as possible both should be avoided so that no fear or apprehension is created in their minds while discharging their duties as medical practitioners.
• When a patient, who would be given better treatment at another hospital as whatever assistance the medical professional might give will not be sufficient to save that person’s life, is brought to the hospital, it is still the duty of the medical professional to offer all the help they can and to see to it that the patient reaches the other hospital as soon as possible.
• Zonal classifications cannot act as an impediment to the treatment of victims irrespective of whether rules demand otherwise. The court also ordered that the 1985 guidelines of the Tenth Meeting of the Standing Committee on Forensic Medicine be set up by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which had decided to make all upgraded primary healthcare centers eligible to provide medico-legal facilities, should become operative.
• The Supreme court also directed all journals which publish Supreme Court decisions, all national media, and Doordarshan and All India Radio to give wide publicity to the decision, highlighting all its essential points, so that every doctor practicing in India would become aware of the same. A copy of the judgment was also to be supplied to every medical college affiliated to the Medical Council of India, to every State Government and to every High Court in the country which would in turn supply a copy to every session Judge within their jurisdiction, with directions to widely publicize the order.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a guardian of the pivotal right to life and personal liberty. It encompasses the right to life, right to personal liberty, right to free legal aid, right to privacy, right against custodial violence, right to a healthy environment, and right to medical aid among others.

By interpreting it positively, the Supreme Court has cast an obligation upon the state to ensure a better quality of life, human dignity, and personal liberty for the people. Hence, the right to medical aid is seen as a significant facet of Article 21.

In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has given clear-cut orders that no hospital, whether public or otherwise, can refuse treatment to an injured victim solely because they were not authorized to handle medico-legal cases. It has ordered that it is an essential duty of medical professionals to give the required treatment to patients first hand and then complete the legal formalities.

Thus, giving primary care and treatment to patients is a paramount duty of the healthcare professionals which cannot be curtailed by any law or regulation. The Apex Court has thereby recognized the people’s right to health and medical aid as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and interpreted the Constitution to ensure the greater welfare of the public at large.

The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that the Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state and the government has to secure the welfare of all people. An essential part of this obligation is to provide the people of the country with sufficient medical facilities and to safeguard their right to life to which they have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is so because the preservation and protection of human life have always been and will remain paramount.

Therefore, all public hospitals are duty-bound to provide medical aid to people in need and any violation of the same would be a violation of Article 21. Whatever happens, the state is bound by the Constitution to provide treatment to the patients. Hence, neither financial constraints nor non-availability of beds nor on the ground of it being a medico-legal case can a hospital refuse medical treatment.

[1] Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.

[2] Medicolegal Issues: Guidelines to Medical Officers, National Health Centres Resource System, Available here

• Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
• Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Tanisha Saini

Related news.

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• Commercial Courts Act
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Article 21 : Constitution of India : All Landmark Judgments

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #1: AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras

The above Judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India came into limelight since it was the first-ever matter that came before the Apex Court after its establishment in 1950. It was a case where the interpretation about Article 19 and 21 was set out by the Supreme Court. In this case the Supreme Court wasn’t able to deliver a satisfactory judgement due to which it was a failure in judicial history. The SC petty decision in regard to Article 19 as well as Article 21. This raised questions on the legality of Act 4 of 1950.

The SC held that the words of same nature in when used in different provisions should be understood differently as they function as different interpretations for different provisions. Thus, the question that was raised by the petitioner regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights under 21st Article of the Indian Constitution and the usage of words “procedure established by law” does not in any sense amount to “due process”. Therefore, if the legislature would have meant that these two words have the same meaning or refer to the same thing the framers of the constitution might have expressed it clearly. The word law means ‘Lex’ and not just so they cannot abridge and violate Article 21.

Further reading material is available here

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #2: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India

In the matter of Maneka Gandhi (petitioner), her passport was issued on June 1, 1967 as per the Passport Act, 1967. But on July 2nd, 1967, the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi ordered her to surrender her Passport. The Reason for the same Case was not provided by the External Affairs Ministry.

The most important Judgement passed by the Apex Court was regarding the interlinking that was laid down between the provisions of Articles 14, 19 & 21. Through this link the Supreme Court made these provisions inseparable and into a single entity. The Judgement, apart from protecting citizens from the unchallenged actions of the Executive, also safeguarded the sanctity of the Parliamentary Law, when it refused to strike down the 1967 Act’s Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5).

Further reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #3: Hussainara Vs Home Secretary, Bihar

The petition in this matter was presented before the court in regard to release of prisoners in the state of Bihar, after which the state government was directed to provide year-wise break up presentation of each and every under-trial prisoner.

This presentation was requiring to be categorised into two sub-categories on the basis of grievance of offences i.e. Minor and Major. After hearing was done, the court decided that all the details of under trial prisoners that was provided in the list by Mr Hingorani shall be released forthwith as continuance because their detention was illegal and was in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Moreover, the Court held that on next date of their remands these under trial prisoners should be presented before Magistrates and the State Government shall on its own expenses appoint a lawyer for each in order for filing of the bail application. All this was decided by the court because those under trial prisoners have exceeded the maximum duration of offences they were convicted for.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #4: Vineet Narain Vs Union of India

This case was concerned with the historic Hawala Scandal that took place in India. The scandal actually uncovered several possible bribery payments made to many of the high-ranking Indian politicians as well as bureaucrats from a funding source linked to suspected terrorists. The news coverage regarding the members of the public was dismayed (tended to cause shock) due to the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate investigations over the officials with the apparent intent to protect certain implicated individuals who were extremely influential in government and politics.

The litigation in this case was the result of public interest petitions filed on these matters with the Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.

The court therefore, agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption. In addition to which it laid down guidelines in order to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to be free from executive control or interference. This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of the Central Government thought to be partly responsible for the inertia that contributed to the CBI’s previous lack of urgency in respect to the investigation of high-ranking officials. The CVC was now responsible for ensuring that allegations of corruption against public officials were thoroughly investigated regardless of the identity of the accused as well as without any interference from the Government.

More about the same can be read here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #5: Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer

The said matter came into limelight due to its recognition in regard to travelling as a fundamental right. Since in the case of Union of India Vs Maneka Gandhi the Supreme Court the right to travelling as a fundamental right under the 21st Article of Constitution of India, this case was regarded as a base matter for many more future cases on the same issue, as it was the very first matter where SC held an opinion of right to travelling as fundamental right. The main highlights of the judgement are as follows:

• The refusal to the petitioner for issuance of passport was held voidable for Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
• Article 21 deals with personal liberty guaranteed to every resident of the country. It was also held that the right to travel isn’t permitted to be stated voidable by any State Law until and unless it is done with any procedures established by law.
• It was asked by respondents to stop taking decisions that were against the establishment of the aforesaid decision as well as to stop the depriving of petitioners of his passports and facilities that were requisite.

More reading material available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #6: Kharak Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

This case revolved around Kharak Singh, an accused in dacoity case was let off due to the lack of evidence and challenged regular surveillance by police authorities on the grounds of infringement of his fundamental rights. Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh police regulations allowed domiciliary visits at night, secret picketing of Singh’s house, tracking/verifying his movement and periodic inquiries by officers. After facing these issues repeatedly, Singh filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court saying that this was an infringement of his fundamental rights. A six-judge bench examined the issue. The main question was whether surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh police regulations constituted an infringement of the citizen’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Subbarao pointed out that even though the right to privacy was not recognised as a fundamental right, it was essential to personal liberty under Article 21. He also held all surveillance measures to be unconstitutional. In a significant judgment, the court ruled that “privacy was not a guaranteed constitutional right”. It however, held that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residuary personal rights and recognised the common law right to privacy. However, the provision allowing domiciliary visits was called/held Unconstitutional.

Click here for more reading material.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #7: Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration

The case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others stands out as one of an important landmark judgment which helped to secure the Fundamental Rights of Prisoners. It was unique in a several aspects, one of which was that the petitioner in question was a convict on death row, something that’s not many were familiar at that time. It brought to light a host of issues, which consisted of the clashes between various Fundamental Rights along with the Prison Act of 1874.

In this case, the Supreme court held that, vis-a-vis Article 32 and Article 226, it had the power to intervene and restore the fundamental rights of prisoners. That is, it was completely within the authority of the honourable court to intervene and protect prisoners from harsh or inhuman treatment. Also, it was made clear that during the prisoner’s time in jail, the jail authorities do not have any rights to punish, torture or in any way discriminate against them without the explicit permission or orders of the court. Only the court had that right.

More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #8: Prem Shankar Vs Delhi Administration

In the following case the petitioner was a prisoner under-trial and was kept at the Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Every time while being taken to court for the purpose of various pending matters and judgments he would be handcuffed by the officer in charge or on duty on that particular day. Even after the Trial court had given its hearing that handcuffs should not be used and made applicable while taking the petitioner to the court and back for the proceedings, but still the escorting officers continued the same.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly condemned the unnecessary use of handcuffs by the police as a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The landmark Supreme Court case on handcuffing is Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980). In this case, the validity of certain clauses of the Punjab Police Rules, which made handcuffing mandatory during arrest, was challenged. In his opinion, Justice Krishna Iyer eloquently stated: “The guaranty of human dignity which forms part of our constitutional culture spring[s] into action when we realise that to manacle (handcuff) man is more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanise him and, therefore, to violate his very personhood too often using the mask of dangerousness and security.” More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #9: Pramanada Katara Vs Union of India

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a public-spirited person in response to a news report of a scooterist who was knocked down by a car and died due to lack of medical treatment. The matter revolved around an accident in which a scooterist was taken to the nearest hospital but was turned away and sent to another hospital 20kms away which was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. The scooterist died while he was being transported to the other hospital. The petitioner sought the issuance of a specific direction to the Union of India by the Supreme Court which read as: “every citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible.” Along with the Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical Association were impleaded as respondents.

The Court ordered that no law or state action can discharge medical professionals from their paramount duty to administer life-saving care. It further ordered that the judgement be publicized widely to ensure medical professionals across the country were aware of the position in relation to medico-legal cases.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #10: Consumer Research And Education Centre Vs Union of India

In the following case the petitioner applied for remedial measures to fill in legislative gaps, to require mandatory compensation for occupational hazards and diseases or death to employees who did not qualify for such coverage under the existing labour legislations, to provide adequate mechanisms for diagnosing and controlling asbestosis (such as mandatory mechanisms to measure levels of asbestos in workplaces coupled with expert panels to established permissible levels of asbestos), to establish a committee to recommend whether the dry process can be completely replaced by the wet, to keep health records of each workman for requisite minimum periods, to provide compulsory health insurance for employees, and finally to award compensation to those suffering from asbestos.

The Court discussed the Convention 162 of the International Labour Conference that provides for provisions for the betterment of labourers. The Court ordered that the “All Safety in the Use of Asbestos” regulations and guidelines published by the International Labour Organization be binding on all industries, that industries be bound to compensate employees for health hazards they had suffered as a result of asbestos exposure, that there be the maintenance of health records by industries of every worker for a minimum period of time.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #11: LIC of India Vs Consumer Research And Education Centre

The Consumer Education and Research Center, an NGO working in the areas of consumer rights, filed several writ petitions against the Government of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution regarding the protection of workers against the occupational health hazards and diseases associated with asbestos exposure.

The petitioner applied for remedial measures to fill in legislative gaps, to require mandatory compensation for occupational hazards and diseases or death to employees who did not qualify for such coverage under the existing labor legislations, to provide adequate mechanisms for diagnosing and controlling asbestosis (such as mandatory mechanisms to measure levels of asbestos in workplaces coupled with expert panels to established permissible levels of asbestos), to establish a committee to recommend whether the dry process can be completely replaced by the wet, to keep health records of each workman for requisite minimum periods, to provide compulsory health insurance for employees, and finally to award compensation to those suffering from asbestos. More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #12: Chameli Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

The Right to have Food is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 observed, ... Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment education, medical care and shelter. The historical and political background of the Right to Food (hereinafter also referred to as RTF) is much more than the history and politics of malnutrition. It concerns the development of the notion of access to food as a right. As a right it sets obligations on the State, which have been established as enforceable through centuries of social struggle for a democratic state in the service of the people. Traditionally, people had no remedy other than revolt against a king or state that failed to meet its obliga­tions.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #13: DTC Vs DTC Mazdoor Congress

The Supreme Court held that the subsequent Rules and Regulations, framed in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 53 of the Delhi Transport Authority, does not give reasonable justification as to termination of services of its employees, moreover it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950: Section 53/Delhi Road Transport Authority) (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952-Regulation 9(b)/Shastri Award-Para 522/District Board Rules, 1926, Part V-Rule 1(1)/Indian Airlines Employees’ Regulations-Regulation 13/Air India Employees’ Regulations-Regulation 48-Validity of-Termination of service of permanent employee without assigning any reasons and holding enquiry.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #14: DF Marion Vs Minnie Davis

The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis in Smt. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society. Indian judiciary provided excellent elucidation to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. The Supreme Court not only explained the instinctive human qualities of the Article 21 but also established certain procedure to implement them. This makes the Rule of Law magnificent and meaningful. Each interpretation or the procedure laid down with regard to Article 21 is particularly aimed to achieve justice mentioned in the Preamble through all round development of the citizens. Each explanation provided attempts to fulfil the basic needs of the human being while safeguarding ones dignity.

It is difficult to find such noble, lofty, dignified illustrations and interpretations as provided by the Supreme Court of India to the concept of right to life and personal liberty elsewhere in the world. The Indian concept did not confine the right of life and personal liberty only to ones physical entity. It means to strive for all round development of a person so that justice shall triumph.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #15: Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishaka & ors. v/s state of Rajasthan is a case which deals with the evil of Sexual Harassment of a women at her workplace. It is a landmark judgment case in the history of sexual harassment which as being decide by Supreme Court. Sexual Harassment means an uninvited/unwelcome sexual favor or sexual gestures from one gender towards the other gender. It makes the person feel humiliated, offended and insulted to whom it is been done. In many of the cases, it has been observed that homosexual labor harass an employee belonging to the same sex to which he belongs.

The court decided that the consideration of “International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein.” The petition, resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 given by a bench of J. S. Verma (then C.J.I)., Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal, provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant legal victory for women’s groups in India.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #16: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 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. Overruling A.K Gopalan’s decision was appreciated nationwide and this case had become a landmark case in history since it broadened the scope of fundamental rights.

The respondent’s contention that any law is valid and legit until it is repealed was highly criticized by judges. Also, by providing a liberal interpretation to Maneka Gandhi, the courts had set a benchmark for coming generations to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #17: Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409 this Court rejected the ‘hands-off’ doctrine and ruled that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration. The laws that stood exposed in this case like many others, were creations left behind from the era of British colonialism. It was not in keeping with the international human rights legislation of the time and was clearly exposed as being outdated and pervasive to the growth of a modern India.

This case also put an intense focus on the duties and responsibilities of jail superintendents. It highlighted the perils of what a lapse of duty could lead to. It also marked a turning point in the treatment of prisoners, with lawyers being nominated henceforth by the District Magistrate, Session Judge, High Court or Supreme Court for interview visits and confidential communication with prisoners in relation to their treatment in cells among other things.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #18: State of Maharashtra Vs Prabhakar Pandurang

Prabbakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been detained by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District Prison in order to prevent him from acting in a manner pre- judicial to the defence of India, public safety and maintenance$ of public order, has written, with the permission of the said Government, a book in Marathi under the title "Anucha Antarangaat" (Inside the Atom). The learned Judges of the High Court, who had gone through the table of contents of the book. expressed their opinion on the book thus : "............ we are satisfied that the manuscript book deals with the theory of elementary particles in -in objective way. The manuscript does not purport to be a research work but it purports to be a book written with a view to educate the people and disseminate knowledge regarding quantum theory."

As there is no condition in the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, prohibiting a detenu from writing a book or sending it for publication, the State of Maharashtra in refusing to allow the same infringed the personal liberty of the first Respondent in derogation of the law whereunder he was detained.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #19: Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab

In that case the Federal Court commuted the sentence of death to sentence of transportation for life for reasons other than that a long delay had intervened after the death sentence was imposed. In Ediga Anamma, Piare Dusadh was regarded as a leading case on the point. In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) which refused to accept the decision of Vatheeswaran as a “binding rule”. Chandrachud CJ., speaking for the bench, held that the court does not subscribe to the “absolute and unqualified” rule of delay of 2 years and that the court must, in all cases, inquire into the cause of the delay.

The writ petitions filed in this matter challenge the constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354, Sub-section (3) of the CrPC in so far as it provides death sentence as an alternative punishment for the offence of murder.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #20: Attorney General of India Vs Lachma Devi

He issue of public hanging came to the Supreme Court through a writ petition Attorney General v. Lachma Devi {1989 SCC [CRI] 413} in this petition the order of Rajasthan High Court regarding the execution of the petitioner by public hanging under the relevant rules of Jail manual. The S.C. held that public hanging even if permitted under the rules would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Here in India the present position regarding death sentence is quite a balanced one. Whereas, the wide judicial discretion given to the court has resulted into enormously varying judgment, which does not potray a good picture of the justice delivery system. What is needed to be done is that the principle laid down in cases like Bachan Singh or Machhi Singh have to be strictly complied with, so that the person convicted for offence of similar nature are awarded punishment of identical degree.

More reading material about the same is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #21: Deena v. Union of India

The petitioners who had been sentenced to death for the offence of murder were awaiting execution of the sentence. Their plea was that hanging by rope is a cruel and barbarous method of executing of the sentence and section 354(5) Cr. P.C. which prescribes that method is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that a sentence lawfully imposed by a court can and has to be fulfilled, though by causing the least pain and suffering and by avoiding torture or degradation of any kind; that the method prescribed by section 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing the death sentence is a humane and dignified method involving the least amount of pain and cruelty; that no other method of executing the death sentence is quicker or less painful; and that Art. 21 does not postulate that no pain or suffering whatsoever shall be caused in the execution of a sentence lawfully imposed by a court, including the sentence of death.

In India, the mode of execution of death sentence is hanging. Section 354 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code provides that when any prisoner is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. Hanging is still the most common method of executing convicts. The issue regarding the constitutionality of the Section 354 first came up before the Supreme Court in this case. Though the Court asserted that it was a judicial function to investigate into the reasonableness of a mode of punishment, it refused to hold the mode of hanging as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court held that section 354(5) of the I.P.C., which prescribed hanging as a mode of fair execution which is just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of Art- 21 and hence is constitutional. Although, death by shooting is contemplated under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. They provide for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death.

More reading material is available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #22: Babu Singh vs State of UP

The accused Babu Singh was convicted under section 302 325 and 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC sentences him to imprisonment for life 3 years and 7 years request imprisonment respectively thereunder. After the accused's first appeal for bail was rejected by the court he appeared again for the bail. The Allahabad High court held that an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a latter occasion, giving more materials for the development and different considerations. While delivering the judgement the court held great emphasis on article 21 of the constitution.

