Author
LALITH SWETHA
3rd Year, B.A.LL.B.;(Hons.)
SASTRA UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
This research paper examines the evolution of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution over the past decade, highlighting its designation as the “procedural Magna Carta” safeguarding life and liberty. Following the landmark Maneka Gandhi judgment, Article 21 has expanded to encompass rights that enhance the quality of life. As society, technology, and the environment have significantly advanced, new challenges have emerged, many of which are addressed through the lens of Article 21. This paper analyzes the reciprocal influence between Article 21 and societal changes, technological advancements, and environmental concerns. It also explores various instances illustrating these dynamics and considers the potential for future developments in the context of fundamental rights and their implications for Indian society.
KEYWORDS : Arbitrary, Privacy, Justice, Restraint
INTRODUCTION
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, marking it as a fundamental right that underpins all other rights. The concept of the “right to life” derives from the inherent notion of “birth-right,” meaning that every individual, by virtue of being born, has the right to live. These right forms the foundation of all other rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, without which they would hold little value. The right to life is not merely an acknowledgment of one’s physical existence; it is an assertion of an individual’s intrinsic value, protected by the law of nature.
Personal Liberty and Its Interpretation
The interpretation of “personal liberty” within Article 21 has been a subject of debate among scholars. Initially, the term was understood in a narrow sense, as reflected in the work of legal scholars like A.V. Dicey, who defined personal liberty as the freedom from unlawful imprisonment or physical restraint. Blackstone, another prominent scholar, emphasized freedom of movement as essential to personal liberty. According to him, liberty implied the ability to move freely without interference, unless restricted by law.
In early interpretations, the Indian Supreme Court followed this narrow view, particularly in A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India[1]. In this case, the Court limited personal liberty to the physical freedom of an individual, confined to protection from unlawful arrest or imprisonment. However, this restrictive interpretation did not consider broader aspects of liberty, such as the freedom to live with dignity, as being part of personal liberty.
Evolving Jurisprudence of Personal Liberty
The narrow interpretation of personal liberty began to change with subsequent cases. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], the Court expanded the scope of personal liberty, recognizing that it encompassed more than mere physical freedom. It ruled that personal liberty included all those rights not explicitly covered by Article 19, marking the beginning of a broader understanding of this fundamental right.
A significant turning point came with the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[3]. In this case, the Supreme Court adopted a more expansive interpretation of personal liberty, incorporating procedural fairness and the concept of “due process of law.” The Court ruled that any law depriving a person of personal liberty must not only follow legal procedures but also be just, fair, and reasonable. This judgment marked a dramatic shift in the Court’s approach, establishing that the right to life and personal liberty included various other rights essential to human dignity, such as the right to privacy, the right to shelter, and the right to livelihood.
Comprehensive View of Right to Life
The phrase “right to life” in Article 21, though originally limited to the protection of physical existence, has since gained a broader meaning. It now includes the right to live with dignity, the right to health, and the right to a livelihood. The Supreme Court has held that life is more than mere survival; it includes the right to live well. A person deprived of basic needs such as food, shelter, and health care cannot enjoy a meaningful life, even if physically alive. Thus, life under Article 21 encompasses not only freedom from arbitrary deprivation but also access to conditions that make life worth living.
The Court has also recognized that Article 21 protects individuals from arbitrary actions of both the State and private individuals. Any violation of personal liberty, whether by unlawful detention or unreasonable restrictions on movement, must be justified under law. In this context, personal liberty includes the right to live free from servitude, slavery, and forced labor, emphasizing that any form of slavery is incompatible with the essence of liberty.
Impact of Economic and Social Rights
A further dimension of the right to life is its intersection with social and economic rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to include rights related to livelihood and health, recognizing that life without access to essential resources such as food and shelter is devoid of dignity. As the Court observed, a life of hunger and deprivation is not a life worth living. The recognition of economic rights within Article 21 demonstrates the Court’s understanding that true liberty cannot exist without a minimum standard of living.
Universal Applicability of Article 21
One of the salient features of Article 21 is its applicability to all individuals residing in India, regardless of citizenship. While other fundamental rights, such as those under Article 19, are restricted to citizens, Article 21 protects all persons, including non-citizens, from arbitrary deprivation of life and personal liberty. This universal applicability underscores the fundamental nature of Article 21, affirming its role as a cornerstone of human rights protection in India.
Affirmative and Negative Dimensions
Although Article 21 is framed in negative terms—stating that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law—the Supreme Court has recognized its positive dimensions as well. Following the Maneka Gandhi decision, the Court has frequently interpreted Article 21 to confer positive rights, such as the right to a clean environment, the right to education, and the right to healthcare. These interpretations reflect the Court’s understanding that the right to life is dynamic and must evolve with changing societal needs.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, through judicial interpretation, has evolved from a narrowly confined provision to a broad and encompassing right that includes not only protection from unlawful deprivation but also the right to live with dignity. This evolution reflects the Court’s recognition of the fundamental importance of personal liberty and its integral role in ensuring justice, fairness, and equality for all.
