Mains Marathon

Approach

• Start by stating the text of Article 21 in the given context.
• Critically examine recent judicial expansions under Article 21.
• Illustrate your answer with relevant examples.
• Conclude with a scholarly remark.

Introduction

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Originally meant to protect individuals from arbitrary state action, Article 21 has evolved into a living provision through judicial interpretation.

Body

Evolution of Article 21: From Procedure to Substantive Justice

• In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Article 21 was interpreted narrowly—life and liberty could be taken away as long as a law existed.
• This changed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) where the Court held that the “procedure” must be “just, fair, and reasonable”, integrating due process of law into Indian jurisprudence.
• This opened the gates for Article 21 to become a reservoir of rights, many of which are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are crucial to a dignified life.

Recent Supreme Court Judgments Expanding Article 21

• Right to Privacy – Puttaswamy Judgment (2017)
  • In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, a nine-judge bench unanimously declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
  • Impact: Protection from surveillance, bodily autonomy, and data privacy.
• Right to Die with Dignity – Common Cause Case (2018)
  • The Court upheld the right to passive euthanasia and validated living wills, citing the right to die with dignity as a logical extension of the right to life.
  • Recognized individual autonomy and medical ethics.
• Reproductive Rights – X v. Health Ministry (2022)
  • Expanded access to abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to unmarried women, ensuring bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
  • Impact: Equated marital and non-marital status in accessing medical rights.
• Environmental Rights
  • The Court has read into Article 21 the right to a clean environment, air, water, and pollution-free surroundings.
  • M.C. Mehta series of cases upheld environmental protection as intrinsic to the right to life.
• Digital and Informational Autonomy
  • Building on Puttaswamy, the Court has acknowledged the need for informational self-determination, especially in the context of artificial intelligence and surveillance technologies.

Critical Assessment

• Positive Contributions:
  • Strengthens human dignity, autonomy, and participatory democracy.
  • Ensures rights evolve with technological and societal changes.
  • Protects vulnerable groups and fills legislative gaps.
• Concerns:
  • Judicial Overreach: Courts legislating rather than interpreting.
  • The expansion must be complemented by clear laws and parliamentary oversight to ensure democratic legitimacy and consistency.
  • Ambiguity in enforcement: Many rights remain unenforceable without supportive laws or institutions.
  • Need for institutional balance between judiciary, legislature, and executive.

Conclusion

As constitutional expert Nani Palkhivala once remarked:

“The greatest achievement of the judiciary has been the discovery of Article 21 in all its expansive glory.”

This judicial creativity, while occasionally critiqued as overreach, has largely been a force for social transformation and rights-based governance, ensuring that the Constitution serves not just as a legal text but as a guardian of liberty in its fullest sense.