The court said deprivation of Liberty it is a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law of the rising it is reasonable. Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of India's constitutional system recognised under article 21. The court also said that public justice is central to whole scheme of bail law.

Para 5 of the judgement laid down the vital considerations as –

(a) The nature of charge, the nature of the evidence and, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, or conviction is confirmed. (b) whether the course of justices would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. (c) Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical circumstance, and whether or the petitioner's record shows him to be 'a habitual offender, (d) When, a person charged with a grave offence has been acquitted at a stage, the intermediate acquittal has pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this Court pends. (e) Whether the accused's safety maybe. more. in, prison, then in the, vengeful village where feuds have provoked the violent offence and (f) The period in prison already spent and the prospect of delay in the appeal being heard and disposed of.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #23: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat

Commonly known as "the best bakery case", it symbolises the in humanity of the Carnage post Godhara riots which involved killing 1,200 people. On 16 June 2005, the supreme court extended the term of the Bombay special court to conduct the retrial of this case. This was one of the unique cases as the charges were originally brought in various criminal courts as a result of communal violence which exploded in Gujarat in 2002. This case also gives us an idea of free trial and fair trial. The concept of fair trial was implemented in this case. In its judgement the court held that there was absence of an atmosphere conducted to fair trial in this case. The court also held in para 35 and 36 of the judgement that the notion of fair trial is described as a "triangulation of interest of the accused, the victim, and the society" and therefore an unfair trial is an injustice to the victim and to the society as well as the accused. Fair trial means "a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses or the cause which is being tried is eliminated". The court also held that it is the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial as articulated in article 21 of the Indian constitution and article 19 of ICCPR and a balance must be struck between the three by the respected courts.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #24: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

The case had been brought up before the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction by a Writ Petition. The petition was for the matter of a writ of habeas corpus where the petitioners stated that a substantial number of men and women including children were in jails for years awaiting trial in courts of law and that the offences, even if proved, would not warrant sentence for more than a few months. Although sufficient opportunity was given, the State did not appear before the Court.

The court held that - Free legal service, as mandate under Article 39-A is an indisputable element of ‘reasonable, just and fair’ procedure, without which a person suffering from economic or other disabilities shall suffer from unequal opportunity to secure justice. Right to free legal service is thus a fundamental right of every accused who cannot employ a lawyer owing to reasons like poverty or indigence and the State is under an obligation to provide for a lawyer, provide the accused does not object to the provision of such a lawyer.

The supreme court also held (per Justice Bhagwati) (at 107, para 10) that the State is under a Constitutional mandate to provide “speedy trials” and cannot avoid this obligation by pleading monetary or administrative inability and the Supreme Court being the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people may issue directions to the States for enforcing the fundamental right of speedy trial of the prisoners. These instructions may involve taking of positive action, such as enhancing and boosting the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, constructing new court houses, appointment of additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial. The Supreme Court also stated that right to free legal aid is the important under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution for the person accused of any offence.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #25: M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra

This case is the first case where the right to free legal aid was talked about and concluded that it is important to make aware the poor people with their Constitutional and Statutory rights. And also, it is the obligation of the State to deliver legal services to the underprivileged section of the society who cannot afford the expenses of the Court. This case also relates how the Fundamental Rights of the citizens were violated by not providing the free legal aid services to the indigent people.

The court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution talks about the Right to life and the personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, which means the fair and the reasonable procedure.

Article 19 read out with the Article 21 in the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which laid down that the personal liberty cannot be overlooked without fair and reasonable legal procedure.

Copy of judgement should be given to the prisoner in time so that in case of appeal he can file case in superior court as well. Free legal assistance should be provided to the convicts who are poor or with other incapacities as this is the obligation of the State.

If a inmate is unable to exercise his Constitutional and Statutory right of appeal including the free legal aid the Court has to appoint a lawyer for the inmate for executing Justice.

When the prisoner requests for appeal, it’s the responsibility of the prison administration to deliver facilities for the exercise of such rights.

The accused is entitled to a lawyer, not in the permissive sense of Article 22 (1) and its broader scope but the peremptory sense of Article 21 confined to prison situations.

The Court shall not diverge the request under Article 136 of the Constitution so that the Justice should be given to every litigator, civil and criminal floods.

A copy of the judgment should be provided to the prisoner in time to file an appeal. Also, there is free of charge legal aid provision and this facility is available to the prisoners who are poor or deactivated from obtaining legal help. And these are the duties of the State under Article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #26: Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the authenticity and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional co-occurrences of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.” The court formed an opinion that there must be distinction between presence of power and justification for the came when arrests are made.

It was further observed by the court that, an arrested person holds rights to inform someone about his arrest, upon request and also has the right to consult with a lawyer of his choice. The apex court stated that these rights provided to an arrested person vested in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and are required to be acknowledged and safeguarded.

The court in para 21 of the judgement, laid down points for efficient enforcement of these fundamental rights.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #27: Mr. X v. Hospital Z

As it can be observed by the name of the case, the name of the parties was never disclosed. The judges are not bound to disclose the name of the victims in certain situations. The case begged two question before the court - Whether doctors can expose the patient's confidential information in certain situations and whether the spouse of an HIV patient has the right to know about their partner's HIV AIDS status.

In this case a man was engaged to a woman and was set to get married to her, but it was called off as he was diagnosed with HIV and the doctor disclosed this fact to his fiancée. The man contended that the respondent hospital and the doctor had breached their duty under medical ethics by disclose of this information.

The court observed that the fiancée’s right to life under article 21 of the constitution should be protected over the right to privacy of the HIV patient. Hence the court held that the doctor had done no wrong in disclosing the HIV positive status to the fiancée. It was also concluded that both the rights that are right to privacy and right to confidentiality are not absolute. The doctor did not violate any confidentiality as he was concerned about the life and health of the man’s fiancée.

The court also observed that the HIV AIDS patient's right to marriage is not suspended they can marry with the informed consent of the other spouse. It was concluded that disclosure of dreadful disease to a concerning person (in this case fiancée) is not against the right to privacy as right to life under article 21 would prevail.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #28: PUCL v. Union of India

PUCL filed a PIL before the Supreme Court, underlining the instances of telephone tapping in the recent past. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The Supreme Court stated that the right to hold telephonic conversation in the privacy of one’s Home or Office without interference can be claimed as ‘right to privacy’ and a telephonic conversation is a vital aspect Mans private life. The court also ruled that telephonic tapping would be violative of article 21 of the constitution unless it was permitted by procedures established by law and it would also be violative of right to freedom of speech and expression under article 19. Only the Home Secretary, Government of India and the State Governments can issue an order for telephone-tapping as per S. 5(2) of the Act.

It is important to take into consideration whether the information which is considered necessary to acquire could have been reasonably acquired by other means so as to judge the necessity of such an order.

The interception required under Section 5(2) of the Act shall be the interception of such communications as are sent to or from one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from, from one particular person specified or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or defined in the order.

The use of the intercepted material shall be limited to the minimum that is necessary for terms of Section 5(2) of the Act, etc.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #29: In Re: Noise Pollution

In this 2005 case, the supreme court talked about issues related to noise pollution with regards to article 21 of the constitution. In the petition before the court, the petitioner complained about the noise created by the use of loudspeakers during various religious performances, social occasions, or festivals and by political parties and the noise created by firecrackers in the commercial localities. The primary prayer of the petitioner was that the already existing laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise producing audio-video systems be directed to be rigorously enforced.

The court stressed that in the modern days noise had become one of the major pollutants and it had serious effects on human health. It emphasized that those who made noise often took shelter behind Article 19(1) A pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. However, it was of the view that freedom from noise pollution was a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental is protected under article 21 of the constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is a hindrance to that right. The court also highlighted already existing provisions against such practices like Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and guidelines laid down in previous cases of the same nature and demanded for better implementation of the same.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #30: Murli S. Deora v. Union of India

In this case, the Petitioner, Murli S. Deora brought the issue of public smoking into public interest on the basis of the right to life and liberty embraced in article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Tobacco consumption in public places is equally hazardous as it highly affects the wellbeing of non-smokers causing lung cancer, another disease, the reason for the death of a large sum of people. This is an obvious illustration of violation of article 21 of the Constitution which clearly asserts that no individual shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The court found that smoking in the public places is injurious to health of non – smokers and violating their right to life and liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution and hence it directed the Union of India, State Government, and the Union Territories to implement this ban in all the public places which include auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, public offices, court buildings and public conveyances including railways. More reading material is available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #31: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Mr Subhash Kumar filed a PIL for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the release of sludge/slurry from the washeries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution.

The right to live is a Fundamental Right assured in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and guarantees the pollution-free environment and water to an individual. If anything endangers the quality of life of an individual, it is in violation of the laws. The Court in the present case held that the present petition was not filed keeping in view the public interest rather it is filed for self-interest. It was noted by the court that the materials on record show that petition was filed in the personal interest, keeping in view the facts the Court rejected the present petition. The Court also ordered the Petitioner, Subhash Kumar to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Respondents.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is created for the implementation of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Supreme Court; it is an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the rights of a citizen. The Right to live is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and guarantees a citizen to live in pollution-free water and air. A person cannot invoke Public Interest Litigation to satisfy his personal grudge. The present petition is not maintainable as it was not filed in the public interest and was the result of a personal grudge.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #32: Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab

The question before the court was whether Section 309 of the IPC violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The five-judge bench observed that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of Constitution does not incorporate the “Right to Die” or “right to be killed”. The Court also asserts that ‘Right to life” also incorporates the right to a dignified life till one reaches the point of death, including a dignified procedure of death, thus it includes the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.

The Court ensured that the “Right to die” with dignity at the end of an individual’s life must not be misinterpreted with the “Right to die” in an unusual way of death. It was mentioned that accelerating the process of natural death of an individual which by god’s creation are imminent in nature, under such circumstances permitting termination of life is not available for interpretation under Article 21 to therein include the right to curtail an individual’s natural span of life.

Henceforth, the contention of the Appellants on making Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional, since they violated Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be accepted. Moreover, the Court, rejected the petitioner’s contention of challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 based on Article 14. The Court had ultimately overruled the prior decision in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, thus making Section 306 and Section 309 of IPC constitutionally valid.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #33: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

In this case, the state of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation in 1981 decided to evict the pavement dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay. The eviction was to proceed under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The court observed that the right to life conferred by section 21 is vast and far-reaching. It does not simply mean that life can be extinguished or removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. This is just one aspect of the right to life. The right to livelihood is an equally important aspect of this right because no one can live without means of subsistence.

If the right to subsistence is not treated as part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way to deprive a person of their right to life would be to deprive them of their means of subsistence to the point of repealing. Such deprivation would not only negate the life of its content and meaning but render life impossible.

Article 41, which constitutes another guiding principle, stipulates that the State must, within the limits of its economic capacity and its development, effectively guarantee the right to work in the event of unemployment and undeserved desires. The principles set out in Articles 39 (a) and 41 must be considered as equally fundamental for understanding and interpreting the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If the State were obliged to provide citizens with adequate means of subsistence and the right to work, it would be quite irreproachable to exclude the right to subsistence from the content of the right to life.

The court also held that anyone deprived of their right to a means of subsistence, except in accordance with the just and fair procedure established by law, may challenge deprivation as a violation of the right to life conferred by Article 21.

More about the case can be read here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #34: Mr. X vs. Hospital Z

The court did not stop at deciding on patient’s Right to Privacy but needlessly went beyond to decide his right to marriage. The divisive part of the judgment was the fact that the court held that the ‘right to marry’ will be ‘suspended’ for the HIV AIDS patients until they are cured. The judge’s respond to the appellant’s counsel’s contention that every man has a right to marry seems justified. They asserted that every right comes with a duty and hence it is the appellant’s not only moral but legal duty to enlighten his fiancée of his HIV AIDS report. However, the reason behind this seems incommensurate. The court had counted on the various divorce provisions where the grounds of divorce include a venereal disease. The fact that it is one of the grounds for divorce shows that every spouse has a right to health and life and hence this provision encompasses to even before marriage.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #35: PUCL v UOI

In 2001 during a visit to Jaipur it was observed that the food corporation of India (FCI) godowns overflowing with grains and the grains were rotting due to fermentation of rainwater and were getting wasted. Even when there were grains 40 million tonnes above the buffer stock requirement, there were people still dying of starvation. The PUCL filed a petition in supreme court seeking recognition of right to food in the supreme court.

The question before the court was weather article 21 which provides the privilege to life in freedom includes the right to food as well which was also upheld in the case of Francis vs. administration.

The court held that the privilege to sustenance that is, right to food is an important constituent to maintain article 21 of the constitution which ensures the fundamental and human right to "life with human dignity". The FCI was requested to guarantee that the food grains will not go to squander and should be provided to village people in the drought hit areas. With the continuance of the case and passing of the interims, supreme court has gradually defined right to food in terms of right to life and said that it fulfils the obligation under article 21.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #36: Sheela Barse v Union Of India

A petition was filed before the supreme court of India by a social worker seeking discharge of children below 16 years of age who were detained in jails. The court issued the direction to all the high courts and district judges to submit all the information of children in jails, existence of juvenile courts, etc., before a certain date. This detention of children below the age of 16 years in jail would be violative of article 21 of the constitution which provides right to life and personal liberty and incorporates within itself right to legal aid, fair and speedy trial, and article 39 (f) of the constitution. The court also held that the trial of children should be taken place in Juvenile courts and not in criminal courts. The case also discusses the need of legal aid, fair and speedy trial specifically for children below the age of 16 years under section 5 of Children act, 1960. And when a FIR is filed against child for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years the investigation should be completed within a period of three months. the court also advised that every state government must take the required measures for setting up the adequate number of courts, appointing the required number of judges, and providing them the necessary facilities. All this was advised to protect the right to legal aid which is entailed under article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #37: Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka

In this case the petitioner challenge notification issued by the Karnataka Government that permitted private medical colleges to charge higher fees from students who were not allocated government seats on the name of capitation fee.

The court held that even if the right to education was not explicitly guaranteed under the constitution as a fundamental right, it is essential to the fulfilment of the fundamental right to life and human dignity under article 21 of the constitution. The supreme court held that the charging of this capitation fee by private education institutions violated the right to education as inferred from right to life and human dignity and the right to equal protection of law under article 21 and 14 of the constitution, respectively. The right to life under article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state government is under an obligation to make endeavours to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizen. Capitation fee is nothing but a price for selling of education the concept of 'teaching shops' is contrary to the constitutional scheme of this country and is wholly abhorrent of the Indian culture and heritage.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #38: MC Mehta v UOI

The original petition was filed by MC Mehta for the closure of various units of Shri Ram food and fertilizer industry as they were hazardous for the community. While the petition was pending an enormous amount of oleum gas leaked from one of the units that resulted in death of many people which was the result of a human blunder. It led to an uproar among the general population living close by and within a few days, another similar incident took place, a minor one, a pipe broke out because of which the gas kept leaking from the joints of the pipe. While the rule laid in the case of Ryland vs Fletcher was of strict liability, the court in this case interpreted the rule of liability differently and the rule of absolute liability was introduced. The court eventually decided not to adjudicate on whether the article 21 is available against Shri Ram or not. the court however directed Delhi legal aid and advised to take up the cases of all those who claim to have suffered on the count of oleum gas and to file action on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against Shriram. The court also laid emphasis on right to clean and healthy environment as it is incorporated under article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #39: Chameli v State of UP

The Supreme Court unambiguously stated in its verdict: “Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to life, should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right.”

In this judgement, the Supreme Court took a very pro-government approach and gave directions to take macro level measures to address the starvation problem such as implementing irrigation projects in the state so as to reduce the drought in the region, measures to ensure fair selling price of paddy and appointing of a Natural Calamities Committee. None of these measures actually directly affected the immediate needs of the petitioner, i.e., to prevent people from dying of hunger.

The Court considering the mandate of human right to shelter read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India to guarantee right to residence and settlement. Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life. Right to social and economic justice conjointly commingles with right to shelter as an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. The court also held that Food, shelter and clothing are minimal human rights, and it is a facet of conjoined meaning of right to life under Article 21.

In a democratic society as a member of the ordered civic community, one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #40: Rudal Shah v state of Bihar

Rudul Shah was arrested for the murder of his wife in the year 1953. Later on, he was acquitted in 1968 by court of sessions in Bihar but was ordered to be detained in prison till further order of state government. Rudul Shah was detained for more than 14 years in jail. As a result, he filed habeas Corpus petition under article 32 of the constitution praying for his release on the ground that his detention in jail was unlawful.

The decision was delivered by the then Chief Justice Chandrachud on 1st August 1983.

It was held by the court that the right to move to supreme court under article 32 for the enforcement of any right conferred by part 3 of the constitution is itself a fundamental right. And the court also held that the supreme court could pass an order for payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental rights. The court held that if it refused to award compensation and ordered him to approach the civil court it will be doing a mere lip-service to his fundamental rights to liberty which the state government has so grossly violated. It was also observed that right to life and personal liberty which is guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution will be stripped of its significance if the court’s powers are limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention and that of awarding compensation. It was necessary in this case to secure due compliance with the mandate of article 21.

Most importantly the court held that, "The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of state are a shield".

Click here to read more about the same.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

11399 Views

Category Constitutional Law , Other Articles by - Ishaan  

Recent Articles

• A Comprehensive Analysis Of S.53 A: Unravelling The Basic Procedure For Examination Of Rape Accused, Evidentiary Value, And Constitutional Validity
• Understanding Types Of Marriages Under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 & Their Impact On Offspring
• Brief Note On The Registration Act (act No.16 Of 1908)
• Constitution Mcqs - Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• Denying West UP Even A Single HC Bench Is Patently Illegal
• Compilation Of Pivotal Judgements Concerning Article 12 Of The Indian Constitution
• Daily Judiciary Mcq - Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• Extensive Research On The Presumptions As Given Under Indian Evidence Act
• A Compendium Of Maxims: Meaning Of Legal Maxims With Reference To Legal Provisions
• A Comprehensive Study Of A Deed Of Trust With A Sample Draft

More »

Popular Articles

• Civilizing The Procedure: Previous Year Mcqs On Civil Procedure Code (pcsj)
• Understanding The Phenomenon Of Proclaimed Offender
• Comprehensive Understanding Of Legal Intricacies Governing Mortgages Under The Transfer Of Property Act 1882
• Navigating Different Methods Of Debt Recovery In India

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,46,457 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Table of Contents

Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty)

Protection of life and personal liberty.

It states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” 

• The right guaranteed in Article 21 is available to ‘citizens’ as well as ‘non-citizens’.
• Article 21 can be claimed only when a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State under the meaning of Article 12. Thus, Violation of the right by Private individual is not within the purview of Article 21.

Meaning of Right to Life

Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration: Right to life includes right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage, and all that gives meaning to a man’s life.

