article 21 a case study

Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer

Article 21 (and its many interpretations) is the perfect example of the transformative character of the Constitution of India. The Indian judiciary has attributed wider connotation and meaning to Article 21, extending beyond the Constitution makers’ imagination. These meanings derived from the ‘right to life’ present unique complexities. It is impossible to understand the expansive jurisprudence on Article 21 within the length of this piece. Therefore, Riya Jain understands the various components of freedom that stem from the ‘right to life’. She presents a straightforward and comprehensive explainer on the case laws that have interpreted the right.

By Riya Jain, UILS Panjab University.

*The piece was first published by Riya in 2015, this is the updated form. 

Introduction of Article 21

Article 21 of Indian constitution reads:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”

In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 ’embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society’. Further, Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty’.

Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution . It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1)  Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

It prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

It is also fundamental to democracy as it extends to natural persons and not just citizens. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner to the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

This Article is an all tell for Article 21. The first part will understand the meaning and concept of ‘right to life’ as understood by the judiciary. Further, the piece will lay out how several violations of the body, reputation and equality have been understood and brought under the purview of the right to life and the right to live with dignity.

Meaning, Concept and Interpretation of ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21

‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’

The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Section will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India , 1950 provides,

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider, including, including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc.

The right to life is fundamental to our very existence, without which we cannot live as human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements for a person from the core concept of the right to life.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [i] , the Supreme Court quoted and held:

By the term ‘life’ as here used, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [ii] , the Supreme Court approved the above observations. It held that the ‘right to life’ included the right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. In addition, it consists of the Right to live and sleep in peace and the Right to repose and health.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [iii] , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The Court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the same view, the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi [iv]  observed:

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”

Another broad formulation of life to dignity is found in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [v] . Characterising Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the Court gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. “These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

Following the above-stated cases, the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [vi] , held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bhagwati J. held that rights and benefits conferred on workmen employed by a contractor under various labour laws are intended to ensure basic human dignity to workers. He held that the non-implementation by the private contractors engaged for constructing a building for holding Asian Games in Delhi, and non-enforcement of these laws by the State Authorities of the provisions of these laws was held to be violative of the fundamental right of workers to live with human dignity contained in Art. 21 [vii] .

In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad [viii] , it has been held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and decency. Therefore, keeping of beauty contest is repugnant to the dignity or decency of women and offends Article 21 of the Constitution only if the same is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene or intended for blackmailing. Therefore, the government is empowered to prohibit the contest as objectionable performance under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [ix] , the Court struck down a provision of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Thi provision provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1 per month to a suspended government servant upon his conviction during the pendency of his appeal as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Sexual harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21.

“The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to compass all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. “

The above statement by Justice Verma in the famous Vishakha judgment liberalised the understanding of Article 21. Therefore, making it even more emancipatory.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [x] , the Supreme Court declared sexual harassment at the workplace to violate the right to equality, life and liberty. Therefore, a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

In this case, in the absence of a relevant law against sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to ensure gender parity in the workplace:

This meant that all employers or persons in charge of the workplace, whether in the public or private sector, should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment.

• Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace should be notified, published and circulated inappropriate ways.
• The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
• As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the prohibitions above in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Appropriate work conditions should be provided for work, leisure, health, and hygiene to ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at workplaces. No employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.
• Where such conduct amounts to specific offences under IPC or under any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.
• The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek the transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer.

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra [xi] , the Supreme Court reiterated the Vishakha ruling and observed that:

“There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in the violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India…. “In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated….”

Understanding Article 21 Through Against Sexual Assault and Rape 

Rape has been held to be a violation of a person’s fundamental life guaranteed under Article 21. Therefore, the right to life would include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and worth living.

In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [xii] , the Supreme Court observed:

“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Art 21”.

Right to Reputation and Article 21

Reputation is an essential part of one’s life. It is one of the finer graces of human civilisation that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referred to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis [xiii] in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [xiv] . It said:

“good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The Court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.”

The same American decision has also been referred to in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust [xv]. The Court held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to enjoy life, liberty and property.

It has been held that the right equally covers a person’s reputation during and after his death. Thus, any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would undoubtedly come under the scope of Article 21.

State of UP v. Mohammaad Naim [xvi] succinctly laid down the following tests while dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law. These are:

• whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself.
• whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks.
• Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct, it has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial. It should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve.

In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani [xvii] , a two-member commission got appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in the Bhagalpur district on  October 24, 1989. The commission made certain remarks in the report, which impinged upon the respondent’s reputation as a public man without allowing him to be heard. The Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and preserve one’s reputation, and one also had the right to protect it.

The Court further said that if any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to have his say in the matter. Finally, the Court observed that the principle of natural justice made it incumbent upon the authority to allow the person before any comment was made or opinion was expressed, likely to affect that person prejudicially.

Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram [xviii] , a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression ‘life’ in Article 21. The Court said curtly:

“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument that the word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”

But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 was read broadly. The Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni [xix] , came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Article 21 includes ‘the right to livelihood’.

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xx] , popularly known as the ‘Pavement Dwellers Case’, is important. Herein, a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:

“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

If the right to livelihood is not treated as part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation [xxi] .

In the instant case, the Court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

Emphasising upon the close relationship of life and livelihood, the Court stated:

“That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral part of the right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life [xxii] .”

Article 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and, for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Article 21 insists is that such lack ought to be according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore, anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can challenge such deprivation as being against Article 21 and get it declared void [xxiii] .

In DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [xxiv] , the Court was hearing a matter where an employee was laid off by issuing a notice without any reason. The Court held that the same was utterly arbitrary and violative of Article 21.

In M. Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd [xxv] , it was held that when a government servant or one in a public undertaking is suspended pending a departmental disciplinary inquiry against him, subsistence allowance must be paid to him. The Court has emphasised that a government servant does not have his right to life and other fundamental rights.

However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable and in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable.

In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [xxvi] , the SC held that the state acquired a landowner’s land following the procedure laid down in the relevant law of acquisition. So even though the right to livelihood of the landowner is adversely affected, it is not violated.

The Court opined that the state acquires land in exercising its power of eminent domain for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in place of land. Therefore, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. 21 is unsustainable.

In M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors [xxvii] , the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does protect livelihood. However, the Court added a rider that its deprivation could not be extended too far or projected or stretched to the recreation, business or trade detrimental to the public interest or has an insidious effect on public moral or public order.

The Court further held that regulating video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not violative of Article 21, nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair or unjust.

An important case that needs to be mentioned when speaking about the right to livelihood is MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY [xxviii].   In this case, the Court had held that a person could not be denied employment if they tested positive for HIV. And they cannot be rendered ‘medically unfit’ owing to the same. In interpreting the right to livelihood, the Court emphasised that the same couldn’t hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority.

Is Right to Work a Fundamental Right under Article 21?

In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [xxix] , the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to carry on any trade or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g). Regarding the same, the Court held that the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. Thus, Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and business.

The petitioners in the case were hawkers doing business off the paved roads in Delhi. They had claimed against the Municipal authorities who did not allow former to carry out their business. The hawkers claimed that the refusal to do so violated their Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court opined that the petitioners had a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their choice. However, they had no right to do so in a particular place. Hence, they couldn’t be permitted to carry on their trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to conveniently accommodate the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all or permitted once a week.

The Court also held that footpaths, streets or roads are public property intended to several general public and are not meant for private use. However, the Court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. Therefore, the two rights were too remote to be connected.

The Court distinguished the ruling in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [xxx]. In the case the Court held:

“in that case, the petitioners were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes existing in the midst of filth and squalor and that they had to stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in the city. It was not the case of a business of selling articles after investing some capital.”

In Secretary, the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [xxxi] , the Court rejected that right to employment at the present point of time can be included as a fundamental right under Right to Life under Art. 21.

Right to Shelter

In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited [xxxii] , the right to shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured under Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The state has to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses to make the right meaningful for the poor. [xxxiii] .

Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable accommodation in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [xxxiv] , the Court held:

“The Right to life 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 difference between the need for an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.

The Court advanced:

“For the animal it is the bare protection of the 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. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home, particularly for people in India, can even be a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.”

In Chameli Singh v. State of U P [xxxv] , a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen. And the same was read into Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘right to shelter’ was considered encompassing the right to life, making the latter more meaningful. The Court advanced:

“Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being [xxxvi] .”

Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of the family. K. Ramaswamy J., in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose [xxxvii] , held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under Art. 21. The learned judge explained:

“right to life and dignity of a person and status without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations for meaning the right to life and that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were an integral part of the right to life.”

In NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [xxxviii]  (Chakmas Case), the SC said that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. Further, it cannot permit anybody or a group of persons to threaten another person or group of persons. No state government worth the name can tolerate such threats from one group of persons to another group of persons. Therefore, the state is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults. If it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations.

In  Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pande Barde [xxxix] , it was held that the right to economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed Dalits was a fundamental right to make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.

In Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa [xl] , the Supreme held that security against sickness and disablement was a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Section 39(e) of the Constitution of India.

In LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre [xli] , it was further held that right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured.

Further, Surjit Kumar v. State of UP. [xlii] is a crucial case that reads Article 21 as extending protection against honour killing.  In the case, a division bench of Allahabad high court took serious note on harassment, ill-treatment, and killing of a person for wanting to get married to a person of another caste or community. The accused justified the harassment and killing, claiming that the victim had brought dishonour to the family. The Court said that such a practice of ‘honor killing’ was a blot on society and inter-caste marriage was not against the law. Therefore, the Court directed the police to take strong measures against the accused.

Right to Health and Medical Care

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla [xliii] , it was held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ‘ambit the right to health and medical care’.

In Vincent v. Union of India , [xliv] the Supreme Court   emphasised that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. Further, Article 47, a Directive Principle of State Policy, lays stress note on the improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs detrimental to health as one of the primary duties of the state [xlv] .

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India [xlvi] , the Supreme Court laid down:

“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity requires the state to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilised living. The health and strength of worker, the Court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Art. 21.”

In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India [xlvii] , the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that ‘once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored’. [xlviii] It was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with by the police.

Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those in charge of the community’s health to protect life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. No law can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession.

The Court also observed:

“Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the state to preserve life. The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment…. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.”

This link between the right to medical care and health and Article 21 played out most vividly during the pandemic. Especially since the state couldn’t manage the crisis and many people were left to fend for themselves.

To read about the right to health and Article 21, click here

Coming back to understanding the right to medical care pre-covid era, another case that understands this interlink better is Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal. [xlix] In this case, a person suffering from severe head injuries from a train accident was refused treatment at various hospitals on the excuse that they lacked the adequate facilities and infrastructure to provide treatment.

Through this case, the Supreme Court developed the right to emergency treatment. The Court went on to say that the failure on the part of the government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect to such a right. Still, it maintained that the state needed to provide for the resources to give effect to the people’s entitlement of receiving emergency medical treatment [l] .

It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing emergency medical care. Again, in Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others [li] , it was held that a hospital is duty-bound to accept accident victims and patients who are in critical condition and that it cannot refuse treatment on the ground that the victim is not in a position to pay the fee or meet the expenses or on the ground that there is no close relation of the victim available who can give consent for medical treatment [lii] .

The Court has laid stress on a crucial point, viz., the state cannot plead lack of financial resources to carry out these directions meant to provide adequate medical services to the people. The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical assistance to people on account of financial constraints.

But, in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [liii] , the Supreme Court recognised that provision of health facilities could not be unlimited. The Court held that it has to be to the extent finance permits. No country has unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects.

In Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India [liv] , the right to get free and timely legal aid or facilities was not held as a fundamental right of ex-servicemen. Therefore, a policy decision in formulating a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay a one-time contribution does not violate Art. 21, nor is it inconsistent with Part IV of the Constitution.

No Right to Die

While Article 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, does it also confers a right to a person to end their life? If so, then what is the fate of Section 309 Indian Penal Code (1860), which punishes a person convicted of attempting to commit suicide? There has been a difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the statute book.

This question came for consideration for the first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal. In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to die. The Hon’ble High Court struck down Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for an attempt to commit suicide on a person as unconstitutional.

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India [lv] , a two-judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court took cognisance of the relationship/contradiction between Section 309 IPC and Article 21. The Court supported the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubal’s Case held that the right to life embodies in Article 21 also embodied in it a right not to live a forced life, to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking.

The Court argued that the word life in Article 21 means the right to live with human dignity, and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the Court concluded that the right to live of which Article 21 speaks could bring in the right not to live a forced life. The Court further emphasised that an ‘attempt to commit suicide is, in reality, a cry for held and not for punishment’.

The Rathinam ruling came to be reviewed by a full bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvi] . The question before the Court was:  if the principal offence of attempting to commit suicide is void as unconstitutional vis-à-vis Article 21, then how abetment can thereof be punishable under Section 306 IPC?

It was argued that ‘the right to die’ had been included in Article 21 (Rathinam ruling) and Sec. 309 declared unconstitutional. Thus, any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in enforcing his fundamental Right under Article 21.

The Court overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Art.21 is a provision guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life’ be read to be included in the protection of life. The Court observed further:

“……’Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life”

However, in this regard, in 2020, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the central government. The Court had asked the center to explain its stance on the conflict between Section 309 and the Mental Healthcare Act, promulgated in 2017 (MHCA). As opposed to Section 309, which criminalises attempts to suicide, the MHCA proscribes prosecution of the person attempting it. Given that the Section is colonial legislation, many have vocalised to do away with the same altogether. Additionally, in 2018, in a 134-page-long judgment, Justice DY Chandrachud said it was ‘inhuman’ to punish someone who was already distressed .

Euthanasia and Right to Life

Euthanasia is the termination of the life of a person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvii] , the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and an attempt to commit suicide.

The Court held that death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent, and the process of natural death has commenced. Therefore, these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating the conclusion of the process of natural death that has already started.

The Court further held that this might fall within the ambit of the right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. However, this cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.

Sentence of Death –Rarest of Rare Cases

The law commission of India has dealt with the issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment, collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views expressed by western scholars. The commission recommended the retention of capital punishment in the present state of the country.

The commission held recognised the on-ground conditions of India. By that, it meant the difference in the social upbringing, morality and education, its diversity and population. Given all these factors, India could not risk the experiment of the abolition of capital punishment.

In Jagmohan v. State of U P [lviii] , the Supreme Court had held that the death penalty was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. It was said that the judge was to make the choice between the death penalty and imprisonment for life based on circumstances, facts, and nature of crime brought on record during trial. Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance with the procedure established by law as required under article 21

But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P. [lix] , Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the majority, held that capital punishment would not be justified unless it was shown that the criminal was dangerous to society. The learned judge plead for the abolition of the death penalty and said that it should be retained only for ‘white collar crimes’

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [lx] , the leading case of on the question, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court explained that article 21 recognised the right of the state to deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It was further held that the death penalty for the offence of murder awarded under section 302 of IPC did not violate the basic feature of the Constitution.

Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar [lxi] , it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution-free water and air which is included in ‘right to live’ under Art.21 of the Constitution. The Court observed:

“Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.32 of     the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”  

Right to Clean Environment

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created if not checked.

The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article 21:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988) [lxii] , the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries polluting the water.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) [lxiii] , the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [lxiv] , the Court took cognisance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. As a result, the Court issued several directions to deal with the problem.

In Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan [lxv] , the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” means clean surroundings, which leads to a healthy body and mind. It includes the right to freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas.

In  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) [lxvi] , the Court held that the blatant and large-scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi violated the right to a salubrious sand decent environment. Taking note of the problem, the Court issued directives to the government on the same.

In  Murli S. Deora v. Union of India [lxvii] , the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of the act of sTherefore, rights. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.

Right Against Noise Pollution

In Re: Noise Pollution [lxviii] , the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious noise levels due to the bursting of crackers during Diwali. The Apex Court suggested to desist from bursting and making use of such noise-making crackers and observed that:

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the life and personal liberty to all persons. It guarantees the right of persons to life with human dignity. Therein are included, all the aspects of life which go to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort, and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him.”

Continued…

“No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises that would travel beyond his precincts and cause the nuisance to neighbors or others. Any noise, which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man, is nuisance…. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 [lxix] “.

Right to Know

Holding that the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court in RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the conduct of affairs of the state.

In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong link between Art.21 and the right to know, particularly where secret government decisions may affect health, life, and livelihood.

Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, ruled that the citizens who had been made responsible for protecting the environment had a right to know the government proposal.

Read more about right to know here .

Personal Liberty

The liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As long as 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that,

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned… but… by the law of the land.

The smallest Article of eighteen words has the greatest significance for those who cherish the ideals of liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India, the concept of ‘liberty’ has received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognised as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The meaning of the term’ personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh’s case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits secret picketing.

Oddly enough, both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term ‘personal liberty’ by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois , which held the term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which life was enjoyed.

This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorising domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional.

The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those ‘necessarily’ lost as an incident of imprisonment

Right to Privacy and Article 21

Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy was considered a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. After the KS Puttuswamy judgment, the right to privacy has been read and understood by the Court in various landmark judgments.

The Supreme Court has culled the right to privacy from Article 21 and other provisions of the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Although no single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy, various statutes had provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserved this right . [lxx]

For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of UP , [lxxi] the Court questioned whether the right to privacy could be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came before the Court. “Surveillance” under Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations constituted an infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation 236(b), which permitted surveillance by “domiciliary visits at night”, was held to violate Article 21.  A seven-judge bench held that:

“the meanings of the expressions “life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 were considered by this Court in Kharak Singh’s case. Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no explicit guarantee of a “right to privacy”, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilisation”

In a minority judgment, in this case, Justice Subba Rao held that:

“the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where he lives with his family, is his ‘castle’; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty”.

This case, especially Justice Subba Rao’s observations, paved the way for later elaborations on the right to privacy using Article 21.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh [lxxii] , The Supreme Court took a more elaborate appraisal of the right to privacy. In this case, the Court was evaluating the constitutional validity of Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which provided for police surveillance of habitual offenders including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects. The Supreme Court desisted from striking down these invasive provisions holding that:

“It cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be an unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It is only persons who are suspected to be habitual criminals and those who are determined to lead a criminal life that is subjected to surveillance.”

The Court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an emanation from Arts.19(a), (d) and 21. Mathew J. observed in the instant case,

“The Right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a process of case by case development.        Hence, assuming that the right to personal liberty. the right to move freely throughout India and the freedom of speech create an independent fundamental right of privacy as an emanation from them that one can characterise as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute….. …… Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest.”

Scope and Content of Right to Privacy Pre-Puttaswamy Judgment

Read more about the right to privacy as part of Academike’s Constitutional Rights Series here

Tapping of Telephone

Emanating from the right to privacy is the question of tapping of the telephone.

In RM Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that Courts would protect the telephonic conversation of an innocent citizen against wrongful or high handed’ interference by tapping the conversation. However, the protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants.

Telephone tapping is permissible in India under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 . The Section lays down the circumstances and grounds when an order for tapping a telephone may be passed, but no procedure for making the order is laid down therein.

The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India held that in the absence of just and fair procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens under Section 19 and 21. Accordingly, the Court issued procedural safeguards to be observed before restoring to telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Act.

The Court further ruled:

“right to privacy is a part of the right to ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”. The Court has further ruled that Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. The procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.”

Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases

In Mr X v. Hospital Z [lxxv] , the question before the Supreme Court was whether the disclosure by the doctor that his patient, who was to get married had tested HIV positive, would be violative of the patient’s right to privacy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy was not absolute and might be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.

The Court explained that the right to life of a lady with whom the patient was to marry would positively include the right to be told that a person with whom she was proposed to be married was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable.

Since the right to life included the right to a healthy life to enjoy all the facilities of the human body in prime condition, it was held that the doctors had not violated the right to privacy.

Right to Privacy and Subjecting a Person to Medical Tests

It is well settled that the right to privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken to prevent crimes or disorder or protect health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. If there is a conflict between the fundamental rights of two parties, which advances public morality would prevail.

In the case Sharda v. Dharmpal [lxxvi] , a three-judge bench ruled that a matrimonial court had the power to direct the parties in a divorce proceeding to undergo a medical examination. A direction issued for this could not be held to violate one’s right to privacy. The Court, however, said that there must be sufficient material for this.

Right to Privacy: Woman’s Right to Make Reproductive Choices

A woman’s right to make reproductive choices includes the woman’s right to refuse participation in the sexual activity or the insistence on using contraceptive methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. The woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth subsequently raise children.

Right to Travel Abroad

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi [lxxvii] , the Supreme Court has included the right to travel abroad contained in the expression “personal liberty” within the meaning of Article 21.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [lxxviii] , the validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967, which empowered the government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of the general public, was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of the right to “personal liberty” the impugned Section didn’t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was violative of Art. 21.

The Court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that the right to travel abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding a passport under the Passport Act. Bhagwati, J., observed:

The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be “‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Right against Illegal Detention

In  Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxix] , the petitioner was detained by the police officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days. Taking serious note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during the investigation:

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled if he so requests to have a friend, relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

In the case of  DK. Basu v. State of West Bengal [lxxx] , the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and detention. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the guidelines be followed till legal provisions are made on that behalf as preventive measures. It also held that any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Article 21 and Prisoner’s Rights

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not deprived of all the fundamental rights they otherwise possess by mere reason of their conviction. Following the conviction of a convict is put into jail he may be deprived of fundamental freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed under Article 21, and he shall not be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by a procedure established by law [lxxxi] .

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21. The Court has interpreted Article 21 to have the widest possible amplitude. On being convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty following the procedure established by law. Article 21 has laid down a new constitutional and prison jurisprudence [lxxxii] .

The rights and protections recognised to be given in the topics to follow.

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

In  M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [lxxxiii] , while holding free legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure, the Court explained:

“the two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as government charity.”

In other words, an accused person, where the charge is of an offence punishable with imprisonment, is entitled to be offered legal aid if he is too poor to afford counsel. In addition, counsel for the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defence. Breach of these safeguards of a fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction.

Right to Speedy Trial

In  Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [lxxxiv] , the Supreme Court observed that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of law.

The Court noted the situation and observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such long periods without trials.

The Court held that detention of undertrial prisoners in jail for a period more than what they would have been sentenced to if convicted was illegal. And the same violated Article 21. The Court ordered to release of undertrial prisoners who had been in jail for a longer period than the punishment meted out in case of conviction.

In  A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [lxxxv] , a Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court dealt with the question and laid down specific guidelines for ensuring speedy trial of offences some of them have been listed below [lxxxvi] :

Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.

Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision, and retrial.

The concerns underlying the right of the speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are:

The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible.

The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and

Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend him.

While determining whether the undue delay has occurred, one must regard all the attendant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the number of accused and witnesses, and the Court’s workload concerned. Every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. An accuser’s plea of denial of the speedy trial cannot be defeated by saying that the accused did at no time demand a speedy trial

In the case of  Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [lxxxvii] , the Supreme Court directed the Judges of the High Courts to give quick judgments, and in certain circumstances, the parties are to apply to the Chief Justice to move the case to another bench or to do the needful at his discretion.

Right to Fair Trial

The free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme Court in  Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [lxxxviii] said that the right to free and fair trial to the accused and the victims, their family members, and relatives and society at large.

Right to Bail

The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to bathe present-day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which insists merely on financial security from the accused and their sureties. Many of the undertrials being poor and indigent are unable to provide any financial security. Consequently, they have to languish in prisons awaiting their trials.

But incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offences during the pendency of trial cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. In Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [lxxxix] , the Court held that the right to bail was included in the personal liberty under Article 21. Its refusal would be the deprivation of that liberty, which could be authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Anticipatory bail is a statutory right, and it does not arise out of Article 21. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.

Right Against Handcuffing

Handcuffing has been considered prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-harsh and at first flush, arbitrary. It has been held to be unwarranted and violative of Article 21.

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration [xc] , the Supreme Court struck down the Rules that provided that every undertrial accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. Instead, the Court ruled that handcuffing should be resorted to only when there was “clear and present danger of escape” of the accused under  -trial, breaking out of police control.

Right Against Solitary Confinement

It has been held that a convict is not wholly denuded of his fundamental rights, and his conviction does not reduce him into a non – person whose rights are subjected to the whims of the prison administration. Therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison system is conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguard.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [xci] , the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Delhi session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high Court. He was detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement.

It was contended that Section 30 of the Prisoners Act does not authorise jail authorities to send him to solitary confinement, which by itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could be imposed by a court of law. Therefore, it could not be left to the whim and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the petitioner’s argument and held that the imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of Article 21.

Right Against Custodial Violence

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of having committed crimes are routine. There has been a lot of public outcry from time to time against custodial deaths.

The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities, intimidation, harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has classified these as being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with human dignity and the same are available against torture.

Death by hanging is Not Violative of Article 21

In  Deena v. Union of India [xcii] , the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging was challenged as being “barbarous, inhuman, and degrading” and therefore violative of Article 21.

The Court, in this case, referred to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949, the opinion of the Director-General of Health Services of India, the 35 th Report of the Law Commission and the opinion of the Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts. Finally, it held that death by hanging was the best and least painful method of carrying out the death penalty. Thus, not violative of Article 21.

Right against Public Hanging

The Rajasthan High Court, by an order, directed the execution of the death sentence of an accused by hanging at the Stadium Ground of Jaipur. It was also directed that the execution should be done after giving widespread publicity through the media.

On receipt of the above order, the Supreme Court in  Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi [xciii] held that the direction for the execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.

It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice. Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric, it would be a shame on the civilised society to reciprocate the same. The Court said,

“a barbaric crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.”

Right Against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [xcv] , the Supreme Court held that the delay in execution of a death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection under Article 21 and the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of the delay is immaterial. The accused himself may be the cause of the delay.

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [xcvi] , the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for the execution of a death sentence is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure, and the only way to undo that is through Article 21.

But the Court held that this could not be taken as the rule of law and applied to each case, and each case should be decided upon its own facts.  

Procedure Established by Law and Article 21

The expression ‘procedure established by law’ has been the subject of interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in judicial interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression.

The Supreme Court took the view that ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American ‘due process of law’.

But, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘right, just and fair’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’.

It also held that otherwise, it would be no procedure, and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration said:

“(though) our Constitution has no due process clause (but after Maneka Gandhi’s case) the consequence is the same, and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of the due process clause in American Constitution.”

In December 1985, the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for killing two young women by setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move, the Court ordered both prisoners to be publicly executed.

In response to a review petition by the Attorney General against this judgment, the Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings, observing that ‘a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty’.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the execution of a death sentence by public hanging violates Article 21, which mandates the observance of a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

Thus, an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground, among other things, that it was violative of Article 21. Again, in Sher Singh v State of Punjab , the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death sentence violates Article 21.

The Supreme Court has taken the view that this Article read is concerned with the fullest development of an individual, ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Therefore, every procedure must seem to be ‘reasonable, fair and just’.

The right to life and personal liberty has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity.

The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be proportional to protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and the right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favour of the state is not reasonable, fair and just, even though the state cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood for all.

Under this doctrine, the Court will examine whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair and just. And whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable manner.

This has meant, for example, the right to a speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable, fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State action covering civil, criminal and administrative action.

In one of the landmark decisions in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India , the Supreme Court of India observed that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law.

The Court observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any process of law. Considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed the prohibition of smoking in public places.

It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take adequate steps to ensure the prohibition of smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions etc.

In this manner, the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon to include the rights of non-smokers.

Further, when there is an inordinate delay in the investigation – it affects the right of the accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can be no cause of action.

But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation, then the provisions of Article 21 are attracted. The right is against actual proceedings in Court and against police investigation.

The Supreme Court has widened the scope of ‘procedure established by law’ and held that merely a procedure had been established by law, a person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

Hence, it is well established that to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty must be done under a ‘procedure, established by law’. Such an exception must be made in a just, fair and reasonable manner and must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Therefore, for the procedure to be valid, it must comply with the principles of natural justice.

Article 21 and The Emergency 

In ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla [xcviii] , popularly known as the habeas corpus case, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty.

Therefore, if the presidential order suspended the right to move any court to enforce that right under Article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for challenging the legality of his detention.

Hence, such a wide connotation of Article 359 denied the cherished right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens. Experience established that during the emergence of 1975, the people’s fundamental freedom had lost all meaning.

So that it must not occur again, the constitution act, 1978, amended article 359 to the effect that during the operation of the proclamation of emergency, the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential order.

Given the 44 th amendment, 1978, the observations in the above-cited judgments are left merely of academic importance.

India, legal Service. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – the Expanding Horizons , www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Scribd , Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India.

Math, Suresh Bada. “10. Rights of Prisoners.” Nimhans.kar.nic.in , www.academia.edu/1192854/10._RIGHTS_OF_PRISONERS.

“SC Agrees to Examine Right to Shelter for PAVEMENT DWELLERS-INDIA News , Firstpost.” Firstpost , Sept. 2013, www.firstpost.com/india/sc-agrees-to-examine-right-to-shelter-for-pavement-dwellers-1108073.html.

admin on August 31, 2016 4:32 PM, et al. Human Rights and Jurisprudence: Right to Life / Livelihood Archives , www.hurights.or.jp/english/human_rights_and_jurisprudence/right-to-lifelivelihood/.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India – DISCUSSED!” Your Article Library , 24 Feb. 2014, www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-discussed/5497/.

“Honour Killing.” LAW REPORTS INDIA , 29 Apr. 2011, lawreports.wordpress.com/category/honour-killing/.

