Mains Practice Questions

Introduction: 

The Supreme Court’s stance in The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case showcases the expansion of Article 21, stating, "The right to life and personal liberty is the most fundamental of all human rights, and it is not just about mere existence, but a life with dignity." 

• This marked a shift from procedural to substantive rights (i.e., ensuring a dignified life and fairness, not just in legal procedures), broadening the scope of fundamental rights in India.

Body: 

Expansion of Article 21: Key Areas and Relevant Case Laws

• Introduction of Due Process under Article 21:
  • In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Court expanded the scope of Article 21 by introducing the principle of "due process of law,"  alongside the mentioned "procedure established by law." 
    • This shift ensured that laws and their execution must be just, fair, and reasonable, not merely legal in form.
    • Also, in Samta v. Andhra Pradesh (1997), SC held that the right to life under Article 21 goes beyond mere survival; it includes the right to live with dignity, basic sustenance, shelter, and all other elements that make life meaningful and fulfilling.
  • Implication: It expanded the scope of personal liberty to include protection against arbitrary actions.
• Right to a Free Legal Aid & Speedy Trial:
  • In Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar (1979), the Court declared that the right to a speedy trial is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, thereby addressing the prolonged detention of undertrials.
    • It also emphasized on free legal aid for the effective administration of justice and equality among the citizens.
  • Implication: This ruling emphasized that delays in judicial processes violate an individual’s right to personal liberty and dignity, ensuring timely access to justice.
• Right to Protection from Arbitrary Detention:
  • In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980), the Supreme Court held that handcuffing a prisoner violates Article 21 unless there is an extraordinary reason to justify such an action.
  • Implication: The judgment focused on the humane treatment of prisoners, emphasizing that personal liberty cannot be violated through degrading treatment.
• Right to Livelihood:
  • In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court ruled that the right to livelihood is an essential part of the right to life, as individuals cannot live with dignity without the means to earn a livelihood.
  • Implication: This case recognized that the right to life includes the right to earn a living, ensuring that people cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood, especially in the case of slum dwellers facing eviction.
• Right to Education:
  • In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to education as part of the right to life, mandating that the state must provide education to all citizens, especially to children.
  • Implication: This case laid the groundwork for the Right to Education Act (2009), which guarantees free and compulsory education to children up to the age of 14, cementing education as a fundamental right.
• Right to Shelter:
  • In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to shelter is part of the right to life, affirming that every citizen has a right to a roof over their head as a basic necessity for a dignified existence.
  • Implication: This judgment underscored the state's responsibility to ensure affordable housing, particularly for the poor and marginalized sections of society.
• Right to Protection Against Workplace Sexual Harassment:
  • In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court ruled that sexual harassment at the workplace violates the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and directed the creation of guidelines to prevent such harassment.
  • Implication: This judgment resulted in the formulation of the Vishaka Guidelines, which later formed the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
• Right to Environment and a Healthy Life:
  • In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment, linking environmental protection to the right to life.
  • Implication: This case was instrumental in creating a jurisprudence around the right to a healthy environment and air quality as part of the fundamental right to life.
• Rights of the Third Gender:
  • In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognized the rights of transgender persons, affirming that their right to life includes the right to live with dignity and to be recognized as a third gender.
  • Implication: The judgment marked a significant step in ensuring equality and non-discrimination for transgender individuals under the Constitution, expanding the definition of dignity and liberty.
• Decriminalization of Adultery and Homosexuality:
  • In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court decriminalized adultery, affirming that it was an infringement on personal liberty and dignity.
  • Similarly, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2019), the Court decriminalized Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, acknowledging the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to live with dignity and free from discrimination.
  • Implication: These judgments affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the freedom to live one’s life without interference in personal relationships and sexual orientation.
• Right to Privacy:
  • In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Supreme Court declared the right to privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby expanding the scope of personal liberty.
  • Implication: This ruling affirmed that every individual has the right to privacy, which includes the protection of personal data and decisions (that led to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023) regarding one’s body, identity, and relationships from unwarranted state interference.

Conclusion:

By recognizing socio-economic, cultural, and environmental rights as part of Article 21, the Court ensures that every individual enjoys a life of dignity, equality, and freedom, and that the right to live is not merely animal existence, as affirmed in the Francis Coralie v. UT of Delhi case.