Scope of Right to life

Right to live with Human Dignity

• PUDR vs UOI: The non-payment of minimum wages to the workers has been held by the supreme court as violative of Right to life. 
• Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs UOI: Linked the article 21 with DPSP particularly Article 41 and 42.
• Jeeja Ghosh vs UOI: Rights guaranteed to differently abled person were founded on the sound principles of human dignity, which is the core value of human right and facet of Article 21.

Right to Reputation:

• Subramaniam Swamy vs UOI: the apex court held that the reputation of an individual is a basic element under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity. Right to free speech does not give a right to an individual to defame others. The citizens have a correlative duty of not interfering with the liberty of other individuals since everybody has a right to reputation and right to live with dignity. Further, the court held that it is the duty of the State to regulate the freedom of speech and expression and to ensure that the citizens do not make defamatory speeches. Existence of Section 499 of the IPC is not a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression because it ensures that the social interest is served by holding a reputation as a shared value of the public at large. Therefore, it is essential to keep Section 499 (Criminal Defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alive in order to protect the reputation of individuals. 
• Om Prakash Chautala vs Kanwar Bhan: A Good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the constitution and thus inseparable facet of Right to life.

Right to livelihood:

• Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation: The pavements dwellers have the Right to Livelihood which is considered in the sweep of Right to Life. the Petitioners lived on the slums not by choice, but by a reason of involuntary acts; it did not include a mala fide intent, and thus was not a Criminal trespass.
• A person tested positive for HIV could not be rendered medically unfit solely on the ground to deny him of employment.

Right to live in unpolluted environment

The Supreme court said that the word environment is of broad spectrum, which brings within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance, free from pollution of air, water, sanitation without which life could not be enjoyed.

• MC Mehta vs UOI: Large scale misuse of residential space for commercial purposes violate right to have decent urban environment. In this case, Article 21 is read with Article 48A and 51A (g).
• Moti Lal Yadav vs State of UP:- The court directed Principal Secretary Home and Chairman of UP Pollution Board to file separate affidavit on the steps taken to enforce 2000 rules.
• In Re: Noise Pollution vs Unknown: The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A) whichever is lower.
• MC Mehta vs UOI: Balance has to be maintained between environmental protection and developmental activities. The court explained the protection and improvement of environment as envisaged in Environment protection act can be achieved by sustainable development.

Right to Die

Suicide: According to section 309 of IPC, “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year 1[or with fine, or with both]. “Mental Healthcare Act has effectively taken away the sting of Section 309. It will be good when the IPC is amended and Section 309 removed. Until then, Mental Healthcare Act will ensure that people who attempt suicide can be provided with services they need and also protected from harassment from police authorities

• P Rathinam vs UOI: In this case, it was held that if a person has attempted to commit suicide, he must be unstable mentally and must be going through a lot already. And punishing a person for trying to end his life because he was in trouble, would not help his mental health at all.
• Smt. Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab: The Supreme Court held that the right to life is a natural right while suicide is an unnatural extinction of life and therefore the latter is inconsistent with the former. The court thus upheld the constitutional validity of Section 309. 

Mental Health care Act 2017:

Recognition of Rights: Right to live with dignity: Every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity Right to Confidentiality: A person with mental illness shall have the right to confidentiality in respect of his mental health, mental healthcare, treatment and physical healthcare The Act empowers person with mental illness to make an advance directive that states how he/she wants to be treated for the illness and who his/her nominated representative shall be.

Euthanasia: 

• Active euthanasia: involves an active intervention to end a person’s life with substances or external force, such as administering a lethal injection.
• Passive or negative or non-aggressive euthanasia is the denial of medical care necessary for maintaining life, such as the denial of antibiotics when the patient is likely to die without them.
• Aruna Shanbaug case (2011): The SC allowed passive euthanasia.
• Common Cause case (2018): The SC decided that passive euthanasia will be legally allowed henceforth in India and also laid down guidelines for living wills.
• The requirement for the Magistrate’s approval has been replaced by an intimation to the Magistrate.
• The medical board must communicate its decision within 48 hours (no time limit earlier).
• Now a notary or gazetted officer can sign the living will in the presence of two witnesses instead of the Magistrate’s countersign.
• In case the medical boards set up by the hospital refuses permission, it will now be open to the kin to approach the High Court which will form a fresh medical team.

Death Sentence

Section 354 (5) of the CrPC specifies that hanging is the method of execution in the civilian court system. According to the Army Act of 1950, the army court-martial system recognises both hanging and shooting as legitimate methods of execution. Between 2004 and 2015, approximately 1500 capital punishment verdicts were issued, but only four convicts were hanged.

Basis of Death Penalty:

• Retribution:  One of the key principles of retribution is that people should get what they deserve in proportion to the severity of their crime. This argument states that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime.
• Deterrence:  Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing convicted murderers, we will deter would-be murderers from killing people.

Court on Death Penalty –

• Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab: It was determined that the death penalty is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule, but the Supreme Court’s decision did not define the phrase ‘rarest of rare.’
• Swami Shraddananda case: The apex court had observed that where the apex court judges “may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death penalty… the court would take recourse to the expanded option”. The expanded option being imprisonment for the rest of life without remission.
• Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Certain procedural  thresholds must be met for sentencing to be fair  and explicitly rejects the idea that death sentences can be determined solely on crime-based considerations.
• Commitment to recognising reformation as integral to the Indian criminal justice system, especially death penalty sentencing.
• It asks the state and sentencing judges to establish that there is no probability of reformation of the accused.
• It recognises that aspects of the accused’s life, both pre-offence and post-offence in prison, are relevant.
• As practical steps in this process, the judgment asks courts to call for reports from the probation officer as well as prison and independent mental health experts.
• The state too must present material that speaks to a wide range of factors. The right of the accused to present mitigating factors and rebut the state, if necessary, is also recognised.

Reason Death Penalty persists :

• National Security: Some acts like waging war against the State, terrorism etc. erodes the sanctity of our National Security framework.
• Acts that shake the collective conscience: Supporters of Death Penalty says that there are some acts which shakes the collective conscience of society and deserves nothing except death penalty. 

Death Penalty should go away :

• Capital punishment are of the view that retribution is immoral, and it is just a sanitised form of vengeance. Capital punishment doesn’t rehabilitate the prisoner and return them to society.
• Social Factors Against Capital Punishment:  An analysis of the possible reasons to avert the death penalty is reflected in a series of recent verdicts such as Lochan Shrivas vs State of Chhattisgarh (2021) and Bhagchandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021).These reasons might include socio-economic backwardness, mental health, heredity, parenting, socialisation, education, etc.
• Discriminatory towards One Section: According to the Death Penalty India Report 2016 (DPIR), approximately 75% of all convicts sentenced to death in India are from socio-economically underprivileged categories, such as Dalits, OBCs, and religious minorities . 
• Spent considerable time in jail due to an error by the State. However, if a person is wrongly hanged, then no amount of compensation can bring back the person and mitigate the error.
• Inhumane : Human rights and dignity are incompatible with the death penalty. The death sentence is a violation of the right to life, which is the most fundamental of all human rights.
• Global Precedent – No correlation with low crime rates: Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland have one of the lowest crime rates in the world without death penalty. They focus on reforming the criminal rather than deterring him with stricter and harsh punishments.

The Law Commission in its 262nd report proposed that the death penalty should be abolished for all crimes excluding terrorism-related offences and war. The experience of the Scandinavian countries also supports this view. However, till the time it happens, there should be proper implementation of the Bachan Singh Judgment by the Indian Courts.

Personal Liberty

• Liberty in negative sense means absence of restrictions. 
• Positive liberty means freedom with certain restrictions which is necessary for the good of the society. These restraints are necessary so that everyone irrespective of the caste, creed, gender or any other societal factors which restrict a common man could enjoy the liberty. 

The term Personal liberty was examined for the first time in AK Gopalan case. It means nothing more than the liberty of a physical body. It means freedom from arrest and detention from false imprisonment. Kharak Singh case: The Court laid down that an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby violated his right to “personal liberty” enshrined in Article 21. Thus, the Regulation authorising domiciliary visits, was plainly violative of Article 21 as there was no law on which it could be justified and hence, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Facets of Personal Liberty

Right to Privacy: Internationally, the right to privacy is prescribed in Article 12 of the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966. The right to privacy legally protects an individual against ‘arbitrary interference’.

• It is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
• The Court directed the Centre to put into place, a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the State. The legitimate aims of the State would include, for instance: Protecting national security, Preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and Preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits.
• The Supreme Court was careful to point out that the fundamental right to privacy is not absolute, and that it will always be subject to reasonable limitations. It was held that the state can limit the right to privacy to defend legitimate state interests. Only state action that passes each of the three tests can limit the right. First, such state action must have a legislative mandate; second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state objective; and third, it must be proportionate, i.e., such state action must be necessary for a democratic society, both in nature and scope, and the action should be the least intrusive of the available options to achieve the goals.
• PUCL vs UOI: The Court laid down exhaustive guidelines to regulate the discretion vested in the State under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act for the purpose of telephone tapping and interception of other messages to safeguard public interest against arbitrary and unlawful exercise of power by the Government. Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the provisions of the Act. “Occurrence of any public emergency” or in interest of public safety” are the sine qua non “for the application of provisions under section 5(2) of the Act unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said legislation. The Court said public emergency would mean the prevailing of sudden condition or situation affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression ‘public safety’ means the state or condition of grave danger or risk for the people at large. When either these two conditions are not in existence, the Court said, the Central Government or the State Government or the authorised officers cannot resort to telephone tapping.
• Devika Biswas vs UOI : The Supreme Court observed that “the right to health” and “the reproductive rights of a person”, constituting two important components of the “right to life” under Article 21 had been endangered by sterilization procedure carried out, under “the Population Control and Family Planning Programme or the Public Health Programme of the Government of India.” 
• Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation case: Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual based on sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of everyone in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lies at the core of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 , 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
• Mr. X vs Hospital “Z: The court held that the “it was open to the hospital, or the doctor concerned to reveal such information to persons related to the girl whom he intended to marry, and she had a right to know about the HIV positive status of the appellant”. Court also held that the duty to maintain secrecy in the doctor-patient relationship is not absolute and can be broken for the public good or interest.

Article 21 and Prisoner Rights

Supreme Court while interpreting Article 21, has laid down a new Constitutional and Prison Jurisprudence. The rights or protections recognised for the prisoners have been discussed below:

Right to Free Legal Aid: 

• The Supreme Court laid down that right to free legal aid at the cost of the State to an accused, who could not afford legal services for reasons of poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation, was part of fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21. Free legal aid to the indigent has been declared to be “a state’s duty and not government charity”.

Right to Speedy Trial: Article 21 requires that a person can be deprived of his liberty only in accordance with procedure established by law which should be a just, fair, and reasonable procedure. A procedure cannot be reasonable, fair, or just unless it ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of the person deprived of his liberty.

The guarantee of a speedy trial, it is explained, serves a three-fold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment; Secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges, and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost, or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend him or herself.

• Hussainara khatoon vs State of Bihar: The right to a speedy trial is available at all stages namely, investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. The Supreme Court in its various judgements emphasised that a person could approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 to enforce the right to a speedy trial. However, the Court at various times refused to fix a time limit under which a trial has to be concluded.

Section 309: It provides that the proceedings to be conducted on day-to-day basis until the examination of all the witnesses have been done. It also provides that the trial relates to an offence under Section 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-DA or 376-DB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible be completed within two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.Section 173: Provides that the investigation of the offence of rape shall be completed within two months.Section 311: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance

Right to Fair Trial

Principles:

• Presumption of innocence: this principle is considered the most important principle of the fair trial so as to safeguard the accused from arbitrary and wrongful conviction.
• Independent, impartial and competent judges: the proceedings are to be conducted by a competent, independent and impartial judge)/court. Section 479 of the code explicitly prohibits any judge or magistrate to trial any case within which he is a party or personally interested.
• Best Bakery Case: Court said that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining truth, has to be fair to all concerned. Not only the accused be fairly dealt with, but also the victims or their family members and relatives. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society .

Right to Bail:

• The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, does not define bail, although the terms bailable offence and non-bailable offence have been defined in section 2(a) Cr.P.C. as follows: ” Bailable offence means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offence means any other offence”. Further, sections. 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in criminal cases. The amount of security that is to be paid by the accused to secure his release has not been mentioned in the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is the discretion of the court to put a monetary cap on the bond.

Procedure Established by Law VS Due Process of Law

After a discussion between the Constitutional Assembly Advisor, Sir B.N. Rau, and Frankfurter J. of the United States of America Supreme Court, who stated that the due process clause is undemocratic and burdensome to the judiciary because it empowers judges to invalidate legislation enacted, the constituent assembly used the term ‘procedure established by law’.

The constituent debate’s preference for “process defined by law” was to give parliamentary supremacy in law making with appropriate constitutional and judicial safeguards for “personal liberty” against judicial supremacy. The supremacy of the legislature was maintained by the constituent assembly.

It signifies that if a law has been passed by the Parliament by following the proper procedure, then it will be a valid law. Implementing this concept indicates that a person might be deprived of his life or personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. 

AK Gopalan vs UOI: AK Gopalan, a political leader, was arrested in Madras under the Preventive Detention act 1950. He claimed that the action taken under the Prevention Detention Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He also claimed that the phrase procedure established by law in Article 21 refers to due process of law. In his case, the procedure followed was not proper, resulting in a breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that if the government takes away an individual’s freedom in accordance with the procedure established by law, i.e., if the imprisonment was done by following the proper procedure, then it will not be considered a breach of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21 in this case.

However, in this case, Justice Fazal Ali gave a dissenting opinion. He said that the meaning of the term procedure established by law also implies the due process of law, which indicates that no one should be left without the opportunity of being heard i.e., Audi alteram partum (no person shall be left unheard) since it is one of the important principles of natural justice.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: The passport of Maneka Gandhi was detained by officials under the provisions of the Passport act. The petitioner went to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and argued that the government’s act of seizing her passport was a clear violation of her personal liberty under Article 21. This decision greatly expanded the ambit of Article 21 and accomplished the purpose of making our country a welfare state, as mentioned in the Preamble. The Court concluded that the procedure established by law ought to be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court noted that the procedure specified by law for depriving a person of his right to life and personal liberty must be proper, reasonable, and fair, rather than discretionary, whimsical, and oppressive.

An individual’s life and freedoms can be taken away only when the following requirements are satisfied:

• The law must be valid.
• There must be a proper procedure.
• That procedure should be just, fair, and not arbitrary.

If the procedure provided by law is frivolous, oppressive, or unreasonable, then it should not be considered a procedure at all. A system must be reasonable or just to represent the idea of natural justice.

Article 21 A

The new Article 21A, which was inserted into the Indian Constitution by means of the 86th Constitutional Amendment, states that “the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 through a law that it may determine.” In 2009, the Right to Education Act was passed considering Article 21A.

Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh :  

• The Court cited Article 13 of the international covenant on civil and Political Rights when it stated that in order for the State to fulfil its duty to provide higher education, it must use all of its resources to the fullest extent possible in order to gradually realise each individual’s right to education.
• The Court ruled that the scope of the right must be understood in light of the Directive Principles of State Policy , including Article 45, which mandates that the State must make every effort to provide free and mandatory education for all children under the age of 14. 

The Supreme Court ruled in  Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India in 2014 that the Right to Education Act of 2009 cannot force minority educational institutions to admit students from other communities in order to uphold the state’s goal of providing ‘free’ and ‘compelled’ education to ‘all.’ 

School development Management vs State of Rajasthan: The wording of the article is not absolute and permits the state to choose the medium of instruction ‘by law’. According to what has been granted under Article 21A of the Constitution, “no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward should be trained in a particular language or the mother tongue solely.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Right to Life and Liberty

Article 21 ensures that No individual shall be bared of life & liberty except to the procedure established by law. Know all about the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Table of Contents

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Justice P. Bhagwati stated that Article 21 “embodies a fundamental value of supreme importance in a democratic society” in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981). Additionally, Article 21 was described by Justice Iyer as “the procedural Magna Carta protecting life and liberty.”

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”, it also forbids the denial of rights in accordance with legal processes. Article 21 is the core of the Indian Constitution . Article 21 also covers important rights such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of religion and culture. Every Indian citizen is covered under Article 21. Foreign nationals also have been protected under this article. The two categories of rights in Article 21 are:

• Right to Life
• Right to Personal Liberty

Read More: Right to Freedom

Right to Life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

‘Life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution should not merely be taken as the physical act of breathing. It does not imply continual toil or a life of simple animal existence. It covers a far wider range of issues, such as the right to a decent standard of living, the right to a means of support, the right to health, the right to clean air, etc.

The Right to Life is necessary to our very existence and without which we cannot exist as humans, the right to life embraces all those aspects of life that give a man’s life meaning, fulfilment, and value. Thus, the bare essentials, minimum requirements, and fundamental needs of an individual are derived from the fundamental principle of the right to life.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963

Supreme court held that the term “life” is employed in this context, more than only animal existence is indicated. The prohibition against its loss applies to all the limbs and faculties that are used to enjoy life. The provision forbids the mutilation of the body, including the removal of an eye, an armoured leg, or any other organ that allows communication between the soul and the outside world.

Read More:   Article 19 of Indian Constitution

Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

According to the Indian Constitution, the sole intention of laws made is to preserve the rights of the citizens. In light of it, Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered as the guardian and the protector of fundamental rights . We have all of the legally recognised fundamental rights as Indian citizens. Hence, if an individual’s fundamental rights are violated, the Supreme Court can be used to enforce them.

The Supreme Court has the authority to exercise judicial review by issuing writs or orders to enforce fundamental rights because the right to a constitutional remedy is a component of those rights. The Supreme Court has established the legal system as a pillar of individual liberty.

Because it is the sole provider in the Indian Constitution that addresses the right to life or any other right that belongs to human beings, Article 32 is considered the “heart” and “soul” of the Indian Constitution.

The most valuable piece of legislation is India’s Constitution. The Magna Carta serves as the foundation for personal liberty. Personal liberty is never susceptible to detention, arrest, or any other kind of bodily restraint. The fundamental component of personal liberty is positivity.

Article 21 Interpretations by SC in Various Cases

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases. Some of these cases include:

AK Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950

Article 21 was somewhat limited in its application before the 1950s. In this decision, the SC determined that the phrase “procedure established by law” as used in the Constitution had British-style personal liberty, not American-style “due process” at its core.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

In this instance, Manenka Gandhi received a passport from the passport office for an international trip. However, the Regional Passport Officer in Delhi notified the petitioner that the Government of India made the decision to accept the passport. The petitioner was required to return her passport within seven days for this reason. The passport was eventually denied by the government because, according to them, it went against the interests of the general population. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition objecting to the government’s refusal to seize the passport.