SOCIAL IMPACT
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, through progressive judicial interpretations, has played a transformative role in shaping societal norms by expanding the scope of fundamental rights. Landmark cases such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[4] recognized the right to livelihood as an essential part of the right to life, while Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[5] extended the protection of personal liberty to address issues of workplace harassment. These rulings have not only strengthened individual freedoms but also redefined societal frameworks, fostering a more just and inclusive environment. Article 21 continues to evolve, addressing emerging challenges and impacting society in profound ways. Some of the significant impacts include: the landmark case of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India[6] (2014), the Supreme Court recognized transgender individuals as a third gender. This judgment affirmed their rights to self-identify and underscored the importance of dignity, privacy, and freedom under Articles 19 and 21. It also directed the state to provide legal recognition, reservations, and enhanced healthcare, marking a substantial societal shift towards inclusivity for transgender rights in India.
Similarly, the Shayara Bano judgment in 2017 deemed instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional, citing its arbitrary nature and violation of Article 14. This ruling led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized the practice and introduced penalties, including imprisonment. These developments significantly empowered Muslim women, providing them with legal safeguards against arbitrary marital dissolution and advancing gender equality in personal law.
The decriminalization of consensual same-sex relations was a watershed moment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[7] (2018), where the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 as unconstitutional. The ruling emphasized that societal morality cannot eclipse constitutional morality, reinforcing the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. This decision, rooted in the principles of transformative constitutionalism, was a crucial step toward eliminating stigma and discrimination, fostering equal citizenship and human rights protections.
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court invalidated Section 497, which criminalized adultery. The judgment highlighted the archaic nature of the law, arguing that it violated women’s autonomy and dignity while treating them as property of their husbands. By decriminalizing adultery, the Court recognized it as a personal issue rather than a criminal offense, reinforcing gender equality and sexual autonomy within marriage.
Additionally, the ruling in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala[9] declared the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple unconstitutional. This landmark decision emphasized gender equality in religious practices and challenged entrenched customs, promoting women’s rights within Hinduism.
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India[10], the Supreme Court deemed Section 309 of the IPC unconstitutional, connecting the right to life (Article 21) with the right to avoid a forced existence. In Aruna Shanbaugh v. Union of India[11] (2011), the legalization of passive euthanasia for patients in a persistent vegetative state emphasized the importance of dignified dying. The subsequent case of Common Cause v. Union of India[12] (2018) further solidified the right to die with dignity and allowed for advanced directives. A recent draft policy released in September 2024, by the government has reinforced societal recognition of individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions, thereby enhancing the legal framework around euthanasia.
While Article 21 continues to evolve, significant societal issues remain to be addressed. In Supriyo Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India[13], same-sex couples challenged the Special Marriage Act, 1954, arguing it discriminates against them by denying marital benefits and violating their rights to equality, dignity, and freedom of expression under Article 21. However, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to marry for LGBTQIA+ individuals, which has affected their pursuit of equal recognition and highlighted ongoing struggles for inclusion within the institution of marriage.
Furthermore, the ongoing case of RIT Foundation v. Union of India[14] has spotlighted the issue of women’s sexual autonomy within marriage. The split verdict on marital rape revealed that the exception in Section 375 of the IPC undermines married women’s equal protection under Article 21. This legal provision, which permits non-consensual intercourse within marriage, compromises their dignity and personal autonomy. Thus, urgent legal reform is essential to safeguard women’s rights in intimate relationships and ensure their agency is recognized and protected.
TECH INFLUENCE
The last decade has seen a transformative shift in technology, impacting fields from AI to blockchain, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, is no exception. With each technological advancement, the judiciary has expanded the scope of Article 21 to safeguard citizens’ rights in an increasingly digital world.
One of the early cases highlighting these concerns was Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India[15] (2016), where Karmanya Singh and Shreya Sethi challenged WhatsApp’s new privacy policy that shared users’ data with Facebook. They argued that this violated their right to privacy under Article 21. Though the Delhi High Court rejected the plea, it directed WhatsApp to delete user data before September 25, 2016, if users opted out. The case, later referred to the Supreme Court, underscored the urgent need for comprehensive data protection laws, eventually leading to the enactment of the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
The landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[16] (2017) case cemented privacy as an integral part of Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled that privacy is fundamental to personal dignity and autonomy, laying the groundwork for significant legal reforms, including the decriminalization of Section 377. The judgment arose from concerns over the Aadhaar scheme’s mass data collection, and it rejected the notion that fundamental rights could be subjected to majoritarian influences.
In Vinit Kumar v. CBI[17] (2019), the Bombay High Court struck down three illegal phone interception orders, ruling that they violated the right to privacy under Article 21. The court held that the surveillance orders lacked a valid public safety rationale and failed to meet the proportionality test established in Puttaswamy. This decision further reinforced that unlawful surveillance is a grave infringement of fundamental rights.
