Protection of Life and Personal

liberty (Art. 21)

 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’.
Who can claim protection u/A 21
Only when a person is deprived of his
life or personal liberty by the State as
defined Art 12.
Every Person- Citizen or non-Citizen
Natural persons
Not to corporate bodies
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 distinct FRs.

Law: constitution make no distinction in principle b/w a law

made by the legislature & ordinance issued by president, both
are equally subject to limitation which the constitution has
placed upon that power
Procedure established by law: it extends both to
substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not
fulfilling these attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC
597

Maneka’s 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 and
void as it had been made without affording her
an opportunity of being heard in her defence.
Procedure established by law was unjust &
arbitrary.
 Right to Right to
Right to food livelihood
medical care

Right to Right to
Shelter privacy
Article
21

Right to Right to
education healthy
environment
 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 depriving a person 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 that Article 21 of
the Constitution entitles a person 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 SC 167

The Supreme Court had given directions to

Subordinate Courts to dispose of long pending cases.
Criminal cases was quite consistent with the spirit
underlying Part III of the Constitution.
 Right to Privacy-
Case- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India AIR 1997 SC 568
 The SC has held that Telephone tapping is a serious
invasion of an individual’s right to privacy which is part of
the right to life and liberty enshrined under Art 21 and it
should be not resorted to by the State there is public
emergency or interest of public safety requires.
 Sec 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
 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 and a human 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
accommodation which would allow him to grow in every
aspect-physical, mental and intellectual
 Parmanand Katara V Union of
India AIR 1989 SC 2039
The SC has considered a very
serious problem existing at
present: in a medico legal case
(such as accident) the doctor
RIGHT TO usually refused to give immediate
MEDICAL a medical aid to the victim until
the legal formalities are
CARE completed. In some cases, the
injured die for want of medical
aid. The SC has now very
specifically clarified that
preservation of life is of
paramount importance.
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 health as one of the
primary duties of the State.
 RIGHT TO
EDUCATION
Mohini Jain V. State
of Karnataka
AIR (1992) 3SCC 666
“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 at all levels for
the benefit of the citizens.”
 Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC
3011
The SC has declared sexual
harassment of a working
SEXUAL woman at her place of work
HARASSMENT as amounting to violation of
rights of gender equality and
right to life and liberty which
is clear violation
of Article 14,15 and 21
 RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT

Subash The SC has held that enjoyment

Kumar of pollution free environment is
v. included in the right to life under
Bihar
AIR Art. 21
1991
 Murali S.
Deora
v.
Union of
India AIR
2002 SC 40

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
 It was held that the
direction to convert all
buses operating in
Delhi to CNG fuel
M.C. Mehta
mode was given for
v. Union of
safeguarding health
India
of people and would
override the
provisions of other
statutes