The Supreme Court reinterpreted Article 21 in the Maneka Gandhi case by declaring that the right to life encompasses more than just the physical and includes the right to live with dignity.

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi 1981

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi is a 1981 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Union Territory of Delhi was exempt from paying minimum wages to its employees under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The Supreme Court held that the Union Territory of Delhi was not exempt from paying minimum wages and that it was obligated to pay its employees the minimum wages as determined under the act. In this decision, the court ruled that any mechanism used to revoke someone’s right to life or liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just—not capricious, capricious, or fantastical.

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation is a 1985 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether pavement dwellers in Mumbai had a right to livelihood and adequate housing. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution included the right to livelihood and adequate housing and that the Bombay Municipal Corporation was obligated to provide basic amenities, including water and sanitation, to pavement dwellers.

This case established the principle of the right to life as a comprehensive right that encompasses the right to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing. This case reaffirmed the earlier stance that any action that would violate a person’s fundamental rights should adhere to the rules of justice and fair play.

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is a 1993 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the right to education was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to education was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty.

The court stated that education was an integral part of the right to life and that the state was obligated to provide free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14. This case is considered a landmark decision in Indian constitutional history, as it established education as a fundamental right in India. The SC supported the broad meaning of the right to life in this instance.

Read More: Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution Scope

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty. The scope of Article 21 is broad and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases over the years.

Right to Die (Euthanesia)

A person has the right to choose to end their life under any conditions or to consent to euthanasia voluntarily. However, the right to die does not apply to coerced suicide. The right to death is freedom wholly dependent on people.

In Common Cause vs Union of India 2018, SC gave its legal sanctity to Passive Euthanasia. This verdict was made in the line with the case of Aruna Shanbaug who until her death in 2015 lived her life in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades. Although Active euthanasia is not yet legal in India.

Although there is no legal backing for euthanasia in India, passive euthanasia is permitted under strict guidelines, as the individual must give consent to a living will and the patient should either be in a vegetative state or terminally ill.

Right to be forgotten (RTBF)

The right to be forgotten refers to the ability to request the removal of personally identifiable information that is publicly accessible from databases, websites, search engines, and other social platforms once the information is not required.

There is no law in India that particularly addresses RTBF. However, the now-retracted Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB), 2019, included RTBF-related measures. The Information Technology Rules, 2011, which regulate digital data, likewise don’t have any RTBF-related clauses.

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017  recognised RTBF as a component of the rights to life and privacy under Article 21 in this precedent-setting judgement. The RTBF was prohibited from being used if the material in question was needed for the following purposes, according to SC:

• Exercising one’s freedom of expression and information.
• Compliance with legal obligations.
• The performance of responsibility for the public’s welfare or health.
• Protection of privacy in the public interest.
• For statistical purposes, for scientific or historical research, or both; or
• Establishment, carrying out, or defending legal claims.

Right to the Internet as Human Right

All people must have access to the internet in order to exercise their right to freedom of speech, opinion, and other essential human rights.

Supreme Court in Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and Ors, 2018 declared that the Right to Access Internet is a basic fundamental right, which could not be curtailed at any cost, except for when it “encroaches into the boundary of illegality.”

Following the Sabu Mathew judgement in this case, the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2020 also declared the right to Internet access as a fundamental right.

List of Rights Under Article 21 Interpreted by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court through its various judgements has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

As the current form of this article is evolving on a case-by-case basis, many more rights are being added to this list with each passing judgement. This also depicts the flexibility of the Indian Constitution .

Read about: Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution UPSC

Anyone may submit a petition to the Supreme Court if they believe that a public official or government official has violated their fundamental rights. The Magna Carta period of history is referenced in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. First, the Magna Carta is the basis of our Indian Constitution. The Constitution at that time gives the judiciary a very restricted role. However, the judiciary now plays a significant part in our Indian Constitution.

The Indian judiciary, which is listed in the Indian Constitution, is responsible for enforcing the law. According to the Indian Constitution, every Indian citizen is treated equally. Every right guaranteed by the Indian constitution is open to all.

Read about: Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Sharing is caring!

Why is Article 21 being an essential right?

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”.

What is Procedure Established by Law?

It safeguards the rights of citizen from the arbitrary actions of executives and not against Legislative actions.

Where is the Procedure Established by Law originated?

Procedure Established by Law is originated from the British constitution.

What is Due Process of Law?

It protects citizens' rights from both executive and legislative actions.

Where is the Due Process of Law originated?

Due Process of Law is originated from the constitution of the United States.

Is the Due Process of Law is mentioned under Article 21?

Due Process of Law is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution

• indian polity

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form

Recent Posts

• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

• IB ACIO Salary
• IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

• CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
• CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
• CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Article 21 of Indian Constitution- Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 is the perfect demonstration of the transformative character of our constitution.            Justice Iyyer

In every civil society, it is the obligation of the state to provide a meaningful and dignified life to its citizens. In our country, this right has been provided under Part III of the constitution, which deals with fundamental rights . Article 21 of Indian constitution has a very wide amplitude and can’t just describe in a single sentence.

In this article, we will explore the various facets of Article 21 with the help of legislative intent and judicial pronouncement that expanded its horizon with each passing day.

Table of Contents

Meaning of Article 21

Article 21 is the heart of our constitution . A bare reading of this Article states that

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”.

While defining this Article, Justice P.N Bhagwati stated that Article 21 is an embodiment of constitutional values in a democratic society. It is the basis on which our society can progress in the right direction.

Article 21 appears to be a negative right. A person thus can be deprived of his life and personal liberty according to the procedure established by the law. Article 21 of the Constitution is written in negative language but by a process of creative and innovative interpretation, today Article 21 has become the source of many positive rights by extraordinary interpretation of the expression of life, personal liberty, and procedure established by law occurring in Article 21.

However, it is important to note that Article 21 only comes into play when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. So, violation of the fundamental right by private individuals will fall outside the purview of Article 21.

What is the meaning of the term “Person “

As per this Article, the definition of a person is not confined only to citizens but extends to every person regardless of nationality or the circumstances in which a person is placed. It is important to note that article 21 applies to both the citizens as well as foreigners. Further, protection is guaranteed under Art 21 extends even to persons who are undergoing imprisonment in jails.

What is the meaning of the term “Deprived”

Art 21 comes into the picture only when there is deprivation of life or personal liability of a person. The literal meaning of the term “deprived” is to take away someone’s legal right.

The definition of Deprive came into consideration in the famous case of Gopalan v. State of Madras. (AIR 1950 SC 27). The Hon’ble Supreme court held that Art 21 gets attracted only in case of deprivation in the sense of ‘total losses and that the said article had no application in case of restriction upon the right to move freely.

In the case of Ramcharan v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 549)

The Supreme court held that to constitute ‘deprived’ there must be a direct and tangible act that threatens the feelings of life of a person or member of the community. Use

Article 21 of the constitution guarantees  two kinds of rights, namely –

• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty.

Right to Life

The creator of the constitution of India made article 21 and put the line Right to life under the article which means every person has the right to live his or her life without any restrictions. The Supreme Court has recognized and enforced various socio-economic rights such as the right to food, health, education, and means of livelihood, etc. by integrating non-enforceable DPSP into enforceable fundamental rights .

Undoubtedly, The right to life is fundamental to all the rights available to a human being. We must have basic life and only on that basis, we can enjoy our other rights provided under part III of the constitution. If this right is taken away, all the others will lose their significance. The primary thing is that we should be alive to enjoy the rights and freedom available to us.

Life’ in Article 21 doesn’t merely mean the physical act of breathing or mere animal existence. It has a much wider scope including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc.

This right makes a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from the core concept of the right to life.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the term ‘life’ is something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision restricts the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armoured leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , It was observed that the right to life include the right to lead a healthy life wherein one can enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. This right would even include the right to protect one’s tradition, culture and heritage. It would even extend to live and sleep in peace and the Right to repose and health.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984)

The right to live with human respectability freed from abuse gets its life breath from the given guidelines of State technique, for instance, restorative administrations, enlightening workplaces, other cognizant conditions of work, and maternity mitigation.

Right to Pollution Free Environment

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum  v  UnionofIndia

• A PIL drawing the attention of the court towards the pollution caused by the enormous discharge of untreated effluent by the tanneries and other industries in the State of TN making the subsoil unfit for agricultural purposes.
• Right to the unpolluted environment, right to life includes a variety of rights such as protection of wildlife, forests, lakes, ancient monuments, fauna and flora, unpolluted air, protection from noise, air, water contamination, support of biological parity and maintainable improvement”

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

As per our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishakha vs the State of Rajasthan, the sexual harassment of women at the workplace is a violation of our most cherished Article 21 of the constitution . Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees a protective environment to each and every person of the society to live and enjoy.

Sexual harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most cherished of the fundamental rights , namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21.

Right To Livelihood

Initially, our courts were of the view that the right of livelihood is not covered under Article 21 but later on it got changed.

In the landmark judgement of The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme court held that the right to livelihood is the basic essence of the right to life . The bench said so as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The right to livelihood is the part and parcel of Article 21 of the constitution of India.

Right to Health

Consumer education and Research Centre v. UOI

• Relief against the ill effect of asbestos exposure on the health of workers in asbestos industries –the right to health is a part of the right to life.-duty to provide medical aid and to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or after retirement.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Supreme Court awarded a new dimension to Article 21 wherein it held that the right to life is not merely a physical act of living but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it i.e., the bare necessities of life, such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, etc. It also covers the facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities.

In our country, It is the fundamental right of everyone in this County to live with human dignity, which shall be free from all sorts of exploitation.

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , the Supreme court held that if minimum wages are not paid to the workers in various Asiad projects, it would be a denial of the right to have a dignified life under Article 21 of the constitution.

In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad , it was stated that the right to life includes a life with basic human virtues and decency.

Right to die?

Gian Kaur v  StateofRajasthan  (1996) 2 SCC 648

• Right to life does not include the right to commit suicide or die

ArunaRamchandraShanbaug  v  UnionofIndia  (2011) 4 SCC 454

Active Euthanasia and assisted death are offences but non-voluntary euthanasia is permissible subject to certain conditions and safeguards

Right to Shelter

In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited the right to shelter was recognised as a fundamental right that emanates from the right to residence secured under Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The state has an obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses to make this right means for the poor.

Right to Personal Liberty

The liberty of the person is one of the oldest principles which was recognised at the time of growth of mankind. It is a part of the Magna Karta.

In India, the concept of ‘liberty’ has been accorded a very far fledge interpretation. In a catena of judgements, the Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty talks merely freedom from bodily restraint, but held that it includes those rights and privileges that have been recognised as being integral to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

• In its widest amplitude include rights like Right to travel abroad, Right of a prisoner to Speedy trail (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary)
• The SC has interpreted the word “Life” and “Liberty” liberally.
• Article 21 is now being invoked almost as residuary rights.
• It has led to many directive principles being enforced as FRs.

A K Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

• The right to personal liberty means freedom from physical restraint.

Procedure Established by Law

• A reading of Art 21 shows that a person may be deprived of his life or personal liberty only by the procedure established by law.
• The most celebrated judgment under Art 21 is Maneka Gandhi v. UOI.
• However, one must look at the journey 1950-1978, where Art 21 was at its weakest phase.

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

• Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
• He challenged the validity of his detention, on the ground that it was violative of his right to freedom of movement under Art 19(1) (d) which is the very essence of personal liberty.
• It was argued that Art 19(1) (d) and Art 21 should be read together because  Art 19(1) dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 with procedural rights.
• He said that the procedure  was not reasonable fair and just . His claim was based upon the American notion of due process. In the U.S. system, no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty and property without due process of law.

Due Process of Law v. Procedure established by Law

• The V Amendment to the US Constitution says, inter alia, that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law”. This provision is the source of judicial review. The word “due means” just, proper, reasonable according to judicial review.
• The procedure established by law is taken from article 31 of the Japanese Constitution.
• The term ‘due’ signifies just, fair and reasonable and the term ‘process’ signifies the ‘procedure’. There are two kinds of the due process i.e. 1) substantive due process and 2) procedural due process.
• When one questions the law that lays down a certain procedure on the standards of just, fair and reasonable then one is talking about substantive due process.
• On the other hand when one is making a specific reference to the procedure not considering the law that laid it, one is referring to procedural due process.
• He invited the Indian SC to follow the American notion of due process which includes the principle of natural justice.
• But the founding fathers never intended to follow their notion of due process and therefore it was held in the case that  21 protect against the ‘executive action’ and not against the legislature.
• “Personal Liberty” in art 21 means nothing more than the liberty of the physical body, ie.  Freedom from arrest (punishment) and detention without the authority of law
• “Law” meant “state made laws” and rejected the plea of the Principle of Natural Justice.
• Rejected the contention that ‘procedure established by law’ did not mean ‘due process of law’ as understood in the American Constitution. (American constitution covers both substantive and procedural law.
• ‘Personal liberty’ under Art. 21 mean only “freedom from arbitrary arrest”. Since the arrest was made under the  procedure established by preventive detention laws,  thus, it is not an arbitrary arrest and thereby not violative of Art. 21.
• The court refrained from reading articles 19 and 21 together. According to the court, article 19 could only be invoked by a free person and not one under arrest (article 19 covered a distinct and separate ground).

Khonak Singh v. State of UP(1963)

• UP Police Regulations provided for Domiciliary Visits. The police had the power to go to the house of the history sheeters, suspects, and could conduct surveillance about movement, picketing, whereabouts.
• This was challenged as violating Article 21 of the Indian constitution on ‘personal liberty.
• The SC, in this case, expanded the meaning unlike in the case of Gopalan, which was just a casual remark on personal liberty.

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)

• The petitioner’s passport was impounded by the Central Govt under Sec. 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, 1967.
• The GoI declined in the interest of the general public to furnish the reasons for its decision.
• The pet challenged the validity of the said order and claimed it to be violative of Art 21 since it did not follow the procedure established by law.
• Challenged under Art 14 as conferring an arbitrary power since it didn’t provide a hearing of the holder of the passport.
• Violative of Art 19(1) (a) and (g) since it permitted the imposition of restrictions was not provided in cl (2) or (6) of Art 19.
• The court overruled the narrow view of ‘personal liberty as given in Gopalan .
• It was held that. A. 14 (reasonable classification), A. 19 (reasonable restrictions) and A. 21 (procedure established by law) were interrelated.
• The judgment proved to be a landmark in the sense that it introduced procedural due process by reading out A. 21 with the other two articles i.e. it laid the foundation of procedural fairness.
• If a law deprives an individual of his life and personal liberty then it must satisfy the test of ‘reasonableness’ under A. 14 and A. 19.
• The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable and not oppressive or arbitrary.
• Impounding her passport without giving her a hearing is not according to ‘procedure established by law’. By giving such a wider interpretation of the expression, the court almost equated the expression to the U.S. notion of ‘due process of law’.

Right To Privacy 

In the present times, privacy has become a very hot topic. There is a buzz in the market that our personal data is used by the companies and other stakeholders to satisfy their own motives.

In a landmark judgement of K.S Puttuswami vs Union of India,   it was held that the right to privacy is the essence of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

Right to Education- Article 21A of the Indian constitution

• Education forms the backbone of the development of a country.
• Article 21A-The State shall provide compulsory education to the children who are under the age of 6 and 14 years in such matter as the State may, by law, determine.
• Added by the Constitution 86 th Amendment 2002.
• It casts a duty on a State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6-14 years.

Mohini Jain  v.  State of Karnataka  (AIR 1992 SC 1858)

• The apex court sweepingly held that the right to education for all is included within Article 21.
• However, the zeal demonstrated by the Supreme Court in  Mohini Jain was all too impracticable, and to make the right to education an enforceable right for all the people in India would require innumerable resources that are scarcely available with the state.
• Realizing the impracticability of the proposition laid down in the case, the later constitutional bench in  Unni Krishnan  restricted the scope of the right only up to fourteen years.

Unni Krishnan  v.  State of A.P.  (1993) 1 SCC 645

• The Supreme Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to primary  education .
• The court placed reliance on Articles 41 and 45 and ruled that it is high time and the state must comply with the directive under Article 45 and provide ‘free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.’

Download Article 21 of Indian constitution pdf

Article 21 is the most important right enshrined in our constitution. It is the premises on which the entire building of fundamental rights is constructed. The supreme court has constantly increased the horizon and growth of this Article by providing progressive interpretation. We can safely assume that new facets are going to be added in this infallible Article.

You can follow us on  Instagram  and  Linkedin  to get notifications of new articles published by Legal Study Material.

1 thought on “Article 21 of Indian Constitution- Right to Life and Personal Liberty”

Pingback: Groundwater Regulation: A Challenge to make the ‘Invisible Visible’ in India - Vikalp Sangam

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

ISSN 2581-5369

HeinOnline, MANUPATRA, Google Scholar Indexed

Expanding Horizon of Article 21 Vis-a-Vis Judicial Activism

Kavita sinha.

• Show Author Details

LL.M. student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar, India

• img Download Full Paper
• img Export Citation

Export citation

Right to life and personal liberty is one of the most fundamental and sacrosanct human right under the provisions of the Constitution of many countries like United States of America, Switzerland, India and others. It is not an exhaustive right but includes within its ambit various other fundamental rights. Earlier, these rights only existed within the confined walls and were given a very strict interpretation. The development of the human race not just socially, but also growth in the fields of education and economics. Globalization has lead to even wider interpretation of the terms Life and Liberty today that covers a whole lot of rights within its ambit and the horizon is still expanding and ever evolving. The revolution in the basic concept makes it crucial that the concept of right to life and personal liberty must be examined in reference to the new development, meaning and depth along with the role of judiciary and justification for such liberal interpretation. Judicial Activism with the help of concept of legal realism has played a significant role over the period of time in expanding the ambit of Article 21. This paper hence, focuses on the expanding horizon of Article 21 and the need as well as the role of Judiciary through Judicial Activism.

• Fundamental Rights
• Judicial Activism
• Article 21.

Research Paper

Information

International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 4, Issue 3, Page 106 - 120

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright © IJLMH 2021

I. Introduction

Right to life and personal liberty is the modern term for what we have always known as the natural rights or the god-made rights that are considered the most important for the development of every living individual irrespective of their citizenship, caste, gender or age. These rights are not only restricted to mere survival of a person but it extends to include all those rights which every person ought to have at each and every point of his life and in every doing. The paper consists of IV chapters consisting of various sub-chapters wherein Chapter I is a small introduction to meaning and significance of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. It also lays down the Aims and objective of the reach and the research questions which the researcher sought to answer by way of this paper. Chapter II explains and describes the various aspects and the evolution of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Chapter III deals with a comparative study of the provisions with respect to right to life and liberty under the American Constitution. The new developments  in the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been discussed in the Chapter IV and finally Chapter V the researcher has concluded the research by analyzing the importance of judicial activism and the role of judiciary in giving meaningful interpretation and in expanding the horizon of Article 21.