A more recent example is the Pegasus spyware case, where allegations surfaced that the government used Pegasus to spy on citizens, including journalists and politicians. This sparked significant concerns about the misuse of surveillance tools. In response, the Supreme Court established a Technical Committee to investigate whether Pegasus was deployed on Indian citizens. The Court emphasized that while the right to privacy under Article 21 is not absolute, any intrusion must satisfy the criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality, as per the Puttaswamy ruling. The government, invoking national security, provided only a limited affidavit, which the Court found insufficient to justify non-disclosure.
In conclusion, as technology continues to evolve, particularly with the anticipated rise of AI, it is evident that Article 21 will be subject to broader interpretations. The courts will need to balance technological advancements with individual rights, ensuring that privacy and liberty remain protected in the digital age.
Environmental Impact on Article 21
The right to a healthy environment became an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life. This was first established in the landmark case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State[18] (popularly known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case). In this 1988 case, the Supreme Court recognized that a healthy environment is essential for the right to life, leading to the cessation of illegal mining activities to restore ecological balance.
The recognition of environmental protection as part of the right to life continued to evolve, with the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[19] explicitly stating that the right to live in a pollution-free environment falls within the ambit of Article 21. This decision expanded the understanding of the right to life, emphasizing that environmental degradation could violate fundamental rights.
Over the past decade, climate change and environmental degradation have increasingly been seen as direct threats to the quality of life protected under Article 21. In 2024, for the first time, the Supreme Court linked the right against the adverse impacts of climate change to the right to life and equality. The court, while hearing a case on bird conservation, recognized that climate mitigation and ecological conservation are distinct yet related issues. The court emphasized that clean energy initiatives, essential to combating climate change, are crucial to upholding fundamental rights like life and equality.
The court has also taken note of the worsening air pollution, particularly in the M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[20] (2020) case, where it highlighted the failure of governments and civic bodies in ensuring clean air in Delhi. The court observed that pollution is shortening the lifespan of residents and declared this situation a blatant violation of the right to life under Article 21. The inability of the state to address routine pollution crises, particularly in major cities like Delhi, has become an acute threat to citizens’ fundamental rights.
The court has consistently stated that without a stable environment, the right to life cannot be fully realized. Rising temperatures, pollution, and shifts in disease patterns due to climate change have a severe impact on the health and well-being of people, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. These effects have drawn attention to the need for better accountability and a deeper understanding of environmental protection as an integral part of constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
In the coming decade, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution will continue to evolve, addressing emerging challenges and advancing the protection of individual rights. As society progresses and new issues arise, the judiciary will likely expand the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty to meet contemporary demands. Environmental degradation, technological advancements, privacy concerns, and evolving social norms will push the boundaries of Article 21, prompting the courts to redefine what constitutes a meaningful and dignified life in a modern context.
The right to a clean and sustainable environment, which has already found its place within the scope of Article 21, is expected to gain further prominence as the country faces increasing environmental challenges. With climate change, pollution, and resource depletion posing existential threats, the judiciary may reinforce the duty of the state and private entities to ensure environmental protection as part of the right to life.
Similarly, the right to privacy—especially in the digital age—will likely see a further evolution as technology continues to reshape how personal information is stored, shared, and utilized. Data protection, surveillance, and the ethical use of artificial intelligence will become crucial issues for judicial scrutiny under the ambit of Article 21, ensuring that personal liberty remains safeguarded in a world driven by technological advancements.
In addition, societal shifts in the perception of gender, sexuality, and relationships may influence the judicial understanding of personal liberty, leading to further recognition of rights for marginalized groups. The courts will play a pivotal role in ensuring that all individuals can live with dignity, free from discrimination, by interpreting Article 21 to protect not only the majority but also those at the margins of society.
Ultimately, the adaptability of Article 21 has been its greatest strength, allowing it to respond to changing social, environmental, and technological landscapes. Over the next ten years, the judiciary’s proactive role in broadening the scope of Article 21 will be crucial in addressing new human rights concerns while maintaining the core values of dignity, equality, and liberty. As this cornerstone of Indian constitutional law continues to evolve, it will remain a vital tool in ensuring justice, fairness, and the protection of fundamental rights in an ever-changing world.
[1] 1966 AIR 816
[2] 1963 AIR 1295
[3] 1978 AIR 597
[4] 1986 AIR 180
[5] AIR 1997 SC 3011
[6] AIR 2014 SC 1863
[7] AIR 2018 SC 4321
[8] AIR 2018 SC 4898
[9] AIR 2018 SC 243
[10] 1994 AIR 1844
[11] AIR 2011 SC 1290
[12] AIR 2018 SC1665
[13] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022
[14] 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1404
[15] MANU/DE/2607/2016
[16] Writ Petition (C) No 247 of 2017
[17] AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1117, 2020 (1) ABR(CRI) 1
[18] 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 1
[19] 1987 AIR 1086
[20] AIRONLINE 2020 SC 684