Grewal, Puneet Kaur. “Honour Killings and Law in India.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science , vol. 5, no. 6, 2012, pp. 28–31., doi:10.9790/0837-0562831.

Annavarapu, Sneha. “Honor Killings, Human Rights and Indian Law.” Economic and Political Weekly , www.academia.edu/5386926/Honor_Killings_Human_Rights_and_Indian_Law.

Nandimath, Omprakash V. “Consent and Medical Treatment: The Legal Paradigm in India.” Indian Journal of Urology : IJU : Journal of the Urological Society of India , Medknow Publications, July 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779959/.

http://www.hrln.org/hrln/peoples-health-rights/pils-a-cases/1484-sc-reaffirms-workers-right-to-health-and-medical-care.html

Cases as appearing in the Article:

[i] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[ii] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[iii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[iv] 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

[v] 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

[vi] 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

[vii] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42 nd Ed. (2005), p. 222

[viii] AIR 1998 AP 302

[ix] 983 AIR 803, 1983 SCR (3) 327

[x] AIR 1997 SC 3011 : (1997) 6 SCC 241

[xi] AIR 1999 SC 625

[xii] 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490

[xiii] 55 American LR 171

[xiv] 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 20

[xv] AIR 1989 SC 714.

[xvi] 1964 AIR 703, 1964 SCR (2) 363

[xvii] AIR 2003 SC 3357

[xviii] AIR 1960 SC 932

[xix] AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) 1 SCC 124

[xx] AIR 1986 SC 180

[xxii] http://rshrc.nic.in/07%20Human%20Right%20Article-21.pdf

[xxiii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5 th Ed. (2003), p. 1315

[xxiv] AIR 1991 SC 101

[xxv] AIR 1999 SC 1416 : (1999) 3 SCC 679

[xxvi] Air 1996 SC 1051 : (1996) 2 SCC 549

[xxvii] AIR 1995 SC 1770, JT 1995 (4) SC 141, (1995) 2 MLJ 38 SC

[xxviii] AIR 1997 Bom. 406

[xxix] AIR 1989 SC 1988

[xxx] Supra Note ( 10 to be corrected.. olgatellis)

[xxxi] 2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806.

[xxxii] AIR 1996 SC 114

[xxxiii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India

[xxxiv] AIR (1990) SC 630 : (1990) 92 BOMLR 145 : JT 1990 (1) SC 106

[xxxv] 1996 AIR 1051, 1995( 6 )Suppl. SCR 827, 1996( 2 )SCC 549

[xxxvi] http://nsm.org.in/2008/08/29/judicial-activism-on-right-to-shelter-rights-of-the-urban-poor/

[xxxvii] AIR (1992)573 :(1991) SCR Supl. (2) 267 (Minority Opinion)

[xxxviii] AIR (1996) 1234 :(1996) SCC (1) 742

[xxxix] (1995) Supp 2 SCC 549

[xl] AIR 1995 SC 1811

[xli] AIR (1995)1811 :(1995) SCC (5) 482

[xlii] AIR 2002 NOC 265

[xliii] AIR (1997) SC 1225

[xliv] 1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468

[xlv] Supra note p.1639

[xlvi] AIR (1995) 922, (1995) SCC (3) 42

[xlvii] AIR (1989) 2039, (1989) SCR (3) 997

[xlviii] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6 th (2010), p. 1616

[xlix] 1996 SCC (4) 37, JT 1996 (6) 43

[l] http://blog.medicallaw.in/supreme-court-of-india-on-emergency-healthcare/

[li] II (2005) CPJ 35 NC

[lii] Supra note 41 paschim bagga case online like at end of paragraph

[liii] AIR 1998 SC 1703 : (1998) 4 SCC 117

[liv] AIR 2006 SC 2945 : (2006) 8 SCC 199

[lv] 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

[lvi] 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

[lvii] Ibid

[lviii] AIR 1973 SC 947

[lix] AIR 1979 SC 916

[lx] AIR 1980 SC 898

[lxi] 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

[lxii] AIR 1988 SC 1037 : (1987) 4 SCC 463

[lxiii] AIR 1997 SC 734 : (1997) 2 SCC 353

[lxiv] AIR 1996 SC 2721 : (1996) 5 SCC 647

[lxv] (2007) 2 SCC 413

[lxvi] (2006) 3 SCC 399

[lxvii] AIR 2002 SC 40 : (2001) 8 SCC 765

[lxviii] Writ Petition (civil) 72 of 1998

[lxix] Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution v. Union Of India &Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3136 : (2005) 5 SCC 439

[lxx] https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/ii-legal-framework-0

[lxxi] AIR 1963 SC 1295

[lxxii] 1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946

[lxxiii] 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632

[lxxiv] AIR 1997 SC 568

[lxxv] AIR 1995 SC 495

[lxxvi] AIR 2003 SC 3450

[lxxvii] 967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525

[lxxviii] 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[lxxix] AIR 1994 SC 1349

[lxxx] AIR 1997 SC 610

[lxxxi] Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India 47 th Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, p. 269

[lxxxii] See Kumar, Narender, The Constitutional Law of India, 1 st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009, p-158

[lxxxiii] AIR 1978 SC 1548

[lxxxiv] AIR 1979 SC 1360

[lxxxv] AIR 1992 SC 170

[lxxxvi] Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6 th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010, p.1200

[lxxxvii] AIR 2001 SC 3173

[lxxxviii] AIR 2006 SC 1367

[lxxxix] AIR 1978 SC 527

[xc] AIR 1980 SC 1535

[xci] AIR 1978 SC 1675

[xcii] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xciii] AIR 1986 SC 467

[xciv] AIR 1983 SC 1155

[xcv] AIR 1981 SC 643

[xcvi] AIR 1983 SC 465

[xcvii] AIR 1966 SC 424

[xcviii] AIR 1976 SC 1207

Related Posts:

47 thoughts on “Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws-Academike Explainer”

The information is quite helpful. Thanks

above the information sufficient for my case……….thanks

thanks ? If u need any help please let me know

very very informative…thanks..god bless you for spreading knowledge….

Awesome .this is 360′ information canopy .

very well presented…very useful and informative article

it is very nice work to 21 artices i am very heipful in all my acadimc year .LLb

what about right to choice falling under the same article?

I would expect, that falls within the ambit of “personal liberty.”

Sir how could I get natural justice as poor man, I am not able to afford fees of court etc. Help me. Facts with related land disputed.

Very Well drafted after depth research on the topic. Good reference specially to the judgments/law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. THANK YOU for serving society. Very useful for everyone.

Good work. It is very helpful to everyone to know about Article 21, especially to law students.Thanks a lot.

Thanks for the details

it’s good relay helping to the staudy

1. Thanks for a very exhaustive discussion and its footnotes. 2. I am an accused in a fake criminal case filed by my sibling about misappropriation of funds from our father’s firm. Based on this the IO sealed all bank accounts belonging to my father, me, my wife etc., in year-2014. They continue to be sealed. 3. My father died in 2016, so anyways the banks have sealed his accounts till a successor is decided. The charge sheet was filed in Feb-2017. 4. There is a nexus between my sibling and the IO and whatever information that I provide to the IO reaches my sibling, which is detrimental to me. 5. U/s 173(8) CrPC, (ongoing investigation), can the IO force me to provide details of my new bank accounts, which I started after the date when he sealed all accounts in 2014? 6. Can I refuse to provide the IO this information using the protection offered by Article 21 of the Constitution? 7. Thanks.

It’s really help me for my clat preparation ….

can a resident of society ,write on Facebook /social media that association members are goonda/goons ,related to apartment owners association

thank u for the wonderful explanation

Thank u so much This information is really helpful

its very effective

A wonderful article

Is there any special format for filing cases in supreme court for the violation of dignity?

Floods, due to human negligence and loss of human lives, loss of livestock and agricultural loss that disrupts Right to Life which also comes under Article 21, have not been covered in the article.

People are fighting for resarvations these days why? Art 21 of our constitution embodies Equal right to life and liberty still why they fight for Resarvations why?

Reservation is politically motivated, every political party wants to continue reservation for seeking votes, since in our country caste and religion play a vital role In every election. The only solution is to give up reservation by those who don’t really need it.

It is in article 15 where suoreme court held that the state is permitted to make any provision for the advancement of any social and educationally backward classes. I prefer you to go through RIGHT TO EQUALITY article(14-18) Its clear all your fought regarding reservation and quota etc

If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

It is my first comment. If you desire to know what is a hard work. Then this thesis on Article 21 shows the brilliant work done by a student. I wish great success to the author.

If you are going for finest contents like me, simply go to see this site daily as it offers quality contents, thanks

Is premature termination from employment without any reason against Article 21 of our Constitution?

Awesome post.

thankyou your feedback

The whole Article is explained in a very easy laungage, with land mark cases this is the best example of compilation of the work. I appreciate the efforts taken by the author

reservations in education and jobs are supposed to be for 10 years. But they appear to be perennial. In this context in have got certain doubts. 1. Did Dr Ambedkar suggest reservations only based on cast. regardless of merit,aptitude and capability? 2. Is it fair for a collector or doctor to retain the reservation facility for his children? 3.Reservation is snatching away opportunities from poor eligible, so called upper class candidates. Is it not against his fundamental right to live ?

The very purpose of Reservations is Adequate Representation in all feilds mandated by the Indian Constitution.But people from certain communities think Reservations means earmarking certain number of posts in the field of employment for the SC and ST communities.Here one more thing is to mention. Reservations are extended after every ten years.Why? Becasue in the knowledge of Govt the goals set by are not acheived. But the occupancy in high level posts by the non reserved communities is abnormal.It is an open secret but nobody questions.The answer is best known to the people who points their finger at the SC and STs only.

what is the relation between liberty and life

Excellent Information provides To read more visit the link :

‘The Supreme Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint, and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ Can somebody please cite the case in which this was held by Supreme Court of India?

This article is so informative and yet not too exhaustive to understand! Thankyou so much, it’s of great help

Greetings, Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. You’re doing a great job, Keep it up. You can check out this article, might be of help 🙂

it is very useful

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Thanks, I’m not interested

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution with Top 10 Cases

• Constitutional Law Subject-wise Law Notes
• August 2, 2020

The scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow till 1950s.

In A.K.Gopalan vs State of Madras court held that the contents and subject matter of Article 21 and 19 (1) (d) are not identical and they proceed on total principles. In this case the word deprivation was construed in a narrow sense and it was held that the deprivation does not restrict upon the right to move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d).

Next in line came the judgement in the famous case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP where Supreme Court considered the said regulation as ultravires Article 21 and Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution and held that domiciliary visits by the police every night to check and monitor the doings of Kharak Singh were violative of his right to personal liberty and right to freedom of movement as “personal liberty meant much more than mere animal existence”.

In  R.C. Cooper v. Union of India Popularly known as the Bank Nationalisation Case, the apex court overruled the ratio laid down in A. K. Gopalan case and rejected the mutual exclusivity theory. The court gave preference to the effect test over object test. In case effect of any act violates the fundamental rights of citizens, it shall be violative of the Constitution and liable to be struck down.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Apex Court opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty.

This view has been further relied upon in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others .

In another case of Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, it was further observed: Just as a mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so, unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right must conform the norms of justice and fair play. Procedure, which is just or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it.

As stated earlier, the protection of Article 21 is wide enough and it was further widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others in respect of bonded labour and weaker section of the society. It lays down as follows: Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him.

The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right to rehabilitation after release, right to live hood by legal means and decent environment. The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and some of them are listed below: (1) The right to go abroad. (2) The right to privacy. (3) The right against solitary confinement. (4) The right against hand cuffing. (5) The right against delayed execution. (6) The right to shelter. (7) The right against custodial death. (8) The right against public hanging. (9) Doctors assistance

Through various judgments the Apex Court also included many of the non-justifiable Directive Principles embodied under part IV of the Constitution and some of the examples are as under: (a) Right to pollution free water and air. (b) Protection of under-trial. (c) Right of every child to a full development. (d) Protection of cultural heritage.

The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and others it was held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstance the state is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

While dealing with the provision of Article 21 in respect of personal liberty, Hon’ble Supreme Court put some restrictions in a case of Javed and others v. State of Haryana , as: requirement of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights.

Thus it is clear that the provision Article 21 was constructed narrowly at the initial stage but the law in respect of life and personal liberty of a person was developed gradually and a liberal interpretation was given to these words.

You might be interested to refer:

• Top 10 Rights under Article 21 (with important Case Laws)
• Changing Dimensions of Article 21
• Case Brief: A.K. Gopalan v. State Of Madras
• Case Brief: Maneka Gandhi v Union of India
• Case Brief: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

You might like

Indian Medical Association vs VP Shantha

Ubi jus ibi remedium

Judex Damnatur Cum Nocens Absolvitur

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment

• Know the law
• Legal format
• Video Tutorials
• Event Outreach Plans
• Submit post

ARTICLE 21: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

It is a very well known fact that legislature (state and union) has the sole power to make laws. However, the power of making laws is not absolute and is subject to adjudication by the judiciary. While it is very clear that judicial activism has been increased in the 20th century, we can also observe how creative the judiciary has become recently in the case of interpretation of Article 21 in number of ways possible. The term ‘life’ in Article 21 is not the mere animal existence. Article 21 has been interpreted widely by the judiciary so that it may include every other right which makes life of an individual meaningful, complete, dignified and worth living. Some of the elements that are related to Article 21 are discussed separately below-

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

Livelihood includes basic shelter, food and occupation without which it is impossible to live. Right to livelihood emerges out of Right to life and no person can live without the means of living or without the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood was not considered as an important right arising from right to life, it would be very easy to deprive a person from his right to life by depriving him of his means of living.

But, before the case of Maneka Gandhi , in the case of Re Sant Ram , the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood would not considered under the canopy of right to life under Article 21, Later this judgement was overruled after further interpretation of article 21 and the word ‘life’. In the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay V. Dilip kumar Raghavendra nath Nandkarni and Olga Jellis V Bombay Municipal Corporation , it was held that right to livelihood was an intrinsic part of right to life under Article 21.