II. History and significance

It is often said that a part of country’s development can be measured by the prevailing freedom and the respect of the State towards individual’s liberty. Hence, these rights play a pivotal role in the development not just at the individual level but also at institutional and State level. It guarantees safety and strength to the individual and hence is against the facets of inequality and discriminations. The true test of a democracy is how its laws stand with regard to the life and liberty of its people. The development of the Fundamental Rights in India was inspired by and is a product of the England’s Bill of rights (1689), the American Bill of Rights (1791) and the France’s Declaration of Rights of Man (1789). Extensive powers were given to the British Government and the police under Rowlett Act, 1919 which resulted in warrant less arrest and detention of the individuals, searches and seizures and also restriction on public gatherings. Eventually this resulted in mass campaigns of non- violent civil disobedience throughout the country. The freedom movements were also inspired by the Constitution of Ireland and the Directive Principles of the State Policy and as a result of which people of India started to revolt against the government’s action and put forth demand of independent government.

The Nehru Commission in 1928 composing of representatives of Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India. A Constituent Assembly of India was set up which comprised of elected representatives from diverse political background and the chairpersons of committees and sub-committees responsible for different subjects, who were assigned the task of developing a Constitution for the nation. The Constituent Assembly first met on 1946, and the draft Constitution was put to discussion in various rounds. The minutes of the debates were kept as a record and on 6 th and 13 th December, 1948 the Assembly took up the discussion on the draft Article 15 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, a notable development took place having a significant impact on the Indian constitution took place, when on 10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This Universal Declaration of Human Rights however, was not a legally binding instrument but being a signatory of the declaration, India adopted the main idea enshrined in the declaration. A detailed discussion of all these documents is covered in the following chapters.

In India, the Preamble also sets out the goal of the Constitution to achieve Liberty of though, expression, belief, faith and worship. This principle has been adopted from the ideas which formed the basis of the French Revolution in the year 1789.

III. Meaning and scope of article 21

India became free from the British rule in the year 1947 and after many discussions and debates the Constitution of India along with the Magna Carta was adopted by the people of India through the Constituent Assembly in the year 1949 which came into force later in 1950. Indian Constitution is a product of mixture from the best provisions of Constitutions of various countries. Since, most of the parts were adopted from other constitutions, the fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution has also been adopted with necessary modifications from the Constitution of United States of America which we will discuss in the later chapter. The provision the Article 21 is similar to that of the 14 th Amendments rights available to the citizens of United States of America. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:

Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

The Article is an obligation or a duty upon the state to protect the life and liberty of all the persons within the territory in all circumstances except where it is allowed under the established procedures and the law is being followed. These are the basic human rights which even the State can’t violate. The rights protected under this article are the ‘Right to life and personal liberty’. As per the Indian constitution the protection under this article is not only restricted to the citizens but is available to all the persons living within the territory of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das [2] has emphasized that “even those who come to India as tourists also have right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity, just as the State is under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen in this country, so also the State is under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizen”. [3]

 The article consists of three crucial terms or phrase which needs elaboration and discussion, these words are:

(A) Right to Life

As been discussed in the previous chapter also, the right to life under this Article is not merely the right to live. Right to life is more than a mere animal existence, which was also observed in the case of Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh [4] . In this case the court held that the inhibition against a person’s life extends to all those limbs and faculties by which the life is enjoyed. It means a life of dignity which includes right to have a safe and secure livelihood which is an integral facet of life. In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [5] the court held that right to life includes right to live a healthy life so as to enjoy all the faculties of the human body in their prime conditions and would extend to include the protection of one’s culture, tradition, heritage and all that with gives meaning to a man’s life. Hence, it will include the right to live in peace, sleep in peace and right to good health.

In a recent writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India and ors. [6] The honorable Court while interpreting the meaning of life held that right to life includes the right to live with dignity. Elaborating upon the decision the Court also laid down that this Article is the key to achieve social justice as postulated in the Preamble.

The Court held that there is a need for continuous monitoring of the progress in the implementation of the constitutional mandate to make it available to the elderly all the health care and medical facilities. To quote the discussion “We accept that the right to life provided for in Article 21 of the Constitution must be given an expansive meaning. The right to life, we acknowledge, encompasses several rights but for the time being we are concerned with three important constitutional rights, each one of them being basic and fundamental. These rights articulated by the Petitioner are the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to health. The State is obligated to ensure that these fundamental rights are not only protected but are enforced and made available to all citizens.” [7]

Hence, a continuous mandamus is required which must be practised to ensure that the rights of the people are respected, recognized and enforced by the state.

(B) Personal Liberty

According to the definition given by A.V. Dicey, the right to personal liberty as understood means in substance a person’s right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. This definition, however, was suitable in the era where the state had a monopoly over the available resources and the people had very limited access. With continuous development and advancement in the society the meaning of liberty required expansion. The term liberty as it stands today, consists of all the other rights which a person is awarded with in order to live and enjoy a decent life, including all the luxury he could avail. The right to liberty is qualified by the term personal in order to limit and define the boundary of the right. Personal liberty hence includes all the freedoms which are mentioned in the other provision of Constitution such as freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India, freedom to practise any profession etcetera. Article 21A was added through the 86 th amendment Act which ensured that it shall be the duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education to children between the ages 6 to 14 years. This was one of the major developments in the ambit of Article 21. To enumerate a few, Article 21 under the ambit of right to liberty would include:

• The right to equal opportunity
• The right to freedom under Article 19
• Right against exploitation
• The right to freedom of religion
• Cultural and educational rights
• Remedies constitutional right
• Right to education
• Right against arbitrary arrest and detention
• Prohibition of child labour and trafficking

The goal behind providing protection of personal liberty is to achieve social justice and to give every person equality and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It is the tool to provide every person the freedom of choice. It is hence, clear to state that there cannot be an exhaustive definition of this term personal liberty.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [8] the Supreme Court held that Article 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive and infact Article 21 within its broad ambit contains all these rights mentioned specifically under Article 14 and 19. These three articles are collective known as the golden triangle and the Magna Carta of human rights. “The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are neither distinctive nor mutually exclusive.” Any law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to stand a test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19.  When referring to Article 14, the concept of reasonableness must be tested and projected in the procedure. [9]

Not only that the court also opined that the Article 21is governed by the principle of natural justice which includes the principle of:

• Audi altrem partem: It is the hearing rule which means that both the parry to the suit must be given an equal opportunity of being heard and represented.
• Reasoned Decision: it means that the decision of the court shall be supplemented with appropriate reasoning which must be declared in an open court
• Rule against bias: no person shall be a judge of his own cause and the decision of the jury or the panel must be free and fair.

The court in this case by giving a liberal interpretation, had set a benchmark for the people to seek their rights which are natural and fundamental to the basic human necessity whether or not they are mentioned under the provisions of the Constitution. In the later chapters the different aspects and new challenges to this Article have been discussed in detail.

IV. Procedure established by the law

Procedure established by law means law which has been duly enacted, which complies with the procedural requirements and which does not violate any of the provisions of the constitution. This is an important factor of Article 21, because it implies that the rights protected under Article 21 is not a superficial right and can be curtailed by way of restriction imposed by the Legislature under the established ‘procedure’. An overview of the Constituent Assembly Debates [10] shows that there was a huge discussion on draft article 15 (present Article 21) as to whether to incorporate the ‘procedural due process clause’ as under the 14 th amendment of the American Constitution or to use the term ‘procedure established by law’. With the fear and anxiety that the due process clause would give rise to judicial supremacy over the Parliament the term ‘due process’ was replaced with the term ‘procedure established by the law’. It was even argued by Kazi Syed Karimuddin, that if the original article that is, “No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty without due process of law” is replaced by the present one it will give immense power in the hands of the Parliament as the Judiciary will not be able to declare any law, which is enacted under procedure of law, as void even if it violates the right protected under the Article. This proposal was not entertained in the Constituent Assembly.

Earlier, the courts interpreted the right under Article 21 faithfully as per the intent of the framers of the constitution. However, development and globalization in the field of law gave rise to judicial activism, whereby the courts started incorporating due process clause recent case laws and judgements shows that the doctrine of ‘procedural due process’ as well as ‘substantive due process’ is applied by the constitutional courts in which enables the court to question not merely procedural laws, but also the substantive value choices of the legislative branch of government in order to uphold the rights of the people as against the State.

Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [11] , while deciding upon the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 laid down that though the Article provided that the deprivation of protection of rights under Article 21 is allowed only as per the ‘procedure established by the law’ and declined to read it in consonance with the doctrine of ‘due process of law’. However, this stance was overruled in the Maneka Gandhi case [12] Justice Kania referring to A.K Gopalan had said that the term “due process” mentioned in the article had limited the powers of the judiciary, to interpret it further and seek its reasonableness but a new precedent was set through the judgement in Maneka Gandhi which has resulted in broadening the vision of these two phrases. It is worth noting that the court also held that such procedure established by law must be just, fair and a reasonable and not an arbitrary one.

V. Constitutional remedies under article 32

The rights under Article 21 along with the other Fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution can be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The remedies for enforcement of these rights have been provided under Article 32 of the Constitution which reads as:

• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
• Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
• The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution. [13]

The High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to take cognizance if the writ is filed for enforcement of these rights against the State (defined under the Article 12 of the Constitution which includes Government and the Legislatures of the Union, Government and the Legislatures of each state and all the local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India). As per Article 359, these rights cannot be taken away even when the proclamation of emergency is in operation.

VI. Right to life and liberty – a comparative study

In the international forum rights are divided under four generations of human Rights. The right to life and personal liberty were recognized as the most crucial right during the development of first generation of human rights which was called as the the generation of civil and political rights. Once time passed and ideas and concepts about state, political power, and right and freedom developed a fight against monarchical absolutism appeared. These rights were evolved in various countries under various titles such as [14] :

• Magna Charta in 1215
• Petition of Rights in 1628
• The England Bill of Rights (Declaration of Rights) in 1689
• The American Declaration of Independence in 1776
• The French Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights in 1789.

VII. United states of america

The American constitution is the oldest written Constitution in the world containing only 7 articles and has been amended 27 times. After the introduction of the Bill of rights in the Constitution that is the first ten amendments which declares the basic and fundamental rights of the citizens of United States of America, the XIV th amendment was a step taken further by the congress in direction of upholding and protecting the basic civil rights and individual liberties. This amendment along with the Section 1 of the XIV th amendment resulted in one of the most crucial as well as consequential part of the American Constitution, it reads as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [15]

The rights introduced under the 14 th amendments are the precious rights conferred upon the citizens of America to cut short the arbitrary actions of the State. Unlike the Article 21 of Indian Constitution which adopted the idea of protection of life and liberty from the American Constitution, the 14 th amendment rights extends to the protection of life, liberty as well as the property. There are three major changes which were brought in by the framers while adopting the XIV th amendments right in India, these are:

• In America, the rights protected under the Constitution are right to life, liberty and property whereas in India these rights are only restricted to life and personal liberty. Property is not a subject matter to protection under Article 21 and the term liberty was qualified by the term personal in order to exclude those freedoms which are not personal in nature.
• The protection under the 14 th amendment rights is only available to the citizens of the United States whereas in India these rights are available to all the persons living within the territory of India, irrespective of their nationality.
• The doctrine of ‘due process’ is an important aspect of the American Constitution whereas in India the only exception to the duty upon the state under Article 21 is when the act that is done by any State authority is as per the procedure established by the law.

While deciding upon the meaning and ambit of the term ‘Life’ the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of  Munn v. Illinois [16] , “ By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with outer world.” [17]

VIII. Article 21 and its expanding horizon

It is well settled that the earlier view of the Courts in India was directional and confined within the words of the Legislature and it could be seen through the interpretation by the Courts in the post independence cases. However, with the judgement in the Maneka Gandhi’s [18] case, a huge drift was noticed in the way Article 21 was interpreted liberally and given voice to the provision. This case marked the beginning of a new era of constitutional revolution with respect to judicial activism and also control of corruption and the basic human rights of the people with a view to ensure that it can extend the reach of the law. There are a few landmark cases through which judiciary has by applying Judicial Activism reviewed and set aside arbitrary government acts passed by the legislature of being ultra vires the Constitution and has given a liberal interpretation of Article 21, which has been discussed below. The Directive Principles of the State Policy mentioned under the Part IV of the Constitution which extends from Article 36 to Article 51, serves as the key to determine what all categories of rights may fall under the ambit of Article 21.

Right to life initially was confined to the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing however, with the development of society the societal needs of people has changed and the ambit of what life means now also includes right to nutrition,   good health and  right to live with dignity. In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors [19] ., it was noted that the right to life could not be restricted to a mere animal existence, and provided for much more than only physical survival such as adequate nutrition and proper health and medicine, herein Bhagwati J. also observed as under:

“ We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings…it must in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights .” [20]

In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India [21] the question which arose before the honorable court was whether right to die is included within the meaning of right to life, and the court with majority opined that the right to life also includes the right to die and held section 309 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and void. However, this was overruled in the case of Gian kaur v State of Punjab [22] in which the Court held that the right to life does not include the right to die and such an act to take one’s life is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, however, the court opined that Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. Also, in one of the most renowned case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India [23] it was held by the Supreme Court that active euthanasia is included within the meaning of right to life under Article 21.

(A) Freedom from exploitation

Each and every person is given the freedom to exercise his liberty under the provisions of this Constitution, and whenever these rights and liberties is taken away or abridged the person has the right to move to the court under Article 32. However, the questions arise as to the situation where the aggrieved person cannot or under any circumstances is not allowed to move to the Court. Under these circumstances what is the remedy which is available to such person. The Supreme Court taking into regards such circumstances has in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [24] while dealing with the provisions under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, held that,

“….liberty is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed to every person under the Constitution. There cannot be any manner of doubt that any person who is wrongfully and illegally detained and is deprived of his liberty can approach this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for his freedom from wrongful and illegal detention, and for being set at liberty. In my opinion, whenever any person is wrongfully and illegally deprived of his liberty, it is open to anybody who is interested in the person to move this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for his release. It may not very often be possible for the person who is deprived of his liberty to approach this Court, as by virtue of such illegal and wrongful detention, he may not be free and in a position to move this Court.”

(B) Right to education

 In the case of Unni Krishna v State of Andhra Pradesh [25] which involved a challenge by the private professionals educational facilities to the constitutionality of state laws regulating capitation fees charged by such institutions. It was held by the Supreme Court that the right to education is one of the facets of liberty under Article 21 when read with the directive policy under Article 41. Although this does not imply a right to education that flows from higher professional degree, the court interpreted the right to education upto the age of 14 years as the fundamental right of every citizen. In order to enforce this law declared by the Supreme Court, Article 21A was added to the Constitution under Part III by 93 rd amendment in the year. In addition, the Court said that, in order to treat a right as fundamental right, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated as one in Part III of the Constitution and that “the provisions of Part III and Part IV are supplementary and complementary to each other.” [26]

(C) Right to privacy

  The right to privacy has now been recognized to be an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. In the case of  Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [27] decisions and preserves the sanctity of the private sphere of an individual.43 The right to privacy is not simply the “right to be let alone”, and has travelled far beyond that initial concept. It now incorporates the ideas of spatial privacy, and decisional privacy or privacy of choice.44 It extends to the right to make fundamental personal choices, including those relating to intimate sexual conduct, without unwarranted State interference

(D) Right to speedy trial and right against illegal detention

In   Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [28]   it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that an alarming number of men, women, and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of law. The Court took a serious note of the situation and observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such long periods of time without trials.

The Court in this case ordered the release from jail of all those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail for a longer period than what they could have been sentenced had they been convicted upholding that detention of under-trial prisoners, in jail for a period longer than what they would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal as being in violation of Article of 21.

The Article 21 recognizes the rights of the arrested persons by providing a fair and reasonable mechanism to be followed when an accused person is detained so that no person is illegally detained. In cases of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [29] court held that even a person convicted of any offence, though deprived of freedom, but he is well entitled to rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even solitary confinement of a person in jail was held to be violative of Article21.   In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [30] Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities in cases of arrest and detention.

(E) Freedom of sexual preference and to chose a life partner

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India through the Secretary ministry of law and justice [31] while declaring the part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional the Supreme Court held that “Section 377 violates the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 which encompasses all aspects of the right to live with dignity, the right to privacy, and the right to autonomy and self-determination with respect to the most intimate decisions of a human being.”It has been held very recently by Supreme Court that the right to choose his or her life partner as fundamental right under Article 21 and in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [32] directions given to authorities to take all possible preventive steps to combat honour killings and related crimes.

(F) Right to clean environment

With the rapid developments in the field of science and the evolution in the field of technology the environment and ecology has been compromised in many ways. The evidence is the growing damage which could be clearly noticed in deteriorating quality of air and water bodies.

In  Murli S. Deora v. Union of India [33] ,  the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of the act of smokers. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place. Also in the case of Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar the court held that a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”  

It is also worth noticing that the court has taken a step towards including noise pollution within the ambit of life and liberty and held in the case of In Re: Noise Pollution [34] “While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise rose to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21”.

IX. Conclusion criticism and suggestions

‘Right to life’ and ‘personal liberty’ is the modern name for what traditionally has been known as the ‘natural rights.’ Not just in Article 21, right to liberty is one of the basic human rights which are aimed to be achieved and enshrined in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. As been discussed in the chapters liberty is guaranteed in almost all the countries through the Constitution or the fundamental charter of every country. It is a primitive right and hence, it is necessary to develop and enhance the ambit of these rights for the development of the human personality. One of the biggest challenges that are being faced today with respect to the protection of life and personal liberty is that most of the people are not even aware of these rights. These rights though form part of the ambit of term ‘Liberty’ but these rights are not expressly enumerated anywhere.

This however, is main challenge, to find the scope and meaning and effectively enforce its mandate to educate the public about their rights which forms part of the ‘personal liberty.’  Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet such deprivation of life would not be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life.

Another challenge which is being faced is with respect to Judicial Activism. Although, the introduction and adaptation of Public Interest Litigation has lead to major evolution with respect to a new regime of rights of citizens and obligations of the State and devised new methods for its accountability. PIL was introduced to enforce the rights of the disadvantaged people. But it got diluted in the process and used to interfere with the power of the government to take decisions on a range of policy matters. It has lead to an increased interference of Judiciary in the legislative law-making. The framework of Article 21 is structured in such a way that leaves a lot of room for interpretation of the provision by the judiciary. It is a body of flesh without the soul meaning thereby, the meaning of life and liberty is dependent on the other provisions of the Constitution and Article 21 itself doesnot hold any form. This has lead to the enhancement of the role of Judiciary which has lead to law making through judicial activism. Here arises much controversy in relation to the stability of the law because laws made in the court are subject to change and can be overruled through subsequent judgement by another bench. Another criticism to judicial activism is that, the judiciary often mixes personal bias and opinions with the law.

