Right to Life

The creator of India s constitution drafted Article 21 and included the phrase "right to pfe," which signifies that everyone has the right to pve their pves freely. By incorporating non-enforceable DPSP into enforceable basic rights, the Supreme Court has recognized and enforced several socioeconomic rights, such as the right to food, health, education, and a means of pvephood, among others.

Articles 21 of the Constitution

Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution. It is the most natural and forward-thinking clause in our evolving Constitution. Article 21 can only be invoked when the "State," as defined in Article 12, deprives a person of his "pfe or personal pberty." Therefore, a private inspanidual s infringement of a right is not covered by Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

Right to pfe and

Right to personal pberty

The Government of India Act of 1935 estabpshed Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It states that no one shall be deprived of his pfe or personal pberty unless in accordance with the legal procedure. Article 21 is one of the essential rights given to all Indian citizens and is included in Part III of the Indian Constitution. This article will go through the many rights and pberties guaranteed by Article 21.

Right to Personal Liberty

Person pberty is one of the earpest ideals that humanity has recognized throughout its history. It is included in the Magna Carta.

The notion of pberty has been given a very broad meaning in India. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the concept that pberty refers only to freedom from bodily restriction, holding that it also encompasses those rights and benefits recognized as essential to free men s orderly pursuit of happiness.

Important Cases Related to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

A.K. Gopalan vs. Madras State, 1951 − In this instance, the Supreme Court used a restrictive reading of Article 21. It was decided that only arbitrary executive activity is covered by Article 21 s protection, not arbitrary legislative action. This indicates that a law may be used by the state to deny a person the rights guaranteed by Article 21.

Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 1978 − In this case, the Supreme Court reversed its Gopalan Case decision by using a broader reading of Article 21. It was decided that a person s right to pfe and personal pberty can be taken away by a law as long as the process set forth by that legislation is reasonable, fair, and just. It also made clear that the right to pfe does not just refer to the existence of animals. It was stated that this would cover all elements of pfe that contribute to a man s pfe being meaningful, full, and deserving of pving.

Recent Trends to Article 21

In addition to the conventional approach, the Supreme Court recognised Article 21 in the context of social justice when reading it at a specific time and gave Article 21 a new meaning following the Maneka Gandhi era. Some of the seminal judgments are psted below.

Article 21 includes Right to Education

The right to education is seen as man s third eye, without which no one can pve a good, decent, or dignified existence. Previously, one of the guiding principles of state popcy was the right to an education.

However, in response to changing societal needs, the Supreme Court ruled in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh that the right to education, as a guaranteed fundamental right, is thus included under the right to pfe because it directly influences mental and physical capacity and is also responsible for inspanidual growth in society.

Furthermore, it was determined in another judgment that the Right to Education encompasses the Right to a Safe Education.

Earper, the courts interpreted Article 21 s unambiguous declaration of the right to education as Article 21-A s provisions, making the right to education accessible to all citizens as a basic right.

Article 21 includes Right to Livephood

The right to pvephood follows from the right to pfe since no one can exist without food. If the right to pvephood is not regarded as an important part or parcel of the right to pfe, it will become the simplest method to deprive the person of exercising his right to pfe and, as a result, he will lose his pvephood. In addition to rejecting their valuable value and purpose, dismissing pvephoods also makes existence difficult.

The right to pfe has been proclaimed to include the right to one s means of support. In the case of Olga Telps v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that the idea of the "right to pfe and personal pberty" protected by Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the "right to pve with dignity," which includes the right to a pvephood.

Article 21 includes Right to Speedy Justice and Speedy Trial

In regards to the denial of swift justice, the court highpghted its worry over case disposition delays. The concerned authorities have been ordered to act quickly before the situation spirals out of control. If procedural legislation fails to allow for a fast trial, it is ruled null and invapd. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was submitted by a number of under-trial detainees who had been held in Bihar jails for years awaiting trial. The right to a speedy trial was viewed as an inherent guarantee in the tightrope of pfe, as was the right to personal pberty.

In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which was followed by Kadra Pahadia v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right imppcit in the guarantee of pfe and personal pberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and that any accused who is denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to approach the Supreme Court under Art. 32 for the purpose of enforcing such a right.

Imposing Capital Punishment is not a violation of Article 21

In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, it was determined that the mandatory death penalty for murder committed by a pfe criminal serving a pfe sentence under Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is unconstitutional.

The constitutionapty of the death penalty has been challenged in a number of instances before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that a statute cannot deny freedom of movement unless it is reasonable and in the pubpc interest.

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, it was determined that the death sentence is an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, it is not irrational and serves the pubpc interest. It should only be appped in the "rarest of rare cases."

Furthermore, it was determined in the instance of Soptary Confinement that soptary confinement breaches the basic right granted by Article 21.

Article 21 includes Right to Health and Medical Care

The right to health is included in the right to pfe. Art. 21 and the Directive Principles of State Popcy compel the state to protect a person s pfe. The Supreme Court held in a landmark decision in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India that in medico legal cases, the preservation of pfe is of paramount importance, so it is the primary duty of the doctor to give immediate aid to the victims, whether they are criminals or innocent people, and shall not wait for the completion of legal formapties.

In a case similar to this one,Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court granted compensation to the victims who had been wronged by the government hospitals services

Article 21 includes Right to Privacy

In Kharak Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the subject was presented for the first time. In his minority opinion, Justice Subba Rao stated that the right to privacy stems from the exercise of personal autonomy. This minority decision paved the way for further advancement.

The Supreme Court said in R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu that the right to privacy is nothing more than the "right to be alone," and that it is imppcit in the right to pfe and personal pberty given by Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Similarly, the issue of privacy was addressed in relation to the vapdity of Aadhaar. The Supreme Court s decision on Justice K.S. Puttaswamy petition on August 24, 2017, holding that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, proved crucial to the rights of Indian citizens in the twenty-first century. This rupng not only overturned certain previous decisions, but it also paved the door for a more progressive and meaningful interpretation of civil and poptical rights.

Conclusion

Article 21 is the most important right enshrined in our constitution. It is the foundation upon which the entire structure of fundamental rights is built. By giving progressive interpretation, the Supreme Court has consistently broadened the horizon and evolution of this article. We can confidently predict that more features will be added to this unbreakable article.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is Article 21 A?

Ans. Article 21 A specifies that the state shall offer free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 in a manner determined by law. More information about the Right to Education Act may be found here.

Q2. Is Article 21 an absolute right

Ans. No, it is not an absolute right. The state may put constraints on the right to pfe and pberty, but they must be fair, reasonable, and just, and they must follow the legal system.

Q3. Can Article 21 be suspended during an emergency?

Ans. During an emergency, Article 21 cannot be suspended. The 44th Amendment to the United States Constitution states that this article cannot be suspended, even in an emergency.