RIGHT TO HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE

A person cannot enjoy his rights if he/she is suffering from health ailments. A healthy body is required as it is the base of all the human activities. In the case of Vincent V. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that healthy body is the very foundation and humans without a healthy body cannot enjoy their rights and cannot live their life with dignity. Under Article 47 of Indian Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy provides for improvement of health and prohibition of drugs as the state’s duty

PRISONER’S RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 2 1

There are certain rights under article 21 which are available to the prisoner0s in the view that they must not be deprived of their fundamental rights only because they are convicts of certain crimes. However, they are not allowed to enjoy all the fundamental rights0 like right to move freely in the territory of India. Some of such rights of the prisoners which are protected are as follows :-

A prisoner has the right to free legal aid and right to appeal in higher courts. The free legal aid is provided to the person accused if he is too poor to afford a counsel for his representation. In the case of M.H. Hoskot V. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held free legal aid as important ingredient of fair trial. The prisoner must also be given sufficient time to appeal in the courts. Prisoners, who are in custody and detained or suspicion, have right against custodial violence. Due to lot of custodial deaths and third degree methods. A person’s fundamental right under article 21 is violated and Court has classified them as against human dignity. The Supreme Court , in the case of Attorney General of India V. Lachma Devi , held that a barbaric crime should not be punished with barbaric penalty. Direction for death sentence (public hanging) was held unconstitutional and violative of article 21

we can draw the conclusion that before the case of Maneka Gandhi, definition of life and article 21 had been much narrower, like right to education was kept under DPSP and there was no thought given to right to privacy, but the judicial activism plus the judicial creativity led to wider interpretation of article 21 which included every possible perspective of right to life. The Supreme Court has played a very significant role in interpreting article 21 and it is quite possible that we can see certain more dimensions added to word ‘life’ under article 21.

About the author –

This article is authored by Prabhjot Singh, third year B.B.A. LL.B. (H) student at Galgotias University, Greater Noida.

Related Posts

ALL ABOUT AUDITORS & AUDIT COMMITTEE

Introduction: An auditor may be a person authorized to review and verify the accuracy of monetary records and make sure…

EXOTIC CRIME: ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE

100 Tigers, 1000 Rhinos, 20,000 Elephants are lost to this trade every year. Exotic animals are wild in nature. They…

INTRODUCTION TO HINDU LAW

Origination Hinduism, it has rightly been said, is a mass of fluctuating faiths and opinions, embracing within itself a vast…

14 Famous Cases Related to Article 21

Case Laws Related To Article 21

Right To Life And Personal Liberty

○ A.K Gopalan vs. the State of Madras, 1951 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available only against the executive action. But legislative may deprive a person by making a law.

○ Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 1978 In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available not only against executive action but also against legislative.

In simple words, the legislature cannot deprive a person of the right to life and personal liberty even by making a law.

Scope Of Article 21

The right to life does not mean only animal existence. Under this article right to life means all the aspects of life which make human life dignified.

Must Read : Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Explained in Simple Words

○ Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP and Others The right to privacy is included in the right to life.

○ Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration Protection to the convicted and accused person. In this case, the Supreme Court held that fatal cuffs are unconstitutional for a convicted person because it is an inhuman behaviour with the prisoners, and it is a violation of Article 21.

○ Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration Hon’ble Supreme court held that handcuffing is also unconstitutional because it is violative of Article 21.

○ Mohini Jain vs. the State of Karnataka, 1992 SC Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to education also.

○ Unni Krishnan vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 SC Supreme court held the right to education is a fundamental right, as decided in Mohini Jain Case. But in such case, Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the age that it is a fundamental right to the children for the age of 6-14 years.

In the light of two above judgements, the parliament enacted the Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

○ Satwant Singh vs. APO Delhi In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that right to go abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Subhash Kumar vs. the State of Bihar The right to get the pollution-free air is also a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Olega Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.M.C) In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is included in Article 21.

○ Lachma Devi vs. Attorney General of India Supreme Court held that the execution of a death sentence at a public place is unconstitutional, and it is violative of Article 21.

○ Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar Supreme Court held that equal justice and free legal aid of an accused person is a fundamental right under Article 21.

○ Rudal Shah vs. the State of Bihar In this case, the Supreme Court held that to get compensation in case of illegal imprisonment is a fundamental right of a prisoner.

○ Chandrima Das vs. Railway Chairman Board The compensation to the rape victim is also a fundamental right under Article 21.

Read Next : What Is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

• Latest Posts

• Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
• Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024

Let us all support financially also and strengthen the hands.

Thank you very much for your kind words.

It is a great website for studying law.. Notes… 😊😊

Thank you for your kind words.

It’s good snap shot notes..really useful for long answer

Thank you very much for your appreciation. Your comment has made my morning better.

So helpful, i would suggest you to put citations too. And hoping to get case law for article 32, 226, 136. As these are most important for maintainability.

Thankyou so much

Sure. In near future, I would make law notes on these.

Comments are closed.

How to Start Studying Law – For New, Existing, and Old Students

How to Study and Prepare for Judiciary Exams (13 tips)

11 Tips to Pass AIBE With Bare Acts and MCQ Tests in 2024

How to Write the Best Answer in Judiciary Mains Exam

10 Legal Jobs and Career Options After Law in 2024

Best Books for Judiciary Exam Preparation in 2024

My name is Ankur . I am a law graduate. I was my college topper for five years. In March 2018, I started WritingLaw.com . The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean and comfortable.

Everything is going well . This is because of law students, advocates, judges and professors like you, who give me satisfaction, hope and the motivation to keep working. Thank you for your love and support. I hope you have a fruitful time here.

Law Study Material

© 2018-2024 | About Us |  Contact Us | Privacy Policy | T&C | Disclaimer | Cookies | Sitemap

• IAS Preparation
• NCERT Notes for UPSC
• Polity Notes UPSC
• Right to Life (Article 21)

Right to Life (Article 21) - Indian Polity Notes

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is assured by the Indian Constitution under Article 21. This is a very important and wide topic and has several implications for the citizens of India. In this article, you can read all about Article 21 and what it entails for the UPSC IAS exam .

Right to Life – Indian Polity Download PDF Here

Right to Life

According to Article 21 :

“Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• Right to life
• Right to personal liberty
• The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that the Constitution guarantees.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’ . 
• The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only . State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
• Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be under Article 226 or under general law.
• The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.
• The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.

Interpretation of Article 21

Judicial intervention has ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widening by several landmark judgements .

A few important cases concerned with Article 21:

• AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’.
• Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. Here, the SC said that Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. Read the Maneka Gandhi case in detail in the linked article.
• Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): In this case, the court held that any procedure for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.
• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case reiterated the stand taken earlier that any procedure that would deprive a person’s fundamental rights should conform to the norms of fair play and justice.
• Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life.

The Court gave a list of rights that Article 21 covers based on earlier judgments. Some of them are:

• Right to privacy
• Right to go abroad
• Right to shelter
• Right against solitary confinement
• Right to social justice and economic empowerment
• Right against handcuffing
• Right against custodial death
• Right against delayed execution
• Doctors’ assistance
• Right against public hanging
• Protection of cultural heritage
• Right to pollution-free water and air
• Right of every child to a full development
• Right to health and medical aid
• Right to education
• Protection of under-trials

Given below are a few other important links related to Indian law and rights, aspirants can refer to the same for UPSC preparation:

Right to Life and Suicide

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes attempted suicide a criminal offence which is punishable with imprisonment and fine. 

• There were many debates on whether this should continue since mental health experts have argued that people who attempt suicide need adequate counselling and not punishment. 
• The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was passed by the Parliament and the law came into force in 2018. This Act is meant to provide “for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare and services.”
• This law decriminalises suicide in India. 
• The law states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code”.

Arguments against decriminalising suicide:

• No person has a complete autonomy with respect to his/her life. He/she has a duty with respect to his family. In many cases, a person’s suicide could lead to a family being destitute.
• Decriminalising suicide might lead to decriminalising the abetment to suicide . The counterargument to this point is that suicide alone can be decriminalised by having the necessary amendments or legal provisions to cover abetment to suicide.

Arguments in favour of decriminalising suicide:

• This is the only case where an attempt to a crime is punishable and not the crime itself (because a person becomes beyond the reach of law if suicide is complete).
• Suicide is committed/attempted by people who are depressed and under severe stress. People who attempt suicide need counselling and medical help, not a jail warden’s severe authority.
• Decriminalising an attempt to suicide is different from conferring the ‘right to die’.

Right to Life and Euthanasia

There are many debates on whether the right to life also extends to the right to die, especially to die with dignity. Euthanasia is a topic that is frequently seen in the news. Many countries have legalised euthanasia (the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg). 

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life in order to relieve suffering and pain. It is also called ‘mercy killing’. 

There are various types of euthanasia: Passive and Active.

Passive Euthanasia: This is where treatment for the terminally-ill person is withdrawn, i.e., conditions necessary for the continuance of life are withdrawn.

Active Euthanasia: This is where a doctor intentionally intervenes to end someone’s life with the use of lethal substances.

This is different from physician-assisted suicide where the patient himself administers the lethal drugs to himself. In active euthanasia, it is a doctor who administers the drugs.

Voluntary euthanasia: Under this, euthanasia is carried out with the patient’s consent.

Non-voluntary euthanasia: Under this, patients are unable to give consent (coma or severely brain-damaged), and another person takes this decision on behalf of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: Euthanasia is done against the will of the patient, and this is considered murder.

International Position on Euthanasia:

In the Netherlands and Belgium, both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal.

In Germany, euthanasia is illegal while physician-assisted suicide is legal.

Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in India, Australia, Israel, Canada and Italy.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia has been made legal in India.

• In 2018, the SC legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state.
• This decision was made as a part of the verdict in the famous case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been living in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades until her death in 2015.
• The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. Active euthanasia is illegal in India .
• As there is no law regulating euthanasia in the country, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law.
• Passive euthanasia is legal under strict guidelines.
• Living Will: It is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make such decisions for themselves due to illness or incapacity.
• When the executor (of the living will) becomes terminally ill with no hope of recovery, the doctor will set up a hospital medical board after informing the patient and/or his guardians.

You can read all about the concept of euthanasia at the linked article.

Kickstart your UPSC 2024  Preparation today!

Complement your IAS exam preparation with the links given below:

UPSC Questions related to Right to Life

What is article 21 a.

Article 21 A states that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may by law determine. Read more on the Right to Education Act .

Is Article 21 an absolute right?

No, it is not an absolute right. The State can impose restrictions on the right to life and liberty but it should be fair, reasonable and just, and as per the procedure established by law.

Can Article 21 be suspended during an emergency?

Article 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency. The 44th Amendment of the Constitution provided that this article could not be suspended even during an emergency.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Right to Medical Aid Under Article 21 – A Case Study of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India

In the case of parmanand katara v. union of india, the supreme court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. it was the constitutional right of… read more ».

In the case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the Supreme court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. It was the constitutional right of accident victims to get life-saving treatment and this right could not be taken away by any enactment.

Introduction

The medical profession is considered an honourable and noble profession because the medical professionals exercise their expertise, skill, knowledge, and caution to save lives. People look up to doctors and consider them as the only ray of hope for a person hanging on a tightrope between death and life.

Apart from having a noble side, the medical profession also has an undesirable side where people are refused treatment solely on the basis that the hospital and the doctors do not want to get involved in a legal quagmire of formalities, police questioning, court summons, and cross-examinations. Unfortunately, there have been instances where doctors have refused treatment to injured patients simply because they were not handling medico-legal cases.

Countless lives have been lost to delay and non-cooperation of hospitals to treat accident cases just because they involved a medico-legal question. It is this question that was brought up before the Supreme Court of India for its consideration in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India [1] through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Background of the Case

Human life holds paramount value in the world. Protection of humanity is one of the several aspirations which governments across the globe strive to achieve and safeguarding the health of people is an aspect of the same. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life of people, but hospitals and medical practitioners across the country had been refusing treatment to accident victims solely because they were not authorized to handle medico-legal cases or simply because they did not want to handle a police case. This lack of sensitivity shown by the hospitals was costing many accident victims their life, amounting to a violation of their right to protection of life under Article 21.

Therefore, in 1989 in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the question came before the Supreme Court for its consideration in the form of a PIL filed by petitioner Parmanand Katara. The apex court interpreted the right to medical aid as an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 and held that no accident victim could be denied treatment at hospitals simply because the hospital did not handle medico-legal cases. It was the constitutional right of accident victims to get life-saving treatment and this right could not be taken away by any enactment.

Facts of the case

A medico-legal case is one wherein in any case of injury, the attending doctor after performing a clinical examination and taking the history of the patient considers whether the investigation by law enforcement agencies is necessary to ascertain the circumstance and to fix responsibility for the said injury according to the law. [2]

The petitioner, Parmanand Katara, had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, making the Union of India the respondent. The petitioner was a human rights activist fighting for the causes in the general public’s interest. The petition was based on a newspaper report published in the Hindustan Times titled – “ Law Helps the Injured to Die ”.

The newspaper report claimed that a scooterist was hit by a speeding car. The injured scooterist was picked up from the road by a person and taken to a nearby hospital. On reaching the hospital, the doctors refused to treat the injured scooterist as the hospital was not authorized to handle medico-legal cases and asked the person to take the injured scooterist to another hospital twenty kilometres away which was authorized to treat such cases.

The good citizen lost no time to take the scooterist to the other hospital, but owing to the delay in availing of medical treatment, the victim succumbed to the injuries on the way.

Provisions referred to in the case

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, was referred to in the case along with clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970.

Issues Raised

The issue raised by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was of utmost importance. It was: Whether an accident victim could be allowed treatment by a hospital without the hospital having to comply with several legal formalities before giving medical aid to the person?

Ordinarily, the contending parties raise arguments that favor their case best and usually have opposing arguments to counter the other. However, in this case, the arguments of the respondent were in line with the arguments raised by the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that a direction should be given to the respondent stating that every injured person brought to a hospital for treatment should be given the necessary medical care to preserve the life of that person. Further, the petitioner prayed that to avoid death caused by negligence, only after medical treatment had been given to that person should the procedural criminal code be allowed to operate.

If such direction is breached then appropriate compensation must be awarded to the victim, apart from any action that might be taken for negligence. Consequently, The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India, the Medical Council of India, and the Indian Medical Association were added as respondents to the petition.

The respondent, The Secretary of the Medical Council of India , drew the court’s attention to clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics, 1970. Clause 10 of the 1970 Code stated that a physician is not bound to treat everyone who seeks his/her service except in case of emergencies for the sake of preserving life and that they should assist in treating the sick and should always remember that the lives of others are entrusted to his/her skill, care, and attention.

Clause 13 of the said Code stated that a medical practitioner is free to choose whom they will treat, but should always render his/her skills for assisting in emergency cases. Once the medical practitioner has undertaken a case, they should not neglect the patient and should not withdraw from the case without giving notice in advance to the patient, the patient’s relatives, or friends. The clause further states that a medical practitioner should not wilfully commit negligence that might deprive the patient of medical care.

The respondents, the Medical Council of India, argued that it was expected of medical professionals to look after the injured at once and to avail them timely medical care irrespective of whether the victim was in an accident or otherwise, and that any legal formalities given in any law should not prevent a medical practitioner from treating injured patients. Any legal formalities to be completed must be undertaken after giving primary care to the patient.

Further, they stated that it was their view that the government should amend all the provisions in existing laws and if required then make provisions that allow medical practitioners to offer instant medical assistance to the injured person without any delay and without waiting for legal formalities to be completed before the police. They also requested that the medical practitioners should be indemnified against any action which may be brought against them for not completing the legal formalities before treating the patients since they would only be performing their duty and abiding by the oath undertaken by them.