The doctrine of judicial activism which justifies easy and constant readiness to set aside decisions of other branches of Government is becoming wholly incompatible with a faith in democracy and in so far it encourages a belief that judges should be left to correct the result of public indifference. Hence, a great duty has been conferred upon the judicial wing to analyze and interpret the meaning of liberty and life which is the basic human right and as it is best said that with great power, comes great responsibility, hence, judiciary must adhere by its duty.

When the judiciary surpasses its power to stop and misuse or abuse of power by the government in a way, it limits the functioning of the government. The function and duty of the legislature to make laws and the role of the judiciary is to fill the gap of laws and to implement them in a proper manner. Hence, it is suggested that a balance must be maintained between the duties of these two bodies a fine equilibrium between these government bodies can sustain the constitutional values so that the only work remaining for the judiciary is interpretations. Judiciary through judicial activism must perform the role and set out a system of balances and controls to the other branches of the government.

[2] AIR 2000 SC 988

[4] 1963 AIR 1295

[5] (1978) 4 SCC 409

[6] Writ Petititon (C) No. 193 of 2018 decided on 18.12.2018  [MANU/SC/1475/2018]

[7] Ibid . at para 44

[8] AIR 1978 SC 597

[9] https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/

[10] Constitutional Assembly Debates, Volume 7, dated 6 th December, 1948 https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/7/1948-12-06 last accessed on 02.04.2021

[11] AIR 1996 SC 1234

[12] Supra 8

[13] Article 32 of The Constitution of India

[14] https://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/dny_prava_2009/files/prispevky/tvorba_prava/Cornescu_Adrian_Vasile.pdf.

[15] https://www.senate.gov/civics/resources/pdf/US_Constitution-Senate_Publication_103-21.pdf last accessed on 03.04.2021

[16] 94 U.S. 113 (1876)

[17] https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/article-21-right-to-life-livelihood/3631 last accessed on 03.04.2021

[18] 1978 AIR 597

[19] 1981 AIR 746

[20] Ibid. at  Para 8

[21] 1994 AIR 1844

[22] 1996 AIR 946

[23] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005

[24] 1984 AIR 802

[25] 1993 AIR 2178

[26] https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/unni-krishnan-jp-ors-v-state-andhra-pradesh-ors-cited-1993-air-217-1993-scr-1-594-1993

[27] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 Of 2012

[28] AIR 1979 SC 1360

[29] 1980 SCC (3) 488

[30] 1997 1 SCC 416

[31] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 Of 2016

[32] 2018 (7) SCC 192

[33] AIR 2002 SC 40

[34] Writ Petition (civil) 72 of 1998

Total number of HTML views: 8144

Total number of pdf downloaded: 973, open access.

http://doi.one/10.1732/IJLMH.26744

Recent content

1 introducing the future of gaming: the online lottery in india.

By R. Ramasamy

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 2688 - 2702

2 Unravelling Intellectual Property: A Study on the Transformative Role of AI and Digital Innovations

By R.A. Aswin Krishna

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 2661 - 2687

3 Laws Relating to Bail Under UAPA & PMLA: A Jurisprudential Analysis

By Dr. Rajesh Kumar Dube

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 2653 - 2660

4 A Critical Study on Artificial Intelligence and Ability to Reduce in Recruitment Bias in IT Companies, with special reference to Tamilnadu

By R Gohula Tharani

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 2631 - 2652

5 Balancing Food Safety and Livelihoods: Challenges Faced by Small-Scale Food Producers and Street Food Vendors in India

By Rishith Reddy J S

Volume: 7 Issue : 2 Page: 2620 - 2630

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Typically replies within 24 hours.

Any questions related to the journal or your submission?

WhatsApp Us

🟢 We will respond within 24 hours, maybe less.

WhatsApp us.

Golden Triangle Of The Constitution Of India: Articles 14, 19 And 21

Meaning of golden triangle in indian constitution, fundamental rights in indian constitution.

• Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): This right ensures that every individual is treated equally before the law and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): This right guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, the right to form associations or unions, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, and the right to practice any profession or occupation.
• Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): This right prohibits all forms of forced labor, trafficking, and the exploitation of children.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): This right guarantees the freedom of religion and the right to practice, profess, and propagate any religion of one's choice.
• Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): This right provides protection to the cultural and educational interests of minorities and other marginalized communities.
• Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): This right guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and protects an individual from arbitrary arrest, detention, or torture.
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): This right provides citizens with the power to enforce their fundamental rights through the courts of law.

Article-14: Constitution Of India

• The article states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It further explains that equality before the law means that every person, regardless of their social status, economic condition, or political influence, is subject to the same laws as others and is treated equally under the law.  
• The principle of equal protection of the laws means that the State cannot discriminate between persons who are similarly situated and must treat them equally under the law. The State cannot make arbitrary or discriminatory laws that violate the principle of equality.  
• Article 14 also prohibits discrimination by private entities in matters of employment, trade, and business. This means that private individuals or organizations cannot discriminate against any person based on their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.  
• The right to equality is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as in the interest of national security, public order, morality, or health. However, such restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary.  
• Article 14 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and is an essential feature of India's democratic and secular character. It ensures that all individuals are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The article has been interpreted and applied in numerous cases by the Indian judiciary to ensure that the principle of equality is upheld and that discrimination is eradicated from Indian society.

Article-14: Constitution Of India Landmark Judgement

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):[i] This judgment established the basic structure doctrine, which held that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution, including the right to equality, cannot be amended by the Parliament. This ensured that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are protected and cannot be diluted by the government.  
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):[ii] This judgment expanded the scope of Article 14 and held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to personal liberty. It also established the principle of natural justice, which requires that any action taken by the government must be fair, just and reasonable.  
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):[iii] This judgment upheld the reservation policy for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but held that the reservation policy cannot exceed 50% of the available seats. It also established the principle of creamy layer, which excludes the economically and socially advanced members of the backward classes from the benefits of reservation.  
• Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009):[iv] This judgment decriminalized homosexuality and upheld the right to equality of the LGBT community. It held that discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation violates Article 14 and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 19: Constitution Of India

• The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express one's views, opinions, thoughts, and beliefs through any medium such as speech, writing, or through audio-visual means. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.  
• The right to assemble peacefully and without arms allows citizens to gather together for peaceful protests, demonstrations, and meetings without the use of weapons. However, this right is also subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality.  
• The right to form associations or unions allows citizens to come together and form groups for a common purpose, such as a trade union, political party, or social organization. However, this right is also subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and morality.  
• The right to move freely throughout the territory of India allows citizens to travel within the country without any restrictions, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, and morality.  
• The right to reside and settle in any part of the country allows citizens to live and work in any part of India, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, health, and morality.

Article-19: Constitution Of India Landmark Judgement

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):[v] This judgment established the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize the government and its policies, even if such criticism is unpopular or inconvenient.  
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):[vi] This judgment expanded the scope of the right to freedom of movement to include the right to travel abroad. It also held that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary.  
• Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995):[vii] This judgment established the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to receive information and ideas from any source, including the media.  
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005):[viii] This judgment held that the right to carry on any trade or business includes the right to conduct slaughterhouses, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health and hygiene.  
• Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):[ix] This judgment upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that any restriction on the right to privacy must be reasonable and must serve a legitimate state interest.

Article 21: Constitution Of India

• The Article states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This means that the State can take away a person's life or personal liberty only if it follows the due process of law.  
• Article 21 has been interpreted by the judiciary in various cases, and its scope has been expanded over the years to include the right to livelihood, the right to travel abroad, the right to privacy, the right to a pollution-free environment, the right to a fair trial, the right to legal aid, the right to health, and the right to die with dignity.  
• The fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not only limited to the protection of physical existence but also extends to mental, social, and economic well-being. The judiciary has held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is a dynamic and evolving concept, and any action by the government that violates these rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.  
• Article 21 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution and ensures that every citizen of India has the right to live with dignity and freedom. It is the duty of the State to protect and uphold this fundamental right and ensure that every citizen can exercise their rights and freedoms without any fear or coercion.

Article-21: Constitution Of India Landmark Judgement

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):[x] This judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad. It established the principle of natural justice and held that any action taken by the government must be fair, just, and reasonable.  
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):[xi] In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court observed that the right to livelihood is a basic human right and deprivation of this right would affect the right to life.  
• State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale (1983):[xii] In this case, the Supreme Court held that custodial violence and torture violated the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court observed that the fundamental right to life and liberty cannot be restricted even if the person is in police custody or under arrest.  
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):[xiii] In this case, the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates the right to life and personal liberty of women under Article 21. The court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, which are known as the Vishaka guidelines.  
• Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018): [xiv] In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court legalized passive euthanasia and laid down guidelines for it.

Supreme Court Landmark Judgement: Golden Triangle

• In this judgement, the Supreme Court recognized the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to emergency medical aid. The court observed that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and any act or omission that impairs this right is a violation of Article 21.  
• The court further held that it is the duty of every hospital and doctor to provide emergency medical aid to the victims of road accidents without waiting for procedural formalities or the arrival of the police. The court also observed that the duty of doctors and hospitals to provide medical aid arises from their professional commitment to society and their ethical obligations.  
• The judgement also established the concept of the "Golden Hour," which refers to the critical hour after a traumatic injury, during which timely medical intervention can make the difference between life and death. The court held that every hospital and doctor must take necessary steps to ensure that victims of road accidents receive emergency medical aid within the "Golden Hour."  
• The Golden Triangle case has had a significant impact on the provision of emergency medical aid in India. It has helped to raise awareness about the importance of timely medical intervention in saving lives, and has led to the development of various schemes and programs aimed at improving emergency medical services in the country.
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/golden-triangle-indian-constitution/
• https://lawcorner.in/golden-triangle-of-indian-constitution/
• https://www.lawcolumn.in/the-rule-of-golden-triangle-of-the-indian-constitution-under-article-21/
• (1973) 4 SCC 225
• 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
• AIR 1993 SC 477
• 160 Delhi Law Times 277
• (AIR 1950 SC 124)
• 1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2)161
• (2008) 6 SCC
• 1978 AIR 597
• 1985 SCC (3) 545
• 1983 SCR (3) 327
• (1997) 6 SCC 241
• (2018) 5 SCC
• (1989) 4 SCC 286

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Relationship Between Jurisp...

Understanding Marital Rape:...

Whether An Unregistered Par...

Know the Contrasts between ...

Empowering Efficiency: Unra...

International Trade: The Vi...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Architecture News

Pierre Koenig’s Historic Case Study House #21 Could Be Yours... for the Right Price

• Written by Alyssa Wu
• Published on November 07, 2016

One of modernism’s most iconic houses, Case Study House 21 (Bailey House) by Pierre Koenig , is now on sale. The two-bed/two-bath Hollywood Hills landmark has been touted as among the finest of Arts & Architecture Magazine’s Case Study Houses , and one of the program’s few truly experimental projects to explore groundbreaking design and materials.

In this early-career exploration, Koenig used a constrained set of industrial materials—primarily steel and glass—to execute a pure expression of his design approach. His philosophy of functionality and honesty in aesthetics manifests in a structure that appears simple but contains complexity in plan and organization.

The design emphasizes harmony of materials and balance between interior and exterior through the use of terraces, water, glazing, and skylights. A 60-foot reflecting pool frames the undulating steel facade on the east and another pool traces the covered carport. Interlocking steel decking on the roof and an all-glass north wall add drama to the main entry, drawing visitors in, while the southern wall’s sliding glass doors extend the living area into the exterior terrace.

Views of the expansive and carefully considered landscaping permeate the house. In the core of the house is a courtyard and the bathrooms; the bedrooms are also connected to the exterior via sliding glass doors.

Built in 1958, Case Study House 21 underwent a restoration by Koenig to his original intent and design in 1998, including the addition of updated appliances and cabinetry. The house was last sold in an auction in December 2006 for an estimated $2.5 million – $3.5 million.

Update [Nov. 7, 2016]: A previous headline for this article suggested that the house is currently on the market for $3 million – this was based on the estimated sale price from its last sale in 2006. Instead, the listing is currently on the market as “Price Upon Request.” 

News via: Sotheby’s International Realty

Image gallery

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

皮尔·柯宁格的住宅案例研究 #21,贝利住宅

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

• Open access
• Published: 17 April 2024

Potential of niacin skin flush response in adolescent depression identification and severity assessment: a case-control study

• Jie Feng 1 , 3   na1 ,
• Wenjiao Min 1 , 3   na1 ,
• Dandan Wang 4 ,
• Jing Yuan 2 , 3 ,
• Junming Chen 2 , 3 ,
• Lisha Chen 2 , 3 ,
• Wei Chen 2 , 3 ,
• Meng Zhao 5 ,
• Jia Cheng 2 , 3 ,
• Chunling Wan 4   na2 ,
• Bo Zhou 1 , 3   na2 ,
• Yulan Huang 1 , 3   na2 &
• Yaoyin Zhang 1 , 3  

BMC Psychiatry volume  24 , Article number:  290 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The diagnosis of adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD) lacks specific biomarkers, posing significant challenges. This study investigates the potential of Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) as a biomarker for identifying and assessing the severity of adolescent Depressive Disorder, as well as distinguishing it from Behavioral and Emotional Disorders typically emerging in childhood and adolescence(BED).

In a case-control study involving 196 adolescents, including 128 Depressive Disorder, 32 Behavioral and Emotional Disorders, and 36 healthy controls (HCs), NSFR was assessed. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and anxious symptoms with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7). Pearson correlation analysis determined the relationships between NSFR and the severity of depression in DD patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) was used to identify DD from BED integrating NSFR data with clinical symptom measures.

The adolescent Depressive Disorder group exhibited a higher rate of severe blunted NSFR (21.4%) compared to BED (12.5%) and HC ( 8.3%). Adolescent Depressive Disorder with psychotic symptoms showed a significant increase in blunted NSFR ( p  = 0.016). NSFR had negative correlations with depressive ( r = -0.240, p  = 0.006) and anxious ( r = -0.2, p  = 0.023) symptoms in adolescent Depressive Disorder. Integrating NSFR with three clinical scales improved the differentiation between adolescent Depressive Disorder and BED (AUC increased from 0.694 to 0.712).

The NSFR demonstrates potential as an objective biomarker for adolescent Depressive Disorder, aiding in screening, assessing severity, and enhancing insights into its pathophysiology and diagnostic precision.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) presents a pressing challenge in adolescent mental health, with prevalence estimates for adolescent Depressive disorder (DD) as high as 25.2% [ 1 ]. This is particularly concerning in China, where up to 40.1% of high school students show depressive symptoms, and 8% exhibit severe depression [ 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, depression significantly contributes to adolescent suicide [ 4 ]. It is also linked to various adverse outcomes, such as academic and social difficulties, substance abuse, and self-harm [ 5 ].

The etiology of Adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD, ICD-10 F32) involves complex biological and psychosocial influences, leading to varied clinical presentations and treatment outcomes [ 6 , 7 ]. However, severe cases often go unrecognized or inadequately treated, with less than half diagnosed before adulthood [ 8 ].Current diagnostic methods, including structured interviews and scales, are inefficient and lack objective precision. Additionally, Behavioral and Emotional Disorders (BED, ICD-10 F98.9) typically emerging in childhood and adolescence present a spectrum of psychological symptoms overlapping with DD, challenging accurate diagnosis under ICD-10 guidelines. BED encompass a spectrum of emotional and behavioral challenges. This includes cases where children experience emotional distress, but do not meet the criteria for severe Depressive Disorder (DD), yet exhibit recurrent emotional issues and self-harm. BED also includes individuals with mood fluctuations and irritability that do not fit the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, as well as those with transient emotional downturns due to external factors, which improve once these influences subside [ 9 , 10 ]. This symptom overlap between BED and DD complicates differential diagnosis, underscoring the urgent need for unique biomarkers for accurate disorder identification [ 11 ].

Prior research highlights the potential of the Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) in delineating adult patients with Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders from healthy controls, demonstrating a positive predictive value of 93.66% [ 12 ]. The Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) displays a delayed response in adult depression, showing an inverse correlation with symptom severity as noted in previous studies [ 13 , 14 ].Similar patterns have been noted in pediatric psychiatric conditions [ 15 ]. Notably, Jinfeng Wang et al. reported attenuated NSFR in adolescent depression [ 16 ], underscoring its potential as a marker for Depressive Disorder (DD). However, further exploration is needed regarding the role of NSFR in diagnosing and differentiating Adolescent Depressive Disorder.

The Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR), associated with inflammation and oxidative stress, may indicate disruptions in arachidonic acid metabolism, potentially pointing to lipid imbalances in the brain that could be significant for understanding depressive disorders [ 16 , 17 ]. While existing biomarkers examine monoamine neurotransmission, immune inflammation, neuroplasticity, and neuroendocrine functions, focusing on protein dysfunction, NSFR stands out due to its specific metabolic insights [ 18 , 19 ]. Its non-invasiveness, ease of administration, and repeatability suggest it could offer valuable insights, particularly in adolescent depression [ 19 ].

Depressive Disorder (DD) with psychotic features(ICD-10 F32.3) is identified as a distinct subtype, highlighting the clinical need to distinguish between depressive disorders with varying presentations. Evidence shows the Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) can discern adult schizophrenia from depression, with varying NSFR patterns correlated to psychiatric conditions [ 12 , 20 ]. This study probes NSFR’s viability as a biomarker to differentiate DD with and without psychotic symptoms((ICD-10 F32.0-F32.2) ), aiming to clarify DD subclassifications.

This study aims to evaluate the Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) as a biological marker for adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD), with the objective of improving screening accuracy, assessing severity, classifying subgroups, and differentiating DD from BED.

Material and method

Participants.

Our study conducted from January to October 2023, at Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Chengdu, China. Inclusion criteria :(1)Adolescents aged 12–18 years. (2)Adolescents were diagnosed with Depressive Disorder (ICD-10 F32) and Behavioral and Emotional Disorders (BED, ICD-10 F98.9) typically emerging in childhood and adolescence according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th (ICD-10). (3) Diagnosis confirmed via the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) by two psychiatrists. (4)The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Score ≥ 10. Exclusion criteria : Any participant with neurological diseases, brain injury, severe skin diseases, or immune diseases was excluded from this study. Those who used anti-inflammatory drugs within 2 weeks were also excluded.

The experimental group was assembled from a cohort of 208 adolescents admitted to the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Inpatient Department, employing a randomized selection method on Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week. This group ultimately included 160 patients, comprising 128 individuals diagnosed with Depressive Disorder (ICD-10 F32) and 32 with Behavioral and Emotional Disorders typically emerging in childhood and adolescence (BED) (ICD10 F98.9). The Depressive Disorder was further stratified by the presence (ICD-10 F32.3) or absence (ICD-10 F32.0-F32.2) of psychotic symptoms. We excluded those 48 with Bipolar Disorder, Neuro-developmental disorders, Adjustment Disorder, Schizophrenia, Organic Mood Affective Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, PTSD, or Dissociative disorders. For healthy controls (HCs), 50 high school students were initially considered through targeted advertisements, with 36 ultimately selected post PHQ-9 screening and CIDI confirmation, ensuring no history of mental illness.

