Article 21 and 21A

Submitted
by:
Anjana
Joshi

Article 21

Article 21 lays down that

no person shall be
deprived of his life or
personal liberty except acc.
to procedure established
by law.

Article 21 uses four crucial

expressions , viz:
Life: as here used, something more is meant
than mere animal existence. The inhibition
against its deprivation extends to all those
limbs and facilities by which life is enjoyed.
Personal liberty: In art.21 it is of widest
amplitude & it covers a variety of rights which
go to constitute personal liberty of man &
some of them have been raised to status of
Law: constitution
make no distinction in
distinct
FRs.
principle b/w a law made by the legislature &
ordinance issued by president,both are
equally subject to limitation which the
constitution established
has placed upon
Procedure
by that
law:power
it extends
both to substantive as well as procedural law.
A procedure not fulfilling these attributes is

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Manekas passport was
impounded by the Central govt.
under the passport Act in the
interest of the general public.
Maneka filed a writ petition
challenging the order on the
ground of violation of fundamental
right under Art. 21. The major
ground of challenge was the order
impounding the passport was null

Right to
medical
care
Right to
Shelter

Right to
education

Right to
food

Articl
e
21

Right to
livelihood

Right to
privacy

Right to
healthy
environ
mnt

Right to
livelihood
Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR
1986 SC 180
The right to livelihood is borne out of the
right to life, as no person can live without
the means of living, that is, the means of
livelihood.
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a
part and parcel of the constitutional right to
life, the easiest way of deprivingaperson of
his right to life would be deprived him of
means of livelihood to the point of
abrogation.

Right to
privacy
Mr. X v. Hospital Z (AIR 1999
SC 495)
The Supreme Court explained
thatArticle21of
theConstitutionentitlesaperson to
lead a healthy life and therefore the
women who was to marry a person
was entitled to know whether her
prospective husband has any deadly
and communicable disease.

Registered Society
v.
Union of India AIR
1996 Court had given
The Supreme
directions to Subordinate Courts to
dispose of long pending cases.
Criminal cases was quite consistent
with the spirit underlying Part III of
theConstitution, Telephone tapping
was held to be violation of right to
privacy

RIGHT TO
SHELTER
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimal
Totame AIR
1990 SC 630

The SC has ruled that the right to life is

guaranteed in any civilized society. That
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 diff. b/w the
need of an animal andahuman being for
shelter has to be kept in view. For an animal
it is the bare protection of body: for a
human being it has to be a suitable

Parmanand KataraV Unionof

India AIR 1989

RIGHT TO
MEDICAL
CARE

The SC has considered a very

serious problem existing at
present: in a medico legal
case (such as accident) the
doctor usually refused to
give immediate a medical
aid to the victim untill the
legal formalities are
completed. In some cases,
the injured die for want of
medical aid. The SC has now
very specifically clarified
that preservation of life is

RIGHT TO
HEALTH
Vincent v. Union of India
AIR 1987

The SC held that a healthy body is

the very foundation of all human
activities. Even Art. 47, a directive
principle, lays stress on
improvement of public health and
prohibition of drugs injurious to

RIGHT TO
EDUCATION

Mohini
JainV.State of
Karnataka
AIR1992

The right to education flows

directly from the
right to life, and the right to
education being concomitant to
the fundamental right, The state
is under a constitutional mandate
to provide educational institutions

o Miss Mohini Jain, a resident ofMeerut(in the State ofUP), applied for
admission to theMBBScourse in the session commencing February/March,
1991, to a privatemedical collegelocated in the State of Karnataka.
o The college management asked her to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as
the tuition fee for the first year and also to show a bank guarantee of the
amount equal to the fee for the remaining years.
oWhen Miss Jain's father intimated the management that the asked
amount was beyond his reach, the management denied Ms. Jain's
admission to the medical college.
o Miss Jain informed the court that the management demanded an
additional amount of Rs. four and a halflakhs, however, the management
denied the allegation
o Miss Jain filed apetition.
o A two member bench consisting Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R. M.
Sahai gave the judgment of the case on 30 July 1992 (1992 AIR 1858). [2]
For the first time in the post independent India, right to education of the
Indian citizens and the State obligation to secure the right came under
scrutiny at the premises of theapex court.

 Unni Krishnan v/s State of AP AIR 1993

SC 2178
The Right to education is implicit. The
parameters of this right is not absolute.
Court limited the State obligation as
follows;
a. Right to education till the age of 14
b. Beyond the stage, State obligation is
subject to economic capacity and
development of State.

RIGHT TO
ENVIRONMENT
Suba
sh
Kuma
r v.
Bihar
AIR
1991

The SC has held that

enjoyment of pollution
free environment is
included in the right to
life under Art.21

Murali S.
Deora
v.
Union of
India

Since a non-smoker is afflicted

to various diseases including
lung cancer or of heart, only
because he is required to go to
public places and it is
indirectly depriving of his life
without any process of law.
Hence smoking in public
places was banned

M.C.
Mehta v.
Union of
India

It was held that

the direction to
convert all
buses operating
in Delhi to CNG
fuel mode was
given for
safeguarding
health of people
.