The Council further requested that doctors working in public, as well as private hospitals, should be free from fear of being prosecuted for not fulfilling legal formalities before giving treatment. Doctors should not be encumbered while extending medical care to patients in such cases fearing they would be hassled by the police or taken to the court. They also requested that the Evidence Act of 1872 , should be amended so that the doctor’s diary which has all the details of accident cases should be accepted as evidence in the court without requiring the physical presence of the doctors themselves to prove the same.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare apprised the honorable Supreme Court of the meeting held by it on behalf of the Union of India and highlighted the essential decisions taken in the meeting. First, whenever a medico-legal case arrived at the hospital, the medical practitioner should inform the name, gender, and age of the patient, and place and time of occurrence of the incident to the police constable on duty and start the required treatment of the patient without waiting for completion of legal formalities or arrival of the police.

The constable must inform the concerned police station or superiors about the same. A full medical report of the case should be prepared by the medical practitioner and should be handed over to the police after the treatment has been given to the patient.

Second, the zonal classification of cities for medico-legal cases would apply only to those cases which were brought by the police. The medico-legal cases coming to the hospitals on their own should not be refused treatment, nor referred to other hospitals, even if the case occurred in the area of another zonal hospital.

Irrespective of whether a case was medico-legal or otherwise, all the government hospitals and medical institutes should provide instantaneous treatment to all the patients. The practice of refusing patients simply because it is a medico-legal case is unacceptable. After providing primary care, the patient could be referred to another hospital if the expertise or facilities required for further treatment of the patient are not available at the hospital.

The Union of India and the Medical Council of India also submitted that there was no law justifying the conduct of the doctors and that none of the laws prevented medical professionals from attending to an accident victim immediately, before the arrival of the police, or before the completion of legal formalities. On the contrary, it was the duty of medical professionals to treat the patients as soon as they were brought to the hospital. It was the doctor’s paramount obligation and duty to save human life. However, despite all this, the problem of refusing accident patients continues in the hospitals and clinics across the country.

Both the judges, honorable Justice Ranganath Misra and Justice G. L. Oza gave concurring judgments.

• The Supreme Court recognized that the preservation of human life and its value came before all else and it was the necessary duty of medical professionals to save the life of any patient who came to them for treatment.
• The medical professionals must treat all patients, whether an innocent citizen or a criminal liable to be punished by the law, so that the life of the innocent citizen could be saved and the crime of the offender could be punished because social laws do not see death by negligence as equal to legal punishment.
• Article 21 of the Constitution says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”, and puts an obligation on the state to preserve life. Hence, a doctor serving at government hospitals, or at private hospitals, or otherwise has a professional obligation to exercise their skill, knowledge, and due expertise to save and protect life. Therefore, no laws or state action can interfere in the discharge of this paramount obligation cast upon medical professionals, and shall hence give away.
• No doctor contravenes any law of the land when they treat an injured victim brought to the hospital. Everyone connected with the case, be it a medical professional, a police officer, or a normal citizen, should give paramount consideration to saving the life of the person.
• Medical professionals should not be harassed for interrogation, should not be called to the police station again and again for investigation and for other legal formalities. It should be avoided as much as possible.
• The courts should not summon medical professionals to give evidence unless the evidence is extremely necessary. Whenever summoned to the court, attempts should be made to not keep them waiting for long. In cases where the facts are clear, medical professionals should not be harassed by adjournments and cross-examination, and as far as possible both should be avoided so that no fear or apprehension is created in their minds while discharging their duties as medical practitioners.
• When a patient, who would be given better treatment at another hospital as whatever assistance the medical professional might give will not be sufficient to save that person’s life, is brought to the hospital, it is still the duty of the medical professional to offer all the help they can and to see to it that the patient reaches the other hospital as soon as possible.
• Zonal classifications cannot act as an impediment to the treatment of victims irrespective of whether rules demand otherwise. The court also ordered that the 1985 guidelines of the Tenth Meeting of the Standing Committee on Forensic Medicine be set up by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, which had decided to make all upgraded primary healthcare centers eligible to provide medico-legal facilities, should become operative.
• The Supreme court also directed all journals which publish Supreme Court decisions, all national media, and Doordarshan and All India Radio to give wide publicity to the decision, highlighting all its essential points, so that every doctor practicing in India would become aware of the same. A copy of the judgment was also to be supplied to every medical college affiliated to the Medical Council of India, to every State Government and to every High Court in the country which would in turn supply a copy to every session Judge within their jurisdiction, with directions to widely publicize the order.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a guardian of the pivotal right to life and personal liberty. It encompasses the right to life, right to personal liberty, right to free legal aid, right to privacy, right against custodial violence, right to a healthy environment, and right to medical aid among others.

By interpreting it positively, the Supreme Court has cast an obligation upon the state to ensure a better quality of life, human dignity, and personal liberty for the people. Hence, the right to medical aid is seen as a significant facet of Article 21.

In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has given clear-cut orders that no hospital, whether public or otherwise, can refuse treatment to an injured victim solely because they were not authorized to handle medico-legal cases. It has ordered that it is an essential duty of medical professionals to give the required treatment to patients first hand and then complete the legal formalities.

Thus, giving primary care and treatment to patients is a paramount duty of the healthcare professionals which cannot be curtailed by any law or regulation. The Apex Court has thereby recognized the people’s right to health and medical aid as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and interpreted the Constitution to ensure the greater welfare of the public at large.

The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that the Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state and the government has to secure the welfare of all people. An essential part of this obligation is to provide the people of the country with sufficient medical facilities and to safeguard their right to life to which they have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is so because the preservation and protection of human life have always been and will remain paramount.

Therefore, all public hospitals are duty-bound to provide medical aid to people in need and any violation of the same would be a violation of Article 21. Whatever happens, the state is bound by the Constitution to provide treatment to the patients. Hence, neither financial constraints nor non-availability of beds nor on the ground of it being a medico-legal case can a hospital refuse medical treatment.

[1] Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.

[2] Medicolegal Issues: Guidelines to Medical Officers, National Health Centres Resource System, Available here

• Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
• Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Tanisha Saini

Related news.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Right to Life and Liberty

Article 21 ensures that No individual shall be bared of life & liberty except to the procedure established by law. Know all about the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Table of Contents

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Justice P. Bhagwati stated that Article 21 “embodies a fundamental value of supreme importance in a democratic society” in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981). Additionally, Article 21 was described by Justice Iyer as “the procedural Magna Carta protecting life and liberty.”

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”, it also forbids the denial of rights in accordance with legal processes. Article 21 is the core of the Indian Constitution . Article 21 also covers important rights such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of religion and culture. Every Indian citizen is covered under Article 21. Foreign nationals also have been protected under this article. The two categories of rights in Article 21 are:

• Right to Life
• Right to Personal Liberty

Read More: Right to Freedom

Right to Life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

‘Life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution should not merely be taken as the physical act of breathing. It does not imply continual toil or a life of simple animal existence. It covers a far wider range of issues, such as the right to a decent standard of living, the right to a means of support, the right to health, the right to clean air, etc.

The Right to Life is necessary to our very existence and without which we cannot exist as humans, the right to life embraces all those aspects of life that give a man’s life meaning, fulfilment, and value. Thus, the bare essentials, minimum requirements, and fundamental needs of an individual are derived from the fundamental principle of the right to life.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963

Supreme court held that the term “life” is employed in this context, more than only animal existence is indicated. The prohibition against its loss applies to all the limbs and faculties that are used to enjoy life. The provision forbids the mutilation of the body, including the removal of an eye, an armoured leg, or any other organ that allows communication between the soul and the outside world.

Read More:   Article 19 of Indian Constitution

Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

According to the Indian Constitution, the sole intention of laws made is to preserve the rights of the citizens. In light of it, Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered as the guardian and the protector of fundamental rights . We have all of the legally recognised fundamental rights as Indian citizens. Hence, if an individual’s fundamental rights are violated, the Supreme Court can be used to enforce them.

The Supreme Court has the authority to exercise judicial review by issuing writs or orders to enforce fundamental rights because the right to a constitutional remedy is a component of those rights. The Supreme Court has established the legal system as a pillar of individual liberty.

Because it is the sole provider in the Indian Constitution that addresses the right to life or any other right that belongs to human beings, Article 32 is considered the “heart” and “soul” of the Indian Constitution.

The most valuable piece of legislation is India’s Constitution. The Magna Carta serves as the foundation for personal liberty. Personal liberty is never susceptible to detention, arrest, or any other kind of bodily restraint. The fundamental component of personal liberty is positivity.

Article 21 Interpretations by SC in Various Cases

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases. Some of these cases include:

AK Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950

Article 21 was somewhat limited in its application before the 1950s. In this decision, the SC determined that the phrase “procedure established by law” as used in the Constitution had British-style personal liberty, not American-style “due process” at its core.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

In this instance, Manenka Gandhi received a passport from the passport office for an international trip. However, the Regional Passport Officer in Delhi notified the petitioner that the Government of India made the decision to accept the passport. The petitioner was required to return her passport within seven days for this reason. The passport was eventually denied by the government because, according to them, it went against the interests of the general population. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition objecting to the government’s refusal to seize the passport.

The Supreme Court reinterpreted Article 21 in the Maneka Gandhi case by declaring that the right to life encompasses more than just the physical and includes the right to live with dignity.

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi 1981

Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi is a 1981 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Union Territory of Delhi was exempt from paying minimum wages to its employees under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The Supreme Court held that the Union Territory of Delhi was not exempt from paying minimum wages and that it was obligated to pay its employees the minimum wages as determined under the act. In this decision, the court ruled that any mechanism used to revoke someone’s right to life or liberty must be reasonable, fair, and just—not capricious, capricious, or fantastical.

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation is a 1985 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether pavement dwellers in Mumbai had a right to livelihood and adequate housing. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution included the right to livelihood and adequate housing and that the Bombay Municipal Corporation was obligated to provide basic amenities, including water and sanitation, to pavement dwellers.

This case established the principle of the right to life as a comprehensive right that encompasses the right to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing. This case reaffirmed the earlier stance that any action that would violate a person’s fundamental rights should adhere to the rules of justice and fair play.

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh is a 1993 Indian Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the issue of whether the right to education was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to education was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty.

The court stated that education was an integral part of the right to life and that the state was obligated to provide free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14. This case is considered a landmark decision in Indian constitutional history, as it established education as a fundamental right in India. The SC supported the broad meaning of the right to life in this instance.

Read More: Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution Scope

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty. The scope of Article 21 is broad and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in various landmark cases over the years.

Right to Die (Euthanesia)

A person has the right to choose to end their life under any conditions or to consent to euthanasia voluntarily. However, the right to die does not apply to coerced suicide. The right to death is freedom wholly dependent on people.

In Common Cause vs Union of India 2018, SC gave its legal sanctity to Passive Euthanasia. This verdict was made in the line with the case of Aruna Shanbaug who until her death in 2015 lived her life in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades. Although Active euthanasia is not yet legal in India.

Although there is no legal backing for euthanasia in India, passive euthanasia is permitted under strict guidelines, as the individual must give consent to a living will and the patient should either be in a vegetative state or terminally ill.

Right to be forgotten (RTBF)

The right to be forgotten refers to the ability to request the removal of personally identifiable information that is publicly accessible from databases, websites, search engines, and other social platforms once the information is not required.

There is no law in India that particularly addresses RTBF. However, the now-retracted Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB), 2019, included RTBF-related measures. The Information Technology Rules, 2011, which regulate digital data, likewise don’t have any RTBF-related clauses.

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017  recognised RTBF as a component of the rights to life and privacy under Article 21 in this precedent-setting judgement. The RTBF was prohibited from being used if the material in question was needed for the following purposes, according to SC:

• Exercising one’s freedom of expression and information.
• Compliance with legal obligations.
• The performance of responsibility for the public’s welfare or health.
• Protection of privacy in the public interest.
• For statistical purposes, for scientific or historical research, or both; or
• Establishment, carrying out, or defending legal claims.

Right to the Internet as Human Right

All people must have access to the internet in order to exercise their right to freedom of speech, opinion, and other essential human rights.

Supreme Court in Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India and Ors, 2018 declared that the Right to Access Internet is a basic fundamental right, which could not be curtailed at any cost, except for when it “encroaches into the boundary of illegality.”

Following the Sabu Mathew judgement in this case, the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2020 also declared the right to Internet access as a fundamental right.

List of Rights Under Article 21 Interpreted by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court through its various judgements has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

As the current form of this article is evolving on a case-by-case basis, many more rights are being added to this list with each passing judgement. This also depicts the flexibility of the Indian Constitution .

Read about: Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 21 of Indian Constitution UPSC

Anyone may submit a petition to the Supreme Court if they believe that a public official or government official has violated their fundamental rights. The Magna Carta period of history is referenced in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. First, the Magna Carta is the basis of our Indian Constitution. The Constitution at that time gives the judiciary a very restricted role. However, the judiciary now plays a significant part in our Indian Constitution.

The Indian judiciary, which is listed in the Indian Constitution, is responsible for enforcing the law. According to the Indian Constitution, every Indian citizen is treated equally. Every right guaranteed by the Indian constitution is open to all.

Read about: Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Sharing is caring!

Why is Article 21 being an essential right?

Article 21 ensures that “No individual shall be bared of life and liberty except to the procedure established by the law”.

What is Procedure Established by Law?

It safeguards the rights of citizen from the arbitrary actions of executives and not against Legislative actions.

Where is the Procedure Established by Law originated?

Procedure Established by Law is originated from the British constitution.

What is Due Process of Law?

It protects citizens' rights from both executive and legislative actions.

Where is the Due Process of Law originated?

Due Process of Law is originated from the constitution of the United States.

Is the Due Process of Law is mentioned under Article 21?

Due Process of Law is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution

• indian polity

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form

Recent Posts

• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

• IB ACIO Salary
• IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

• CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
• CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
• CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

This Article throws light on Constitution of India with special Emphasis on Article 21.

Article 21 reads as:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21. Article 21 uses three crucial expressions, those are listed below:

• Right to life, and
• Right to personal liberty.
• Procedure established by law

Meaning And Concept of Right To Life

Everyone in the world has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. This is the universal truth in the world and the right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the other rights would not have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court quoted and held that: By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval the above observations and held that the right to life included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a persons tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a mans life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Art. 21 guarantees the right to life right to life with dignity. The court in this context has observed that: The meaning and content of fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. Sexual Harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21. In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [x], the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman at her work as amounting to the violation of rights of gender equality and rights to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in the absence of enacted law to provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment laid down the following guidelines:

• All employers or persons in charge of workplace whether in the public or private sector should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. Without prejudice to the generality of this obligation they should take the following steps:
• Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace should be notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways.
• The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
• As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
• Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health, and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at workplaces and no employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is

Disadvantaged in connection with her employment

• Where such conduct amounts to specific offenses under I.P.C, or under any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.
• The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of perpetrator or their own transfer.