Before participation, comprehensive information about the study and testing procedures was provided to all participants. Their parents or legal guardians also received this information. Informed consents were then obtained from all participants and their legal guardians.

Assessment of niacin skin flush response (NSFR)

Methodology.

The Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) of participants was evaluated using the Brain Aid Skin Niacin Response Test Instrument TY-AraSnap-H100, manufactured by Shanghai Tianyin Biological Technology Ltd., Shanghai, China. This instrument employs a transdermal delivery system involving a patch. The patch administers an aqueous solution of methyl nicotinate (AMN), which has a chemical formula of C7H7NO2 and a purity of 99%, as provided by Sigma-Aldrich. Furthermore, the patch’s unique design features six circular apertures that penetrate its sponge and adhesive layers. These apertures expose the filter paper layer beneath, which is specifically designed to facilitate the delivery of AMN.

A precise volume of the AMN solution was applied to the patch’s apertures. The solution came in varying concentrations: 60 mM, 20 mM, 6.67 mM, 2.22 mM, 0.74 mM, and 0.25 mM. After applying the solution, the patch was affixed to the volar aspect of the participant’s left forearm. It remained there for a standardized duration of one minute. Following this, the patch was carefully removed. A time-lapse photographic record was then established. Images were captured at ten-second intervals over a ten-minute period. These images documented the erythema response. From this process, a set of 60 photographs was obtained for each participant.

An initial photograph served as a baseline for comparative analysis. The instrument’s software then quantified the erythema at 59 time points. These points were under six different AMN concentrations. This process generated 354 measurements for each participant. The software analyzed the erythema surface area responses. It focused on the first quartile of AMN concentrations. This analysis helped determine the overall NSFR magnitude.

We lacked data specific to adolescents. Therefore, we used an adult-referenced model from the BrainAid database to evaluate adolescent NSFR. This database is accessible at http://brainaid.sjtu.edu.cn . The model is based on adult depression-related niacin patterns. It helped us classify adolescents’ niacin responses as either ‘blunted’ or ‘normal.’ We divided the ‘blunted’ responses into three categories: mild, moderate, and severe. This classification is crucial for analyzing how adolescent responses differ from adult patterns.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was used as a validated instrument for assessing Depressive Disorder (DD) in adolescents. It consistently demonstrated high reliability, as evidenced by a Cronbach’s α coefficient ranging from 0.86 to 0.89. The PHQ-9’s sensitivity for evaluating depressive symptoms in adolescents was 89.5%, with a specificity of 77.5%, reflecting its performance in adult assessments [ 21 , 22 ]. This instrument assesses each of the nine DSM-5 depression criteria on a scale of“0”(not at all) to“3”(nearly every day). An example item from this tool is, ‘Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by little interest or pleasure in doing things?’

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) was a reliable measure for assessing anxiety symptoms in adolescents. A GAD-7 score of 10 or above demonstrated a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 82% for diagnosing Generalized Anxiety Disorder during psychiatric evaluations [ 23 ]. It effectively detected clinically significant anxiety symptoms in the adolescent population [ 24 ].The Chinese version of the GAD-7 exhibited commendable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α coefficient ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 [ 25 ]. An example item could be, “Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge?”

The Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) was employed as an efficacious instrument for evaluating somatic symptoms, demonstrating a sensitivity of 80.2% and a specificity of 58.5% [ 26 , 27 ].The Chinese version of the PHQ-15 exhibited commendable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.83 [ 28 ]. A sample item from this tool might be, ‘In the last four weeks, how much have you been bothered by stomach pain?’

Statistical analysis

For this study, encompassing both binary and continuous variables, demographic characteristics across groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Bonferroni correction for continuous measures. The Chi-square test assessed the distribution ratios of blunted Niacin Response and normal Niacin Response among individuals with adolescent DD, BED, and HC to evaluate the degree of NSFR impairment across different groups. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s Exact Test compared demographic features within the two adolescent DD subgroups. Parameters were estimated using the nonlinear least squares method. Pearson correlation analysis determined the relationships between NSFR and the severities of anxiety and depression in adolescent Depressive disorder (DD) patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were then applied to gauge the efficacy of combined NSFR and symptom scores in differentiating between adolescent DD and BED. All statistical analyses were performed using R studio (Version 4.1.2). SPSS 27 and GraphPad Prism 8 with a P value of less than 0.05 denoting statistical significance and all probabilities calculated as two-tailed. In this research, we utilized the GPT-4 model for assisted writing, aiming to improve the logical structure and language expression of the paper. It is noteworthy that the entire generation process took place under the careful supervision of the authors.

Demographic characteristics

A total of 196 participants, aged between 12 and 18, were enrolled in this study.The mean age of the participants was 14.72 years, with females constituting 73.5% of the sample. Detailed data on BMI, Gender, smoking, drinking, and self-harm rates were presented in Table  1 . No significant differences were observed in gender, height, weight, or BMI between the adolescent DD, BED and HC group (all p  > 0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was noted in age between the groups ( p  < 0.05). Adolescent DD patients comprised 48.4% in junior high and 51.6% in high school. For those with BED, 68.8% were in junior high and 31.3% were in high school. All HCs were in their first year of high school. Furthermore, 37.5% of the adolescent DD patients had a family history of mental illness, 16.4% showed psychotic symptoms, 21.9% had comorbid anxiety disorders, and 2.3% had comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder. Notably, 10.2% did not have thoughts of self-harm or suicide, whereas 89.8% did in the adolescent DD group. In the BED group, 43.8% had a family history of mental illness, 25% did not have self-harm or suicidal thoughts, and 75% did. Before admission, 63.1% of adolescent DD and BED were already undergoing treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for depression. The detailed information is delineated in Table  1 .

Increased prevalence of severe blunted niacin skin flush response in adolescent DD

In order to assess variations in NSFR across different disease cohorts and the healthy control (HC) group, chi-square tests were employed to analyze the distribution of normal to mild blunted NSFR (NMB) and moderate to severe blunted NSFR (MSB) within diverse subject groups. Comparative analysis with the BED group revealed a higher incidence of MSB subjects in adolescent DD group (21.4%) as opposed to the BED group (12.5%), with the HC group showing the lowest representation (8.3%) (refer to Fig.  1 ). While the chi-square test did not reach statistical significance ( p  = 0.136), our findings suggest an elevated proportion of moderate to severe blunted NSFR in the DD group compared to the HC group.

Distribution Proportion of NMB and MSB among Different Groups. Dark blue indicates the population with the normal to mild blunted NSFR, while light blue indicates the population with the moderate to severe blunted NSFR. Abbreviations: DD: Adolescence Depressive Disorder; BED: Behavioral and Emotional Disorders typically emerging in childhood and adolescence; HC: Healthy control; NSFR: Niacin Skin Flush Reaction, NMB: the normal to mild blunted NSFR, MSB: moderate to severe bunted NSFR.

Utilizing NSFR for subgroup classification in adolescent DD

Patients with Depressive Disorder (DD) were divided into two subgroups: those with and those without psychotic symptoms. Using Fisher’s Exact Test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparative analysis, no significant differences were found between the groups in terms of gender, age, weight, height, or Body Mass Index (BMI), as well as the severity of depressive (PHQ-9) and somatic symptoms (PHQ-15). However, anxiety levels (GAD-7) were higher in the subgroup with psychotic features. This subgroup also showed a significantly heightened blunted NSFR ( p  = 0.016) when compared to those without psychotic symptoms (Fig.  2 ).

Heightened Blunted NSFR in DD with Psychotic Symptoms. Heightened blunted NSFR in adolescent DD with Psychotic Symptoms(PS) vs.Non-Psychotic Symptoms (NPS) ( p  = 0.016). NSFR: Niacin Skin Flush Reaction

NSFR assists in the differential diagnosis of adolescent DD

The ability of NSFR to distinguish between adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD) and Behavioral and Emotional Disorders (BED) was evaluated using a focused diagnostic model. This model, employing binary logistic regression with scale and NSFR data, aimed to differentiate DD from BED. Given the small sample size for BED, additional segmentation analysis is recommended. When only scale data were used, the diagnostic accuracy was modest, with an AUC of 0.694, which underscores the clinical symptoms’ overlap. The incorporation of NSFR data enhanced the diagnostic precision, elevating the AUC to 0.712 as depicted in Fig.  3 A&B. This increase demonstrates the effectiveness of NSFR in specifically distinguishing DD from BED.

NSFR and Scales Scoring Assisted Diagnosis of adolescent DD and BED.Biomarker for identification of adolescent DD and BED via niacin skin flushing response. ROC curves of the niacin-flushing degree for distinguishing DD from BED increased from 0.694 to 0.712 (Fig.  3 A&B). ROC: Receiver Operating Characteristic; AUC: Area Under Curve. NSFR: Niacin Skin Flush Reaction

NSFR exhibits strong association with clinical symptoms in adolescent DD

Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatization. The findings revealed a notable negative correlation between NSFR and the severity of depressive symptoms (as measured by PHQ-9) in the DD group ( R =-0.240, p  = 0.006). Similarly, a significant negative association was identified between NSFR and anxiety severity (as assessed by GAD-7) ( R =-0.200, p  = 0.023) (Fig.  4 ). However, no significant relationship was detected with somatization symptoms ( R =-0.160, p  = 0.072). Intriguingly, these correlations were not observed in either the BED or HC group. This suggests a plausible hypothesis that the niacin acid phenotype of DD patients is uniquely influenced by their clinical symptoms.

Negative Correlation of NSFR with PHQ9 and GAD7 in adolescent DD. Note: The graph demonstrates that an increase in the severity of these symptoms correlates with a more pronounced blunting of Niacin Skin Flush Reaction (NSFR)

This study represents a pioneering effort to validate the Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) as an objective biomarker for the precision diagnosis of adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD). Our primary findings revealed a higher prevalence of moderate to severe blunted NSFR among DD patients, with a heightened blunted NSFR in DD patients with psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, Our results revealed that an increase in the severity of depressive and anxious symptoms correlates with a more pronounced blunting of NSFR in adolescent DD group. Notably, the integration of NSFR with established clinical scales significantly improved the accuracy of differentiating DD from BED in adolescence.

Our study contributes to understanding NSFR as a potential biomarker for adolescent DD. It reveals a notably higher prevalence of moderate to severe blunted NSFR in DD (21.4%) compared to BED (12.5%) and healthy controls (8.3%). This result aligns with findings from Jinfeng Wang et al., who observed significant blunting and delay in NSFR in adolescent depression. Additionally, our study confirms the diagnostic value of NSFR. This is evidenced by AUC values of 0.719 and 0.721, demonstrating its high sensitivity in detecting adolescent DD [ 16 ]. Additionally, Qing et al.‘s work, which showed blunted NSFR across a spectrum of pediatric psychiatric disorders, further supports the biomarker’s broad applicability [ 15 ]. However, contrary to existing literature, our results did not confirm delays in NSFR typically associated with Depression, suggesting variability in NSFR response or potential age-related factors affecting the biomarker’s performance. While the proportion of blunted NSFR was higher in adolescent DD group, the lack of statistical significance necessitates cautious interpretation and underscores the need for further research with larger cohorts to validate these findings.

Our exploratory study represents the first to document a heightened blunted NSFR in adolescent DD patients with psychotic symptoms compared to those with non-psychotic symptoms. Clinically, psychotic features in depression introduce specific challenges, including a higher rate of recurrence, an elevated risk of suicide, and a potential increase in hospital admissions [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Pathophysiologically, a spectrum of susceptibility genes such as BDNF, DBH, DTNBP1, DRD2, DRD4, GSK-3beta, and MAO-A has been implicated [ 32 ]. Additionally, heightened HPA axis activity [ 33 ], and changes in the advanced associative regions of the frontal and insular cortices have been associated with an increased risk of psychotic manifestations in depression [ 34 ]. Our findings contribute a novel insight into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying adolescent DD with psychotic symptoms. While our data indicate that NSFR maybe could assist in differentiating DD subtypes, these findings warrant cautious interpretation. The potential of NSFR as a non-invasive biomarker for stratifying patients according to psychotic symptomatology requires further validation.

Differentiating between adolescent DD and BED is a significant challenge in clinical practice [ 35 , 36 ]. When we combine the niacin phenotype with clinical symptoms, the differentiation improves. These symptoms are captured by PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PHQ-15 scales. This approach is more effective than using the scales alone. Using NSFR as a biological marker may further enhance the precision in distinguishing between DD and BED in adolescents.

This groundbreaking study has unveiled a novel negative correlation between the Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) and the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms as measured by the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales in adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD). Our results revealed that an increase in the severity of these symptoms correlates with a more pronounced blunting of NSFR. This finding is consistent with earlier studies [ 14 ].Previous research noted a significant link between reduced NSFR and depression symptoms. It also associated diminished NSFR with anxiety symptoms in adults. Furthermore, the research connected reduced NSFR with somatic complaints. These complaints include appetite loss and weight reduction in adults.These findings highlight the potential of NSFR as a valuable tool for assessing the severity of adolescent DD.

However, as indicated in Fig.  4 , we observed considerable variability in NSFR among individuals with similar levels of depressive severity. This variability could stem from the inherent heterogeneity in the etiology and clinical manifestations of adolescent DD, influenced by an interplay of biological and psychosocial factors [ 6 , 7 ]. Therefore, we postulate the presence of a distinct adolescent DD subgroup characterized by a significant phospholipid signaling defect, evident as abnormal NSFR responses [ 14 ]. Such a finding could offer new perspectives on the pathophysiological underpinnings of adolescent DD. It could also inform targeted therapeutic interventions, such as the application of Omega-3 fatty acids in depression management [ 37 ].

The Niacin Skin Flush Response (NSFR) is mediated by the PLA2-AA-COX2 pathway and its prostaglandin products [ 16 ]. Increased oxidative stress has been observed in Childhood and Adolescence with DD. This leads to enhanced PLA2 activity, resulting in the excessive breakdown of membrane phospholipids [ 17 ].. This process likely contributes to the diminished NSFR observed in these individuals. Furthermore, a significant decrease in free arachidonic acid (AA) levels in the red blood cell membranes of DD in childhood and adolescence has been reported [ 38 , 39 ], suggesting an AA turnover imbalance. These factors are associated with chronic inflammation. They may drive abnormal PLA2-AA-COX2 activity, culminating in niacin response blunting in DD.

Implications

Our study highlights the potential of NSFR in improving the identification and treatment of adolescent Depressive Disorder. Transcending traditional methods, NSFR provides an innovative and objective screening tool within schools, allowing for the rapid identification of depressive conditions among middle and high school students. This approach enhances detection accuracy and increases the rate of early diagnosis, significantly reducing the reliance on subjective self-reported assessments. Additionally, in clinical settings, NSFR provides an objective evaluation of the severity of depression in adolescents. Moreover, identifying adolescent DD patients with blunted NSFR responses could guide the targeted use of Omega-3 fatty acids in managing depression, suggesting a personalized approach to treatment.

Limitations

In our study’s limitations, the significant disparity in group size might have affected the statistical outcomes, including Cohen’s d values. Future research should ensure balanced group sizes to robustly validate NSFR’s role as a biomarker in adolescent DD. Additionally, with over half of the patients undergoing SSRI antidepressant treatment during NSFR assessment, it is imperative for subsequent studies to explore how these medications might affect NSFR results. Future research should focus on evaluating NSFR’s specificity and sensitivity in adolescent Depressive Disorder (DD) to establish its efficacy as a biological marker. Investigating NSFR’s role in longitudinal studies to monitor depressive disorder progression and its correlation with treatment outcomes is crucial. Expanding research to various populations will help determine NSFR’s generalizability as a biomarker. Additionally, exploring the molecular mechanisms linking NSFR to depression can provide deeper insights into its pathophysiology, enhancing our understanding and treatment of adolescent DD.

The NSFR maybe emerge as a promising objective biological marker for screening, severity assessment, subgroup classification, and differential diagnosis in adolescent DD. It unveils novel insights into the pathophysiological underpinnings of the disorder and may lead to advancements in precision diagnosis. However, the establishment of NSFR’s clinical utility necessitates further validation through rigorous studies. These should aim to determine the specificity and sensitivity of NSFR in the context of adolescent DD and evaluate its potential as a longitudinal measure of treatment efficacy (See Table 2 for detailed abbreviations.)

Data availability

Availability of data and materialsThe datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to the subjects’ privacy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Depressive Disorder

Behavioral and Emotional Disorders typically emerging in childhood and adolescence

Healthy control

Phospholipase A2

Arachidonic acid

Cyclooxygenase 2

Aqueous methyl nicotinate

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Niacin Skin Flush Reaction

the normal to mild blunted NSFR

moderate to severe bunted NSFR

DD with Psychotic Symptom

Non-Psychotic Symptoms

Receiver Operating Characteristic

Area Under Curve

Composite International Diagnostic Interview

Racine N, McArthur BA, Cooke JE, Eirich R, Zhu J, Madigan S. Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: a Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(11):1142–50.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tang X, Tang S, Ren Z, Wong DFK. Prevalence of depressive symptoms among adolescents in secondary school in mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:498–507.

Shorey S, Ng ED, Wong CHJ. Global prevalence of depression and elevated depressive symptoms among adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022;61(2):287–305.

Mendez J, Sanchez-Hernandez O, Garber J, Espada JP, Orgiles M. Psychological treatments for Depression in adolescents: more Than three decades later. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9).

Parker G, Ricciardi T. The risk of suicide and self-harm in adolescents is influenced by the type of Mood Disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2019;207(1):1–5.

Cai N, Choi KW, Fried EI. Reviewing the genetics of heterogeneity in depression: operationalizations, manifestations and etiologies. Hum Mol Genet. 2020;29(R1):R10–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lynch CJ, Gunning FM, Liston C. Causes and consequences of diagnostic heterogeneity in Depression: paths to discovering Novel Biological Depression subtypes. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88(1):83–94.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mullen S. Major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. Mental Health Clinician. 2018;8(6):275–83.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ogundele MO. Behavioural and emotional disorders in childhood: a brief overview for paediatricians. World J Clin Pediatr. 2018;7(1):9–26.

yi Z. ICD-10: application and modification of behavioral and emotional disorders specific to childhood and adolescence in China. Chin J Mental Health. 2009;23(12):875–8.

Google Scholar  

Dian WL. Clinical observation of emotional disorders in children. Xinjiang Med Xinjiang Med. 2008(09):36–8.

Wang DD, Hu XW, Jiang J, Sun LY, Qing Y, Yang XH, et al. Attenuated and delayed niacin skin flushing in schizophrenia and affective disorders: a potential clinical auxiliary diagnostic marker. Schizophr Res. 2021;230:53–60.

