Article 21 Of The Constitution

Introduction
Indian democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only to protect
fundamental rights of its citizens but also to establish an egalitarian order.
Law being an instrument of social engineering obliges the judiciary to carry
out the process established by it.
Lord Chancellor Sankey once said amidst the cross currents and shifting
sands of public life the law is like a great ark upon which a man may set his
foot and be safe. In this remark, he has emphasized on the importance of
law. It is needless to say that life of an individual in a society would become a
continuing disaster if not regulated.
The first decision given to interpret the scope and meaning of life and
personal liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution was:
A.K.Gopalan VS. State Of Madras (air 1950 sc 27)
The apex court interpreted that the words "procedure established by law" in
article 21 are to be given a wide and fluid meaning of the expression "due
process of law" as given under the u.s. constitution but it refers to only state
made statues laws. if any statutory law prescribed procedure for deprieving a
person of his rights or personal liberty it should meet the
requirements of article 21
However, after 2 decades this was over ruled in the case of R.C.Cooper VS.
Union Of India (AIR 1970 SC 564) after this there where a series of
decisions by the apex court including that of maneka gandhi vs. Union of
India in this case it was held that any law that deprives the life and liberty
must be just and fair
krishna iyer j. rightly said that "procedure" in article 21 means fair , not
formal procedure law is reasonable law not any enacted pieces"
Now it is settled that
That article 21 confers positive rights to life and liberty The word life in
article 21 means a life of dignity and not just mere animal survival (this was
also upheld in the case of Francis caralie{(1993)1 scc 645} The procedure of
depriving a person of his life and liberty must be reasonable, air and just
In the 1978, the 44th amendment of the constitution took place, article 359
was amended, and it provided that article 20 and 21 could not be suspended
even during declaration of an emergency. In the case of P.Rathinam case
held that right to live includes right not to live. Physical as well as mental
health both are treated as integral part of right to live upholding that without
good health , neither civil nor political rights which constitution confers cant

be enjoyed. Judiciary has played a vital role in the interpretation and correct
use of article 21.
The following are some cases on "right to life" through judicial activism
C Masilamani Mudaliar Vs. Idol Of Sri Swami Nathaswami Thrukoll
{(1996) 8scc525/Pr22}
Article 21 of the Indian constitution reinforces "right to life". Equity, dignity of
a person and the right to development are the inherent rights of every
human being. Life in its expanded horizon includes everything that gives
meaning to a person's life including culture, heritage and tradition with
dignity of a person.
Noise Pollution (V), In Re, {(2005) 5 Scc 733/Pr 10}
Article 21 guarantees right to life and includes all those aspects which make
a persons life meaningful, complete and worth living. In the above case, it
was held that any one who wishes to live in peace, no one can claim a right
to create noise even though he does so in his own premises. Any noise,
which materially interferes with the ordinary comforts of the life of the other,
judged by an ordinary prudent man is nuisance.
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab {(1994) 3 scc 569}
Speedy trail is an essential part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Unni krishnan vs. State of Andhra pradesh
the apex court has widened the scope of article 21 and has provided with the
rights article 21 embraces within itself. They are
Right to go abroad
Right to privacy
Right against solitary confinement
Right against delayed execution
Right to shelter
Right against custodial death
Right against public hearing
Doctor's assistance
Along with all these above-mentioned rights, it was also observed that the
right to education would also be included as apart of right to life.
A.k. bindal vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163
It was held that no person should be deprived of his life and personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law.
Thus with the above brief preview of article 21 it is clear that it has a
multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of

the part of any state depriving the life or personal liberty would be against
article 21 of the Indian constitution.