Right to Reputation

Reputation is an important part of ones life. It is one of the finer graces of human civilization that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.

Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include the right to livelihood. In ReSant Ram, a case which arose before Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression life in Article 21. The court said curtly: The right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument that the word life in Art. 21 includes livelihood also.

Right to Shelter

In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P ., a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen and it was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as encompassing within its ambit, the right to shelter to make the right to life more meaningful. The Court observed that: Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over ones head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being.

Right to Medical Care

In Parmananda Katar v. Union of India , the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance. The Apex Court stated that once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored. It was held that it is the professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal formalities to be complied with the police. Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. No law or state action can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession.

Right to Clean Environment

The Right to Life under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created if not checked.

The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article 21:

• In M.C. Mehta v. Union of Indi (1988), the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries that were polluting water.
• In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.

Right to Know or Right to Be Informed

Holding that the right to life has reached new dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court in R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the conduct of affairs of the State. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, the Supreme Court said that there was a strong link between Art.21 and Right to know, particularly where secret government decisions may affect health, life, and livelihood. Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, ruled that the citizens who had been made responsible to protect the environment had a right to know the government proposal.

Right to Education

The right to education Flows directly from the right to Life, and the right to education being concomitant to the fundamental rights, the state is under a CONSTITUTIONAL mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefits of the citizens. Mohini jain and the state of Karnataka. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka , a 1989 Supreme Court of India case, occurred when the Government of Karnatak issued a notification that permitted the private medical colleges in the State of Karnatak to charge exorbitant tuition fees from the students admitted other than the 'Government seat quota'. The Supreme Court of Indi observed that mention of 'life and personal liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution[1] automatically implies some other rights, those are necessary for the full development of the personality, though they are not enumerated in Part III of the Constitution. Education is one such factor responsible for overall development of an individual and therefore, right to education is integrated in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Personal Liberty

The meaning of the term personal liberty was considered by the Supreme Court in the Kharak Singhs case , which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits and secret picketing. Oddly enough both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the term personal liberty by an American judgment (per Field, J.,) in Munn v Illinois, which held the term life meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which the life was enjoyed. This provision equally prohibited the mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorizing domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a form of surveillance, constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional. The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. necessarily lost as an incident of imprisonment. The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those.

Right to Privacy

As per Blacks Law Dictionary, privacy means right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned. Although not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the right to privacy is considered a penumbral right under the Constitution, i.e. a right that has been declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. Right to privacy has been culled by the Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although no single statute confers a crosscutting horizontal right to privacy; various statutes contain provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserve this right. For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P question whether the right to privacy could be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came before the court. Surveillance under Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations constituted an infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation 236(b), which permitted surveillance by domiciliary visits at night, was held to be in violation of Article 21. A seven-judge bench held that: the meanings of the expressions life and personal liberty in Article 21 were considered by this court in Kharak Singhs case . Although the majority found that the Constitution contained no explicit guarantee of a right to privacy, it read the right to personal liberty expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that an unauthorized intrusion into a persons home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilization

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court said while holding free legal aid as an integral part of fair procedure the Court explained that  the two important ingredients of the right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as government charity. In other words, an accused person at lease where the charge is of an offense punishable with imprisonment is entitled to be offered legal aid, if he is too poor to afford counsel. Counsel for the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defense. Breach of these safeguards of a fair trial would invalidate the trial and conviction.

Right to Speedy Trial

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that an alarming number of men, women, and children were kept in prisons for years awaiting trial in courts of law. The Court took a serious note of the situation and observed that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and women for such long periods of time without trials. The Court held that detention of under-trial prisoners, in jail for a period longer than what they would have been sentenced if convicted, was illegal as being in violation of Article of 21. The Court, thus, ordered the release from jail of all those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail for a longer period than what they could have been sentenced had they been convicted Procedure Established By Law The expression procedure established by law has been the subject matter of interpretation in a catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in the process of judicial interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression. The Supreme Court took the view that procedure established by law in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law as enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American due process of law . But, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India the Supreme Court observed that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive, otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the procedure established by law has acquired the same significance in India as the due process of law clause in America. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration has said that though our Constitution has no due process clause but after Maneka Gandhis case the consequence is the same, and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of the due process clause in American Constitution. Recently the Supreme Court has dealt with an increasing number of people sentenced to death for bride-burning . In December 1985 the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for two separate cases of killing two young women by setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move, the court ordered both prisoners to be publicly executed. In a response to a review petition by the Attorney General against this judgment, the Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings, observing that a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty. The Court observed that the execution of death sentence by public hanging is a violation of Article 21, which mandates the observance of a just, fair and reasonable procedure. Thus, an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground inter alia, that it was violative of article 21. In Sher Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death sentence violates art 21. The Supreme Court has taken the view that this article read as a whole is concerned with the fullest development of an individual and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Every procedure must seem to be reasonable, fair and just. The right to life and personal liberty has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment and all those matters that contributed to life with dignity. The test of procedural fairness has been deemed to be one that is commensurate to protecting such rights. Thus, where workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favor of the State is not reasonable, fair and just even though the State cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood for all. Under this doctrine, the Court will not just examine whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair and just, but also whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable manner. This has meant, for example, the right to speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable, fair and just procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State action covering civil, criminal and administrative action. The Supreme Court of India in one of the landmark decision in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India observed that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. The Court observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of non-smokers without any process of law. Taking into consideration the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed the prohibition of smoking in public places. It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibition of smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions etc. In this manner, the Supreme Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon to include the rights of non-smokers. Further, when there is an inordinate delay in the investigation – it affects the right of the accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can be no cause of action. But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation, then the provisions of Article 21 are attracted and the right is not only against actual proceedings in court but also against police investigation. The Supreme Court has widened the scope of procedure established by law and held that merely a procedure has been established by law a person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. It is thus now well established that the procedure established by law to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty, must be just, fair and reasonable and that it must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, that the procedure to be valid must comply with the principles of natural justice. Conclusion Indian judiciary provided excellent elucidation to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. The Supreme Court not only explained the instinctive human qualities of the Article 21 but also established certain procedure to implement them. This makes the Rule of Law magnificent and meaningful. Each interpretation or the procedure laid down with regard to Article 21 is particularly aimed to achieve justice mentioned in the Preamble through all round development of the citizens. Each explanation provided attempts to fulfil the basic needs of the human being while safeguarding ones dignity. It is difficult to find such noble, lofty, dignified illustrations and interpretations as provided by the Supreme Court of India to the concept of right to life and personal liberty elsewhere in the world. The Indian concept did not confine the right of life and personal liberty only to ones physical entity. It means to strive for all round development of a person so that justice shall triumph. Written by Alefiya Kurabarwala of Seventh Semester, Student at Mohanlal Sukhadiya University College Of Law, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

The Influence Of A Biased E...

Industrial Designs In India...

Tortious Interference And T...

Feminist Criminology: A New...

The Plagiarist's Nightmare:...

Non-Conventional Trademarks...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

• Call for Papers
• Essay Writing
• Lex Articles
• Internship Experience
• Internship Opportunities
• Career Advice
• Career Opportunities
• Classroom Courses
• Distance Courses
• Online Courses
• International Events

Case Summary: Maneka Gandhi vs. Union Of India (1978)

Case title : Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Bench : M.Hameedullah , Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer & N.L. Untwalia, S.M. Fazalal, & P.S. Kailasam. (7 judge bench)

Petitioner : Maneka Gandhi

Respondent : Union of India

Citation : 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Facts of the case

• Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on the 1st of July 1976 under the erstwhile Passport Act 1967. After three days of this issue, she received a letter dated 2nd of July, 1977, from the Passport Officer regionally in charge in Delhi communicating to her that it was decided by the Union government to impound her passport under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act 1967 “in public interest”. The minister was told to surrender her passport within one week from the receipt of that letter.
• A letter was addressed to the Regional Passport Officer by Maneka Gandhi with a request to furnish a copy of the reasons for sending the order under the act. The reply was sent by the Union Government, by the Ministry of Affairs on the 6th of July 1977 stating the reason for impounding the passport is “in the interest of the general public” and not to provide a copy of the list of reasons for the making of the order. Maneka Gandhi, therefore, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating the seize of her passport as the violation of her fundamental rights; specifically Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Issues Raised

• Whether the right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
• Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
• Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a)(g) and 21 of the constitution.
• Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.

Arguments advanced by petitioner

• The right to go abroad is part of “personal liberty” within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 21 and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. There is no procedure prescribed by the Passport Act, for impounding or revoking a Passport.  Even if some procedure can be traced in the said Act it is unreasonable and arbitrary in as much as it does not provide for giving an opportunity to the holder of the Passport to be heard against the making of the order.
• Section 10(3) (c) is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and (g) and 21.
• The impugned order is made in contravention of the rules of natural justice and is, therefore, null and void. The impugned order has effect of placing  an unreasonable restriction on the right of free  speech  and expression guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19(1) (a) as also on the right to carry on the profession of a  journalist conferred under Article 19 (1) (g).
• The impugned order could not consistently with Articles 19(1)(a) and (g)be passed on a mere information of  the Central Government that the presence of the  petitioner  is likely to  be required in connection with the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry.
• In order that a passport may be impounded under section 10 (3) (c) of the Passports Act 1967, public interest must actually exist in present and the mere likelihood of public interest arising in future would be no ground for impounding the passport.

  Arguments advanced by Respondent

• The Attorney General of India argued that the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ was never covered under any clauses of article 19(1) and hence, Article 19 is independent of proving the reasonableness of the actions taken by the Central Government.
• The Passport Law was not made to blow away the Fundamental Rights in any manner. Also, the Government should not be compelled to state its grounds for seizing or impounding someone’s passport for the public good and national safety. Therefore, the law should not be struck down even if it overflowed Article 19.
• Further, the petitioner was required to appear before a committee for an inquiry and hence, her passport was impounded.
• Reiterating the principle laid down in A.K Gopalan, the respondent contended that the word law under Article 21 cannot be comprehended in the light fundamental rules of natural justice.
• Article 21 is very wide and it also contains in itself, the provisions of Articles 14 & 19. However, any law can only be termed unconstitutional to Article 21 when it directly infringes Article 14 & 19. Hence, passport law is not unconstitutional.
• Article 21 in its language contains “procedure established by law” & such procedure need not pass the test of reasonability. The constitutional makers while drafting this constitution had debated at length on American “due process of law” & British “procedure established by law”. The conspicuous absence of the due process of law from the Constitutional provisions reflects the mind of the framers of this constitution. The mind and spirit of the framers must be protected and respected.

   Judgment

• While delivering the landmark judgment the court altered the face of the Constitution by stating that though the maxim used in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” rather than “due process of law” nevertheless, the procedure mentioned therein must necessarily be free from the vices of irrationality and arbitrariness.
• The court overruled Gopalan by stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in Gopalan case, the majority held that these provisions in itself are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and dependent on each other.
• The court held that the scope of “personal liberty” is not be construed in narrow and stricter sense. The court said that personal liberty has to be understood in the broader and liberal sense. Therefore, Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation. The court obligated the future courts to expand the horizons of Article 21 to cover all the Fundamental Rights and avoid construing it in narrower sense.
• The right to travel abroad as held in Satwant Singh is within the scope of guarantees mentioned under Article 21.
• Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act 1967 is not violative of neither Article 21 nor Article 19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g). The court further held that the said 1967 provision also not in contradiction of Article 14. Since the said provision provides for an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the phrase “in the interests of the general public” is not vague.
• The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order, therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.
• The court also suggested government to ordinarily provide reasons in every case and should rarely use the prerogative of Section 10(5) of the 1967 act.
• The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) is not confined to the territorial limits of India.

In conclusion, Maneka Gandhi’s case, gave the term ‘personal liberty’ widest possible interpretation and gave effect to the intention of the drafters of the Constitution. This case, while adding a whole new dimension to the concept of ‘personal liberty’, extended the protection of Art. 14 to the personal liberty of every person and additional protection of Art. 19 to the personal liberty of every citizen.

Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 19 of Constitution of India

Article 32 of Constitution of India

Passport Act, 1967

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras

Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam,(1967) 3 S.C.R. 525

Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v.State Of U.P..&Ors. 1985 A.I.R. 652.

Pingback: DECODING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY IN INDIA - Jus Corpus

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free!

Search bar.

• Legal Queries
• Files 
• Online Law Courses 
• Lawyers Search
• Legal Dictionary
• The Indian Penal Code
• Juvenile Justice
• Negotiable Instruments
• Commercial Courts Act
• The 3 New Criminal Laws
• Matrimonial Laws
• Data Privacy
• Court Fees Act
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law
• The Constitutional Expert
• Matrimonial
• Writs and PILs
• CrPC Certification Course
• Criminal Manual
• Execution U/O 21
• Transfer of Property
• Domestic Violence
• Muslim Laws
• Indian Constitution
• Arbitration
• Matrimonial-Criminal Law
• Indian Evidence Act
• Live Classes
• Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Article 21 : Constitution of India : All Landmark Judgments

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #1: AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras

The above Judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India came into limelight since it was the first-ever matter that came before the Apex Court after its establishment in 1950. It was a case where the interpretation about Article 19 and 21 was set out by the Supreme Court. In this case the Supreme Court wasn’t able to deliver a satisfactory judgement due to which it was a failure in judicial history. The SC petty decision in regard to Article 19 as well as Article 21. This raised questions on the legality of Act 4 of 1950.

The SC held that the words of same nature in when used in different provisions should be understood differently as they function as different interpretations for different provisions. Thus, the question that was raised by the petitioner regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights under 21st Article of the Indian Constitution and the usage of words “procedure established by law” does not in any sense amount to “due process”. Therefore, if the legislature would have meant that these two words have the same meaning or refer to the same thing the framers of the constitution might have expressed it clearly. The word law means ‘Lex’ and not just so they cannot abridge and violate Article 21.

Further reading material is available here

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #2: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India

In the matter of Maneka Gandhi (petitioner), her passport was issued on June 1, 1967 as per the Passport Act, 1967. But on July 2nd, 1967, the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi ordered her to surrender her Passport. The Reason for the same Case was not provided by the External Affairs Ministry.

The most important Judgement passed by the Apex Court was regarding the interlinking that was laid down between the provisions of Articles 14, 19 & 21. Through this link the Supreme Court made these provisions inseparable and into a single entity. The Judgement, apart from protecting citizens from the unchallenged actions of the Executive, also safeguarded the sanctity of the Parliamentary Law, when it refused to strike down the 1967 Act’s Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5).

Further reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #3: Hussainara Vs Home Secretary, Bihar

The petition in this matter was presented before the court in regard to release of prisoners in the state of Bihar, after which the state government was directed to provide year-wise break up presentation of each and every under-trial prisoner.