Ross BM, Ward P, Glen I. Delayed vasodilatory response to methylnicotinate in patients with unipolar depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2004;82(2):285–90.

Smesny S, Baur K, Rudolph N, Nenadic I, Sauer H. Alterations of niacin skin sensitivity in recurrent unipolar depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2010;124(3):335–40.

Qing Y, Liang J, Wang J, Wan C, Ke X. Attenuated niacin skin flushing response in children and adolescents with mental disorders: a transdiagnostic early warning marker. Schizophr Res. 2022;248:32–4.

Wang J, Qing Y, Liang J, Cui G, Wang Q, Zhang J, et al. Identification of adolescent patients with depression via assessment of the niacin skin flushing response. J Affect Disord. 2023;324:69–76.

Katrenčíková B, Vaváková M, Paduchová Z, Nagyová Z, Garaiova I, Muchová J et al. Oxidative stress markers and antioxidant enzymes in children and adolescents with depressive disorder and impact of Omega-3 fatty acids in Randomised Clinical Trial. 2021;10(8):1256.

Parekh A, Smeeth D, Milner Y, Thure S. The role of lipid biomarkers in Major Depression. Healthc (Basel Switzerland). 2017;5(1).

Sitarz R, Juchnowicz D, Karakuła K, Forma A, Baj J, Rog J et al. Niacin skin flush backs-from the roots of the test to nowadays hope. J Clin Med. 2023;12(5).

Sun L, Yang X, Jiang J, Hu X, Qing Y, Wang D, et al. Identification of the niacin-blunted subgroup of Schizophrenia patients from Mood disorders and healthy individuals in Chinese Population. Schizophr Bull. 2017;44(4):896–907.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Richardson LP, McCauley E, Grossman DC, McCarty CA, Richards J, Russo JE, et al. Evaluation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item for detecting major depression among adolescents. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1117–23.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.

Mossman SA, Luft MJ, Schroeder HK, Varney ST, Fleck DE, Barzman DH, et al. The generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder: Signal detection and validation. Annals Clin Psychiatry: Official J Am Acad Clin Psychiatrists. 2017;29(4):227–a34.

Sun J, Liang K, Chi X, Chen S. Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder Scale-7 item (GAD-7) in a large sample of Chinese adolescents. Healthc (Basel Switzerland). 2021;9(12).

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(2):258–66.

Korber S, Frieser D, Steinbrecher N, Hiller W. Classification characteristics of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 for screening somatoform disorders in a primary care setting. J Psychosom Res. 2011;71(3):142–7.

Zhang L, Fritzsche K, Liu Y, Wang J, Huang M, Wang Y, et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the PHQ-15 in a tertiary hospital. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:89.

Paljärvi T, Tiihonen J, Lähteenvuo M, Tanskanen A, Fazel S, Taipale H. Psychotic depression and deaths due to suicide. J Affect Disord. 2023;321:28–32.

Østergaard SD, Waltoft BL, Mortensen PB, Mors O. Environmental and familial risk factors for psychotic and non-psychotic severe depression. J Affect Disord. 2013;147(1):232–40.

Nietola M, Heiskala A, Nordström T, Miettunen J, Korkeila J, Jääskeläinen E. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of psychotic depression in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966. Eur Psychiatry. 2018;53:23–30.

Domschke K. Clinical and molecular Genetics of Psychotic Depression. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(4):766–75.

Contreras F, Menchon JM, Urretavizcaya M, Navarro MA, Vallejo J, Parker G. Hormonal differences between psychotic and non-psychotic melancholic depression. J Affect Disord. 2007;100(1):65–73.

O’Connor S, Agius M. A systematic review of structural and functional MRI differences between psychotic and nonpsychotic depression. Psychiatria Danubina. 2015;27(Suppl 1):S235–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lack CW, Green AL. Mood disorders in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Nurs. 2009;24(1):13–25.

Carlson GA. The challenge of diagnosing depression in childhood and adolescence. J Affect Disord. 2000;61:S3–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gordon Parker MD, D.Sc. PD, F.R.A.N.Z.C.P., Neville A, Gibson PD, Heather Brotchie MBBS,, BA, Gabriella Heruc BBS,, BS, Rees A-M, F.R.A.N.Z.C.P. BS, Hadzi-Pavlovic GD. BS, M.Psychol.,. Omega-3 fatty acids and Mood disorders. 2006;163(6):969–78.

Trebatická J, Hradečná Z, Surovcová A, Katrenčíková B, Gushina I, Waczulíková I, et al. Omega-3 fatty-acids modulate symptoms of depressive disorder, serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6/omega-3 ratio in children. A randomized, double-blind and controlled trial. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:112911.

Tsuchimine S, Saito M, Kaneko S, Yasui-Furukori N. Decreased serum levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids and folate, but not brain-derived neurotrophic factor, in childhood and adolescent females with depression. Psychiatry Res. 2015;225(1):187–90.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to express special gratitude to the participants and their families for their cooperation and patience across this study. We also thank the nursing staff of the Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital for their help in data collection.

This study was supported by the Youth Fund Project of Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Department (Number: 2022NSFSC1550).

Author information

Jie Feng and Wenjiao Min contributed equally to this work.

Chunling Wan, Bo Zhou and Yulan Huang are joint correspondence

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Psychosomatics, School of Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West second Section, 1st Ring Road, 610041, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Jie Feng, Wenjiao Min, Bo Zhou, Yulan Huang & Yaoyin Zhang

Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Academy of Medical Science & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, No. 33, Section 2, Furong Avenue, Wenjiang District, 611135, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Jing Yuan, Junming Chen, Lisha Chen, Wei Chen & Jia Cheng

Key Laboratory of Psychosomatic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Chengdu, China

Jie Feng, Wenjiao Min, Jing Yuan, Junming Chen, Lisha Chen, Wei Chen, Jia Cheng, Bo Zhou, Yulan Huang & Yaoyin Zhang

Bio-X Institutes, Key Laboratory for the Genetics of Developmental and Neuropsychiatric Disorders, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Jiao To ng University, Shanghai, China

Dandan Wang & Chunling Wan

School of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of the study: JF, DW, BZ, YZ. Acquisition and formal analysis of data: JF, WM, DW, YZ. Data curation: JF, DW, JY, JC, LC, WC, MZ, JC. Writing-original draft: JF. Writing-review & editing: JF, WM, DW, BZ, YH, YZ. Project administration: CW, BZ, YH, YZ. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaoyin Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital (Approval No.2023KY223). All the research procedures involving human participants followed the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 and its subsequent amendments. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and a parent or legal guardian (if the participant is younger than 18 years old).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feng, J., Min, W., Wang, D. et al. Potential of niacin skin flush response in adolescent depression identification and severity assessment: a case-control study. BMC Psychiatry 24 , 290 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05728-w

Download citation

Received : 09 February 2024

Accepted : 28 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05728-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Niacin skin flush response
• Adolescent depressive disorder
• Behavioral and emotional disorders typically emerging in childhood and adolescence
• Precision diagnosis

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Life cycle assessment of anaerobic-anoxic-oxic and extended aeration of the activated sludge treatment system for urban wastewater treatment: a case study in Iran

• Published: 17 April 2024

Cite this article

• B. Movassagh Inchehboroun 1 ,
• G Asadollahfardi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7867-8757 1 &
• M Delnavaz 1  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for the analysis of all environmental impacts associated with a product or system. The objective of our study was to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of Anaerobic-Anoxic-Oxic (A 2 O) and Extended Aeration Activated Sludge (EAAS) systems of the activated sludge treatment plant for urban wastewater treatments (in Tehran) using the LCA method, as well as to compare the differences of Simapro and Gabi software results. The LCA was carried out using Simapro 9.3.0.2 software, including CML-IA baseline, BEES+, and IMPACT 2002 + assessment methods. Also, the results obtained from the CML method of SimaPro software were compared and validated with the results obtained from the GaBi 9.21.68 software. The results indicated that using the SimaPro software, including CML, and BEES + methods, the Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment (A 2 O system) has the 6% and 16% higher environmental impacts in the acidification and global warming impact categories, respectively, and the Mahalati Wastewater Treatment (EAAS system) has 31% higher environmental impact in the eutrophication impact category. In damage categories, the Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment (A 2 O system) has 14%, 15%, and 6% higher environmental impacts in the resources, climate change, and human health damage categories, respectively, compared to the Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment. In the ecosystem quality damage category, the Mahalati Wastewater Treatment (EAAS system) has a 4% higher environmental impact than Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment (A 2 O system). Comparing the results between SimaPro and GaBi software demonstrated that the results are very similar to each other, and the results of the LCA are not dependent on the software used in this study. To enhance wastewater treatment in Iran, utilizing new technologies for energy efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy sources, promoting community acceptance of treated wastewater for various uses, and implementing stringent control measures are crucial steps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The data are available whenever the journal require.

Abyar, H., Younesi, H., & Nowrouzi, M. (2020). Life cycle assessment of A2O bioreactor for meat processing wastewater treatment: An endeavor toward the achievement of environmental sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production , 257 , 120575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120575 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Asadollahfardi, G., Panahandeh, A., Moghadam, E. I., Masoumi, S., & Tayebi Jebeli, M. (2022). Environmental life cycle assessment of different types of the municipal wastewater pipeline network. Environmental Quality Management , (September 2021), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21864 .

AWWA (2022). Standard method for examination of water and wastewater, 24 edition,ISBN:9780875532998,USA.

Bahi, Y., Akhssas, A., Bahi, A., Elhachmi, D., & Khamar, M. (2020). Environmental assessment of a wastewater treatment plant using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach: Case of Ain Taoujdate Morocco. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology , 11 (5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJARET.11.5.2020.036 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Banti, D. C., Tsangas, M., Samaras, P., & Zorpas, A. (2020). LCA of a membrane bioreactor compared to activated sludge system for municipal wastewater treatment. Membranes , 10 (12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10120421 .

Bao, Z., Sun, S., & Sun, D. (2015). Characteristics of direct CO 2 emissions in four full-scale wastewater treatment plants. Desalination and Water Treatment , 54 (4–5), 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.940389 .

Bhatt, A., Sahu, N., Dada, A. C., Prajapati, S. K., & Arora, P. (2024). Assessing sustainability of Microalgae-based Wastewater Treatment: Environmental considerations and impacts on Human Health. Journal of Environmental Management , 354 , 120435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120435 .

Blanco, D., Collado, S., Laca, A., & Díaz, M. (2016). Life cycle assessment of introducing an anaerobic digester in a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Spain. Water Science and Technology , 73 (4), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.545 .

Das, S., Singh, C. K., Sodhi, K. K., & Singh, V. K. (2023). Circular Economy Approaches for Water Reuse and Emerging Contaminant Mitigation: Innovations in Water Treatment . Environment, Development and.

EPA. (2010). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for Biogenic Emissions from selected source categories: Solid Waste Disposal Wastewater Treatment Ethanol Fermentation. US Environmental Protection Agency , 0210426 , 1–43. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/ghg/GHG_Biogenic_Report_draft_Dec1410.pdf .

Google Scholar  

Eriksson, A. (2012). Identification of environmental impacts for the vectus PRT system using LCA. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Energy and Technology. Uppsala University. Swedish.

Eskandari Ashgofti, A., Morovati, M., Alaiee, E., & Alavi, K. (2020). Investigating the wastewater treatment system of the Tehran Oil Industry Research Institute using the Life Cycle Assessment Method. The Journal of Tolooebehdasht , 19 (2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.18502/tbj.v19i2.3399 .

Fragaszy, S. R., Jedd, T., Wall, N., Knutson, C., Fraj, M. B., Bergaoui, K., Svoboda, M., Hayes, M., & McDonnell, R. (2020). Drought Monitoring and Warning System for the Middle East and North Africa, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, 904–910, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0084.1 , 2020.

Gomez, S. S. R., Castillo, N. A. H., Orozo, I. H., Galarza, A. A., Larragoitia, S. A. C., Flores, M. M. A., & Vazques, V. A. (2023). Life cycle assessment of a wastewater treatment plant in an urban area using the environmental footprint method. Environment Development and Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04273-y .

Guo, J., Zhang, W., Zhang, J., Xie, L., Zeng, X., Zhong, J., Zhao, O., Yang, K., Li, Z., Zou, R., Bai, Z., Zou, R., Bai, Z., Wang, Q., & Zhang, C. (2024). Carbon Reduction measures-based Life Cycle Assessment of the photovoltaic-supported sewage treatment system. Sustainable Cities and Society , 101 , 105074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105074 .

Hendi, G. N. B., Rahmanzadeh, M., Hoveidi, H., & Mehrdadi, N. (2021). The Life-Cycle Assessment of Urban Sewage Sludge Disposal Systems of Ekbatan Tehran Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Energy and Economic Research , 5 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22097/eeer.2020.237899.1162 .

Hwang, K. L., Bang, C. H., & Zoh, K. D. (2016). Characteristics of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the wastewater treatment plant. Bioresource Technology , 214 , 881–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.047 .

ISO 14040. (2006). Environmental management-life cycle assessment principles and framework (ISO 140402006) . International Organization for Standardization.

ISO 14044. (2006). Environmental management-life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006) . International Organization for Standardization.

Limphitakphong, N., Pharino, C., & Kanchanapiya, P. (2016). Environmental impact assessment of centralized municipal wastewater management in Thailand. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 21 (12), 1789–1798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1130-9 .

Liu, J., Sun, B., Piao, W., & Jin, M. (2024). Evaluation of the Environmental Impact and Energy Utilization Efficiency of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Tumen River Basin Based on a Life Cycle Assessment + Data Envelope Analysis Model. Sustainability , 16 (4), 1690. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041690 .

Lopes, T. A. S., Queiroz, L. M., Torres, E. A., & Kiperstok, A. (2020). Low complexity wastewater treatment process in developing countries: A LCA approach to evaluate environmental gains. Science of the Total Environment , 720 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137593 .

Mannina, G., Rebouças, T. F., Cosenza, A., & Chandran, K. (2019). A plant-wide wastewater treatment plant model for carbon and energy footprint: Model application and scenario analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production , 217 , 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.255 .

Metcalf, W., & Eddy, C. (2014). Wastewater engineering: treatment and resource recovery. In: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, fifth ed.

Mohammadi, M., & Fataei, E. (2019). Comparative life cycle assessment of municipal wastewater treatment systems: Lagoon and activated sludge. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences , 17 (4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.22124/cjes.2019.3806 .

Nakatsuka, N., Kishita, Y., Kurafuchi, T., & Akamatsu, F. (2020). Integrating wastewater treatment and incineration plants for energy- ef fi cient urban biomass utilization: A life cycle analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production , 243 , 118448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118448 .

Nguyen, T. K. L., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Chang, S. W., Nguyen, D. D., Nghiem, L. D., Liu, Y., Ni, B., & Hai, F. I. (2019). Insight into greenhouse gases emissions from the two popular treatment technologies in municipal wastewater treatment processes. Science of the Total Environment , 671 , 1302–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.386 .

Nguyen, T. K. L., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Chang, S. W., Nguyen, D. D., Nguyen, T. V., & Nghiem, D. L. (2020). Contribution of the construction phase to environmental impacts of the wastewater treatment plant. Science of the Total Environment , 743 , 140658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140658 .

Nguyen, T. K. L., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Nghiem, L. D., Qian, G., Liu, Q., Liu, J., Chen, Z., Bui, X. T., & Mainali, B. (2021). Assessing the environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions from the common municipal wastewater treatment systems. Science of the Total Environment , 801 , 149676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149676 .

Patel, K., & Singh, S. K. (2022). A life cycle approach to environmental assessment of wastewater and sludge treatment processes. Water and Environment Journal , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12774 .

Postacchini, L., Lamichhane, K. M., Furukawa, D., Babcock, R. W., Ciarapica, F. E., & Cooney, M. J. (2016). Life cycle assessment comparison of activated sludge, trickling filter, and high-rate anaerobic-aerobic digestion (HRAAD). Water Science and Technology , 73 (10), 2353–2360. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.087 .

Preisner, M., Neverova-Dziopak, E., & Kowalewski, Z. (2020). Analysis of Eutrophication potential of municipal Wastewater. Water Science and Technology , 81 (91), 1994–2003. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.254 .

Ren, Y., Wang, J., Xu, L., Liu, C., Zong, R., Yu, J., & Liang, S. (2015). Direct emissions of N2O, CO2, and CH4 from A/A/O bioreactor systems: Impact of influent C/N ratio. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 22 (11), 8163–8173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4408-8 .

Resende, J. D., Nolasco, M. A., & Pacca, S. A. (2019). Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resources Conservation and Recycling , 148 (May), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.034 .

Roghani, B., Tabesh, M., Amrollahi, M. S., & Venkatesh, G. (2017). Estimation and Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions during the life-cycle of Wastewater pipelines: Case Study of Tehran, Iran. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal (Ceij) (Journal of Faculty of Engineering) , 50 (1), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.7508/ceij.2017.01.012 .

Tabesh, M., Feizee Masooleh, M., Roghani, B., & Motevallian, S. S. (2019). Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater treatment plants: A case study of Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Civil Engineering , 17 (7), 1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0375-z .

Torre, A., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Parodi, E., & Kahhatt, R. (2024). A Multi-criteria decision Framework for Circular Wastewater Systems in emerging megacities of the Global South. Science of the Total Environment , 912 , 169085–169085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169085 .

Yan, X., Li, L., & Liu, J. (2014). Characteristics of greenhouse gas emission in three full-scale wastewater treatment processes. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China) , 26 (2), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60429-5 .

Yapıcıoğlu, P. (2021). Minimization of greenhouse gas emissions from extended aeration activated sludge process. Water Practice and Technology , 16 (1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2020.100 .

Zheng, X., & Lam, K. L. (2024). An overview of Environmental Co-benefits and Trade-offs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Municipal Wastewater Management. Sustainable Production and Consumption . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.002 . ,46,1–10.

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Civil Engineering Department, Kharazmi University, 49 Mofateh Ave. Tehran Shahid Mofateh Ave, Tehran, 15719-14911, Iran

B. Movassagh Inchehboroun, G Asadollahfardi & M Delnavaz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Asadollahfardi .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

This is not applicable for my study.

Consent to participate

All authors give informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent to Publish

All authors agreed with the content, and all gave explicit consent to publish their data on the paper submitted in the journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability.

Competing interests

We, the author’s team, certify that we have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Movassagh Inchehboroun, B., Asadollahfardi, G. & Delnavaz, M. Life cycle assessment of anaerobic-anoxic-oxic and extended aeration of the activated sludge treatment system for urban wastewater treatment: a case study in Iran. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04846-5

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2022

Accepted : 23 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04846-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Life cycle assessment (LCA)
• Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
• Global warming potential
• Environmental impacts
• SimaPro and GaBi software
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research