This presentation was requiring to be categorised into two sub-categories on the basis of grievance of offences i.e. Minor and Major. After hearing was done, the court decided that all the details of under trial prisoners that was provided in the list by Mr Hingorani shall be released forthwith as continuance because their detention was illegal and was in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Moreover, the Court held that on next date of their remands these under trial prisoners should be presented before Magistrates and the State Government shall on its own expenses appoint a lawyer for each in order for filing of the bail application. All this was decided by the court because those under trial prisoners have exceeded the maximum duration of offences they were convicted for.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #4: Vineet Narain Vs Union of India

This case was concerned with the historic Hawala Scandal that took place in India. The scandal actually uncovered several possible bribery payments made to many of the high-ranking Indian politicians as well as bureaucrats from a funding source linked to suspected terrorists. The news coverage regarding the members of the public was dismayed (tended to cause shock) due to the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate investigations over the officials with the apparent intent to protect certain implicated individuals who were extremely influential in government and politics.

The litigation in this case was the result of public interest petitions filed on these matters with the Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.

The court therefore, agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption. In addition to which it laid down guidelines in order to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to be free from executive control or interference. This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of the Central Government thought to be partly responsible for the inertia that contributed to the CBI’s previous lack of urgency in respect to the investigation of high-ranking officials. The CVC was now responsible for ensuring that allegations of corruption against public officials were thoroughly investigated regardless of the identity of the accused as well as without any interference from the Government.

More about the same can be read here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #5: Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer

The said matter came into limelight due to its recognition in regard to travelling as a fundamental right. Since in the case of Union of India Vs Maneka Gandhi the Supreme Court the right to travelling as a fundamental right under the 21st Article of Constitution of India, this case was regarded as a base matter for many more future cases on the same issue, as it was the very first matter where SC held an opinion of right to travelling as fundamental right. The main highlights of the judgement are as follows:

• The refusal to the petitioner for issuance of passport was held voidable for Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
• Article 21 deals with personal liberty guaranteed to every resident of the country. It was also held that the right to travel isn’t permitted to be stated voidable by any State Law until and unless it is done with any procedures established by law.
• It was asked by respondents to stop taking decisions that were against the establishment of the aforesaid decision as well as to stop the depriving of petitioners of his passports and facilities that were requisite.

More reading material available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #6: Kharak Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

This case revolved around Kharak Singh, an accused in dacoity case was let off due to the lack of evidence and challenged regular surveillance by police authorities on the grounds of infringement of his fundamental rights. Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh police regulations allowed domiciliary visits at night, secret picketing of Singh’s house, tracking/verifying his movement and periodic inquiries by officers. After facing these issues repeatedly, Singh filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court saying that this was an infringement of his fundamental rights. A six-judge bench examined the issue. The main question was whether surveillance under the Uttar Pradesh police regulations constituted an infringement of the citizen’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Subbarao pointed out that even though the right to privacy was not recognised as a fundamental right, it was essential to personal liberty under Article 21. He also held all surveillance measures to be unconstitutional. In a significant judgment, the court ruled that “privacy was not a guaranteed constitutional right”. It however, held that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residuary personal rights and recognised the common law right to privacy. However, the provision allowing domiciliary visits was called/held Unconstitutional.

Click here for more reading material.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #7: Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration

The case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others stands out as one of an important landmark judgment which helped to secure the Fundamental Rights of Prisoners. It was unique in a several aspects, one of which was that the petitioner in question was a convict on death row, something that’s not many were familiar at that time. It brought to light a host of issues, which consisted of the clashes between various Fundamental Rights along with the Prison Act of 1874.

In this case, the Supreme court held that, vis-a-vis Article 32 and Article 226, it had the power to intervene and restore the fundamental rights of prisoners. That is, it was completely within the authority of the honourable court to intervene and protect prisoners from harsh or inhuman treatment. Also, it was made clear that during the prisoner’s time in jail, the jail authorities do not have any rights to punish, torture or in any way discriminate against them without the explicit permission or orders of the court. Only the court had that right.

More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #8: Prem Shankar Vs Delhi Administration

In the following case the petitioner was a prisoner under-trial and was kept at the Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Every time while being taken to court for the purpose of various pending matters and judgments he would be handcuffed by the officer in charge or on duty on that particular day. Even after the Trial court had given its hearing that handcuffs should not be used and made applicable while taking the petitioner to the court and back for the proceedings, but still the escorting officers continued the same.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly condemned the unnecessary use of handcuffs by the police as a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The landmark Supreme Court case on handcuffing is Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980). In this case, the validity of certain clauses of the Punjab Police Rules, which made handcuffing mandatory during arrest, was challenged. In his opinion, Justice Krishna Iyer eloquently stated: “The guaranty of human dignity which forms part of our constitutional culture spring[s] into action when we realise that to manacle (handcuff) man is more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanise him and, therefore, to violate his very personhood too often using the mask of dangerousness and security.” More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #9: Pramanada Katara Vs Union of India

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a public-spirited person in response to a news report of a scooterist who was knocked down by a car and died due to lack of medical treatment. The matter revolved around an accident in which a scooterist was taken to the nearest hospital but was turned away and sent to another hospital 20kms away which was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. The scooterist died while he was being transported to the other hospital. The petitioner sought the issuance of a specific direction to the Union of India by the Supreme Court which read as: “every citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death and in the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may be taken for negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible.” Along with the Union of India, the Medical Council of India and the Indian Medical Association were impleaded as respondents.

The Court ordered that no law or state action can discharge medical professionals from their paramount duty to administer life-saving care. It further ordered that the judgement be publicized widely to ensure medical professionals across the country were aware of the position in relation to medico-legal cases.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #10: Consumer Research And Education Centre Vs Union of India

In the following case the petitioner applied for remedial measures to fill in legislative gaps, to require mandatory compensation for occupational hazards and diseases or death to employees who did not qualify for such coverage under the existing labour legislations, to provide adequate mechanisms for diagnosing and controlling asbestosis (such as mandatory mechanisms to measure levels of asbestos in workplaces coupled with expert panels to established permissible levels of asbestos), to establish a committee to recommend whether the dry process can be completely replaced by the wet, to keep health records of each workman for requisite minimum periods, to provide compulsory health insurance for employees, and finally to award compensation to those suffering from asbestos.

The Court discussed the Convention 162 of the International Labour Conference that provides for provisions for the betterment of labourers. The Court ordered that the “All Safety in the Use of Asbestos” regulations and guidelines published by the International Labour Organization be binding on all industries, that industries be bound to compensate employees for health hazards they had suffered as a result of asbestos exposure, that there be the maintenance of health records by industries of every worker for a minimum period of time.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #11: LIC of India Vs Consumer Research And Education Centre

The Consumer Education and Research Center, an NGO working in the areas of consumer rights, filed several writ petitions against the Government of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution regarding the protection of workers against the occupational health hazards and diseases associated with asbestos exposure.

The petitioner applied for remedial measures to fill in legislative gaps, to require mandatory compensation for occupational hazards and diseases or death to employees who did not qualify for such coverage under the existing labor legislations, to provide adequate mechanisms for diagnosing and controlling asbestosis (such as mandatory mechanisms to measure levels of asbestos in workplaces coupled with expert panels to established permissible levels of asbestos), to establish a committee to recommend whether the dry process can be completely replaced by the wet, to keep health records of each workman for requisite minimum periods, to provide compulsory health insurance for employees, and finally to award compensation to those suffering from asbestos. More reading material is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #12: Chameli Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

The Right to have Food is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 observed, ... Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment education, medical care and shelter. The historical and political background of the Right to Food (hereinafter also referred to as RTF) is much more than the history and politics of malnutrition. It concerns the development of the notion of access to food as a right. As a right it sets obligations on the State, which have been established as enforceable through centuries of social struggle for a democratic state in the service of the people. Traditionally, people had no remedy other than revolt against a king or state that failed to meet its obliga­tions.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #13: DTC Vs DTC Mazdoor Congress

The Supreme Court held that the subsequent Rules and Regulations, framed in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 53 of the Delhi Transport Authority, does not give reasonable justification as to termination of services of its employees, moreover it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950: Section 53/Delhi Road Transport Authority) (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952-Regulation 9(b)/Shastri Award-Para 522/District Board Rules, 1926, Part V-Rule 1(1)/Indian Airlines Employees’ Regulations-Regulation 13/Air India Employees’ Regulations-Regulation 48-Validity of-Termination of service of permanent employee without assigning any reasons and holding enquiry.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #14: DF Marion Vs Minnie Davis

The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis in Smt. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society. Indian judiciary provided excellent elucidation to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. The Supreme Court not only explained the instinctive human qualities of the Article 21 but also established certain procedure to implement them. This makes the Rule of Law magnificent and meaningful. Each interpretation or the procedure laid down with regard to Article 21 is particularly aimed to achieve justice mentioned in the Preamble through all round development of the citizens. Each explanation provided attempts to fulfil the basic needs of the human being while safeguarding ones dignity.

It is difficult to find such noble, lofty, dignified illustrations and interpretations as provided by the Supreme Court of India to the concept of right to life and personal liberty elsewhere in the world. The Indian concept did not confine the right of life and personal liberty only to ones physical entity. It means to strive for all round development of a person so that justice shall triumph.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #15: Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishaka & ors. v/s state of Rajasthan is a case which deals with the evil of Sexual Harassment of a women at her workplace. It is a landmark judgment case in the history of sexual harassment which as being decide by Supreme Court. Sexual Harassment means an uninvited/unwelcome sexual favor or sexual gestures from one gender towards the other gender. It makes the person feel humiliated, offended and insulted to whom it is been done. In many of the cases, it has been observed that homosexual labor harass an employee belonging to the same sex to which he belongs.

The court decided that the consideration of “International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein.” The petition, resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 given by a bench of J. S. Verma (then C.J.I)., Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal, provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant legal victory for women’s groups in India.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #16: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21 and held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Overruling A.K Gopalan’s decision was appreciated nationwide and this case had become a landmark case in history since it broadened the scope of fundamental rights.

The respondent’s contention that any law is valid and legit until it is repealed was highly criticized by judges. Also, by providing a liberal interpretation to Maneka Gandhi, the courts had set a benchmark for coming generations to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #17: Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409 this Court rejected the ‘hands-off’ doctrine and ruled that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration. The laws that stood exposed in this case like many others, were creations left behind from the era of British colonialism. It was not in keeping with the international human rights legislation of the time and was clearly exposed as being outdated and pervasive to the growth of a modern India.

This case also put an intense focus on the duties and responsibilities of jail superintendents. It highlighted the perils of what a lapse of duty could lead to. It also marked a turning point in the treatment of prisoners, with lawyers being nominated henceforth by the District Magistrate, Session Judge, High Court or Supreme Court for interview visits and confidential communication with prisoners in relation to their treatment in cells among other things.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #18: State of Maharashtra Vs Prabhakar Pandurang

Prabbakar Pandurang Sanzgiri, who has been detained by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, in the Bombay District Prison in order to prevent him from acting in a manner pre- judicial to the defence of India, public safety and maintenance$ of public order, has written, with the permission of the said Government, a book in Marathi under the title "Anucha Antarangaat" (Inside the Atom). The learned Judges of the High Court, who had gone through the table of contents of the book. expressed their opinion on the book thus : "............ we are satisfied that the manuscript book deals with the theory of elementary particles in -in objective way. The manuscript does not purport to be a research work but it purports to be a book written with a view to educate the people and disseminate knowledge regarding quantum theory."

As there is no condition in the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, prohibiting a detenu from writing a book or sending it for publication, the State of Maharashtra in refusing to allow the same infringed the personal liberty of the first Respondent in derogation of the law whereunder he was detained.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #19: Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab

In that case the Federal Court commuted the sentence of death to sentence of transportation for life for reasons other than that a long delay had intervened after the death sentence was imposed. In Ediga Anamma, Piare Dusadh was regarded as a leading case on the point. In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) which refused to accept the decision of Vatheeswaran as a “binding rule”. Chandrachud CJ., speaking for the bench, held that the court does not subscribe to the “absolute and unqualified” rule of delay of 2 years and that the court must, in all cases, inquire into the cause of the delay.

The writ petitions filed in this matter challenge the constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 354, Sub-section (3) of the CrPC in so far as it provides death sentence as an alternative punishment for the offence of murder.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #20: Attorney General of India Vs Lachma Devi

He issue of public hanging came to the Supreme Court through a writ petition Attorney General v. Lachma Devi {1989 SCC [CRI] 413} in this petition the order of Rajasthan High Court regarding the execution of the petitioner by public hanging under the relevant rules of Jail manual. The S.C. held that public hanging even if permitted under the rules would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Here in India the present position regarding death sentence is quite a balanced one. Whereas, the wide judicial discretion given to the court has resulted into enormously varying judgment, which does not potray a good picture of the justice delivery system. What is needed to be done is that the principle laid down in cases like Bachan Singh or Machhi Singh have to be strictly complied with, so that the person convicted for offence of similar nature are awarded punishment of identical degree.

More reading material about the same is available here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #21: Deena v. Union of India

The petitioners who had been sentenced to death for the offence of murder were awaiting execution of the sentence. Their plea was that hanging by rope is a cruel and barbarous method of executing of the sentence and section 354(5) Cr. P.C. which prescribes that method is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution.

The respondent contended that a sentence lawfully imposed by a court can and has to be fulfilled, though by causing the least pain and suffering and by avoiding torture or degradation of any kind; that the method prescribed by section 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing the death sentence is a humane and dignified method involving the least amount of pain and cruelty; that no other method of executing the death sentence is quicker or less painful; and that Art. 21 does not postulate that no pain or suffering whatsoever shall be caused in the execution of a sentence lawfully imposed by a court, including the sentence of death.

In India, the mode of execution of death sentence is hanging. Section 354 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code provides that when any prisoner is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. Hanging is still the most common method of executing convicts. The issue regarding the constitutionality of the Section 354 first came up before the Supreme Court in this case. Though the Court asserted that it was a judicial function to investigate into the reasonableness of a mode of punishment, it refused to hold the mode of hanging as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court held that section 354(5) of the I.P.C., which prescribed hanging as a mode of fair execution which is just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of Art- 21 and hence is constitutional. Although, death by shooting is contemplated under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. They provide for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death.

More reading material is available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #22: Babu Singh vs State of UP

The accused Babu Singh was convicted under section 302 325 and 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC sentences him to imprisonment for life 3 years and 7 years request imprisonment respectively thereunder. After the accused's first appeal for bail was rejected by the court he appeared again for the bail. The Allahabad High court held that an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a latter occasion, giving more materials for the development and different considerations. While delivering the judgement the court held great emphasis on article 21 of the constitution.

The court said deprivation of Liberty it is a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law of the rising it is reasonable. Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of India's constitutional system recognised under article 21. The court also said that public justice is central to whole scheme of bail law.

Para 5 of the judgement laid down the vital considerations as –

(a) The nature of charge, the nature of the evidence and, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, or conviction is confirmed. (b) whether the course of justices would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. (c) Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical circumstance, and whether or the petitioner's record shows him to be 'a habitual offender, (d) When, a person charged with a grave offence has been acquitted at a stage, the intermediate acquittal has pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this Court pends. (e) Whether the accused's safety maybe. more. in, prison, then in the, vengeful village where feuds have provoked the violent offence and (f) The period in prison already spent and the prospect of delay in the appeal being heard and disposed of.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #23: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat

Commonly known as "the best bakery case", it symbolises the in humanity of the Carnage post Godhara riots which involved killing 1,200 people. On 16 June 2005, the supreme court extended the term of the Bombay special court to conduct the retrial of this case. This was one of the unique cases as the charges were originally brought in various criminal courts as a result of communal violence which exploded in Gujarat in 2002. This case also gives us an idea of free trial and fair trial. The concept of fair trial was implemented in this case. In its judgement the court held that there was absence of an atmosphere conducted to fair trial in this case. The court also held in para 35 and 36 of the judgement that the notion of fair trial is described as a "triangulation of interest of the accused, the victim, and the society" and therefore an unfair trial is an injustice to the victim and to the society as well as the accused. Fair trial means "a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses or the cause which is being tried is eliminated". The court also held that it is the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial as articulated in article 21 of the Indian constitution and article 19 of ICCPR and a balance must be struck between the three by the respected courts.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #24: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

The case had been brought up before the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction by a Writ Petition. The petition was for the matter of a writ of habeas corpus where the petitioners stated that a substantial number of men and women including children were in jails for years awaiting trial in courts of law and that the offences, even if proved, would not warrant sentence for more than a few months. Although sufficient opportunity was given, the State did not appear before the Court.

The court held that - Free legal service, as mandate under Article 39-A is an indisputable element of ‘reasonable, just and fair’ procedure, without which a person suffering from economic or other disabilities shall suffer from unequal opportunity to secure justice. Right to free legal service is thus a fundamental right of every accused who cannot employ a lawyer owing to reasons like poverty or indigence and the State is under an obligation to provide for a lawyer, provide the accused does not object to the provision of such a lawyer.

The supreme court also held (per Justice Bhagwati) (at 107, para 10) that the State is under a Constitutional mandate to provide “speedy trials” and cannot avoid this obligation by pleading monetary or administrative inability and the Supreme Court being the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people may issue directions to the States for enforcing the fundamental right of speedy trial of the prisoners. These instructions may involve taking of positive action, such as enhancing and boosting the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, constructing new court houses, appointment of additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial. The Supreme Court also stated that right to free legal aid is the important under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution for the person accused of any offence.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #25: M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra

This case is the first case where the right to free legal aid was talked about and concluded that it is important to make aware the poor people with their Constitutional and Statutory rights. And also, it is the obligation of the State to deliver legal services to the underprivileged section of the society who cannot afford the expenses of the Court. This case also relates how the Fundamental Rights of the citizens were violated by not providing the free legal aid services to the indigent people.

The court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution talks about the Right to life and the personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, which means the fair and the reasonable procedure.

Article 19 read out with the Article 21 in the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which laid down that the personal liberty cannot be overlooked without fair and reasonable legal procedure.

Copy of judgement should be given to the prisoner in time so that in case of appeal he can file case in superior court as well. Free legal assistance should be provided to the convicts who are poor or with other incapacities as this is the obligation of the State.

If a inmate is unable to exercise his Constitutional and Statutory right of appeal including the free legal aid the Court has to appoint a lawyer for the inmate for executing Justice.

When the prisoner requests for appeal, it’s the responsibility of the prison administration to deliver facilities for the exercise of such rights.

The accused is entitled to a lawyer, not in the permissive sense of Article 22 (1) and its broader scope but the peremptory sense of Article 21 confined to prison situations.

The Court shall not diverge the request under Article 136 of the Constitution so that the Justice should be given to every litigator, civil and criminal floods.

A copy of the judgment should be provided to the prisoner in time to file an appeal. Also, there is free of charge legal aid provision and this facility is available to the prisoners who are poor or deactivated from obtaining legal help. And these are the duties of the State under Article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #26: Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the authenticity and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional co-occurrences of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.” The court formed an opinion that there must be distinction between presence of power and justification for the came when arrests are made.

It was further observed by the court that, an arrested person holds rights to inform someone about his arrest, upon request and also has the right to consult with a lawyer of his choice. The apex court stated that these rights provided to an arrested person vested in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and are required to be acknowledged and safeguarded.

The court in para 21 of the judgement, laid down points for efficient enforcement of these fundamental rights.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #27: Mr. X v. Hospital Z

As it can be observed by the name of the case, the name of the parties was never disclosed. The judges are not bound to disclose the name of the victims in certain situations. The case begged two question before the court - Whether doctors can expose the patient's confidential information in certain situations and whether the spouse of an HIV patient has the right to know about their partner's HIV AIDS status.

In this case a man was engaged to a woman and was set to get married to her, but it was called off as he was diagnosed with HIV and the doctor disclosed this fact to his fiancée. The man contended that the respondent hospital and the doctor had breached their duty under medical ethics by disclose of this information.

The court observed that the fiancée’s right to life under article 21 of the constitution should be protected over the right to privacy of the HIV patient. Hence the court held that the doctor had done no wrong in disclosing the HIV positive status to the fiancée. It was also concluded that both the rights that are right to privacy and right to confidentiality are not absolute. The doctor did not violate any confidentiality as he was concerned about the life and health of the man’s fiancée.

The court also observed that the HIV AIDS patient's right to marriage is not suspended they can marry with the informed consent of the other spouse. It was concluded that disclosure of dreadful disease to a concerning person (in this case fiancée) is not against the right to privacy as right to life under article 21 would prevail.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #28: PUCL v. Union of India

PUCL filed a PIL before the Supreme Court, underlining the instances of telephone tapping in the recent past. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The Supreme Court stated that the right to hold telephonic conversation in the privacy of one’s Home or Office without interference can be claimed as ‘right to privacy’ and a telephonic conversation is a vital aspect Mans private life. The court also ruled that telephonic tapping would be violative of article 21 of the constitution unless it was permitted by procedures established by law and it would also be violative of right to freedom of speech and expression under article 19. Only the Home Secretary, Government of India and the State Governments can issue an order for telephone-tapping as per S. 5(2) of the Act.

It is important to take into consideration whether the information which is considered necessary to acquire could have been reasonably acquired by other means so as to judge the necessity of such an order.

The interception required under Section 5(2) of the Act shall be the interception of such communications as are sent to or from one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from, from one particular person specified or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or defined in the order.

The use of the intercepted material shall be limited to the minimum that is necessary for terms of Section 5(2) of the Act, etc.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #29: In Re: Noise Pollution

In this 2005 case, the supreme court talked about issues related to noise pollution with regards to article 21 of the constitution. In the petition before the court, the petitioner complained about the noise created by the use of loudspeakers during various religious performances, social occasions, or festivals and by political parties and the noise created by firecrackers in the commercial localities. The primary prayer of the petitioner was that the already existing laws for restricting the use of loudspeakers and other high volume noise producing audio-video systems be directed to be rigorously enforced.

The court stressed that in the modern days noise had become one of the major pollutants and it had serious effects on human health. It emphasized that those who made noise often took shelter behind Article 19(1) A pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. However, it was of the view that freedom from noise pollution was a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental is protected under article 21 of the constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is a hindrance to that right. The court also highlighted already existing provisions against such practices like Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and guidelines laid down in previous cases of the same nature and demanded for better implementation of the same.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #30: Murli S. Deora v. Union of India

In this case, the Petitioner, Murli S. Deora brought the issue of public smoking into public interest on the basis of the right to life and liberty embraced in article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Tobacco consumption in public places is equally hazardous as it highly affects the wellbeing of non-smokers causing lung cancer, another disease, the reason for the death of a large sum of people. This is an obvious illustration of violation of article 21 of the Constitution which clearly asserts that no individual shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The court found that smoking in the public places is injurious to health of non – smokers and violating their right to life and liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution and hence it directed the Union of India, State Government, and the Union Territories to implement this ban in all the public places which include auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, public offices, court buildings and public conveyances including railways. More reading material is available here

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #31: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Mr Subhash Kumar filed a PIL for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the release of sludge/slurry from the washeries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution.

The right to live is a Fundamental Right assured in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and guarantees the pollution-free environment and water to an individual. If anything endangers the quality of life of an individual, it is in violation of the laws. The Court in the present case held that the present petition was not filed keeping in view the public interest rather it is filed for self-interest. It was noted by the court that the materials on record show that petition was filed in the personal interest, keeping in view the facts the Court rejected the present petition. The Court also ordered the Petitioner, Subhash Kumar to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Respondents.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is created for the implementation of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Supreme Court; it is an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the rights of a citizen. The Right to live is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and guarantees a citizen to live in pollution-free water and air. A person cannot invoke Public Interest Litigation to satisfy his personal grudge. The present petition is not maintainable as it was not filed in the public interest and was the result of a personal grudge.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #32: Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab

The question before the court was whether Section 309 of the IPC violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The five-judge bench observed that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of Constitution does not incorporate the “Right to Die” or “right to be killed”. The Court also asserts that ‘Right to life” also incorporates the right to a dignified life till one reaches the point of death, including a dignified procedure of death, thus it includes the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.

The Court ensured that the “Right to die” with dignity at the end of an individual’s life must not be misinterpreted with the “Right to die” in an unusual way of death. It was mentioned that accelerating the process of natural death of an individual which by god’s creation are imminent in nature, under such circumstances permitting termination of life is not available for interpretation under Article 21 to therein include the right to curtail an individual’s natural span of life.

Henceforth, the contention of the Appellants on making Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional, since they violated Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be accepted. Moreover, the Court, rejected the petitioner’s contention of challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 based on Article 14. The Court had ultimately overruled the prior decision in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, thus making Section 306 and Section 309 of IPC constitutionally valid.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #33: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

In this case, the state of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation in 1981 decided to evict the pavement dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay. The eviction was to proceed under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The court observed that the right to life conferred by section 21 is vast and far-reaching. It does not simply mean that life can be extinguished or removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. This is just one aspect of the right to life. The right to livelihood is an equally important aspect of this right because no one can live without means of subsistence.

If the right to subsistence is not treated as part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way to deprive a person of their right to life would be to deprive them of their means of subsistence to the point of repealing. Such deprivation would not only negate the life of its content and meaning but render life impossible.

Article 41, which constitutes another guiding principle, stipulates that the State must, within the limits of its economic capacity and its development, effectively guarantee the right to work in the event of unemployment and undeserved desires. The principles set out in Articles 39 (a) and 41 must be considered as equally fundamental for understanding and interpreting the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If the State were obliged to provide citizens with adequate means of subsistence and the right to work, it would be quite irreproachable to exclude the right to subsistence from the content of the right to life.

The court also held that anyone deprived of their right to a means of subsistence, except in accordance with the just and fair procedure established by law, may challenge deprivation as a violation of the right to life conferred by Article 21.

More about the case can be read here .

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #34: Mr. X vs. Hospital Z

The court did not stop at deciding on patient’s Right to Privacy but needlessly went beyond to decide his right to marriage. The divisive part of the judgment was the fact that the court held that the ‘right to marry’ will be ‘suspended’ for the HIV AIDS patients until they are cured. The judge’s respond to the appellant’s counsel’s contention that every man has a right to marry seems justified. They asserted that every right comes with a duty and hence it is the appellant’s not only moral but legal duty to enlighten his fiancée of his HIV AIDS report. However, the reason behind this seems incommensurate. The court had counted on the various divorce provisions where the grounds of divorce include a venereal disease. The fact that it is one of the grounds for divorce shows that every spouse has a right to health and life and hence this provision encompasses to even before marriage.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #35: PUCL v UOI

In 2001 during a visit to Jaipur it was observed that the food corporation of India (FCI) godowns overflowing with grains and the grains were rotting due to fermentation of rainwater and were getting wasted. Even when there were grains 40 million tonnes above the buffer stock requirement, there were people still dying of starvation. The PUCL filed a petition in supreme court seeking recognition of right to food in the supreme court.

The question before the court was weather article 21 which provides the privilege to life in freedom includes the right to food as well which was also upheld in the case of Francis vs. administration.

The court held that the privilege to sustenance that is, right to food is an important constituent to maintain article 21 of the constitution which ensures the fundamental and human right to "life with human dignity". The FCI was requested to guarantee that the food grains will not go to squander and should be provided to village people in the drought hit areas. With the continuance of the case and passing of the interims, supreme court has gradually defined right to food in terms of right to life and said that it fulfils the obligation under article 21.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #36: Sheela Barse v Union Of India

A petition was filed before the supreme court of India by a social worker seeking discharge of children below 16 years of age who were detained in jails. The court issued the direction to all the high courts and district judges to submit all the information of children in jails, existence of juvenile courts, etc., before a certain date. This detention of children below the age of 16 years in jail would be violative of article 21 of the constitution which provides right to life and personal liberty and incorporates within itself right to legal aid, fair and speedy trial, and article 39 (f) of the constitution. The court also held that the trial of children should be taken place in Juvenile courts and not in criminal courts. The case also discusses the need of legal aid, fair and speedy trial specifically for children below the age of 16 years under section 5 of Children act, 1960. And when a FIR is filed against child for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years the investigation should be completed within a period of three months. the court also advised that every state government must take the required measures for setting up the adequate number of courts, appointing the required number of judges, and providing them the necessary facilities. All this was advised to protect the right to legal aid which is entailed under article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #37: Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka

In this case the petitioner challenge notification issued by the Karnataka Government that permitted private medical colleges to charge higher fees from students who were not allocated government seats on the name of capitation fee.

The court held that even if the right to education was not explicitly guaranteed under the constitution as a fundamental right, it is essential to the fulfilment of the fundamental right to life and human dignity under article 21 of the constitution. The supreme court held that the charging of this capitation fee by private education institutions violated the right to education as inferred from right to life and human dignity and the right to equal protection of law under article 21 and 14 of the constitution, respectively. The right to life under article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state government is under an obligation to make endeavours to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizen. Capitation fee is nothing but a price for selling of education the concept of 'teaching shops' is contrary to the constitutional scheme of this country and is wholly abhorrent of the Indian culture and heritage.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #38: MC Mehta v UOI

The original petition was filed by MC Mehta for the closure of various units of Shri Ram food and fertilizer industry as they were hazardous for the community. While the petition was pending an enormous amount of oleum gas leaked from one of the units that resulted in death of many people which was the result of a human blunder. It led to an uproar among the general population living close by and within a few days, another similar incident took place, a minor one, a pipe broke out because of which the gas kept leaking from the joints of the pipe. While the rule laid in the case of Ryland vs Fletcher was of strict liability, the court in this case interpreted the rule of liability differently and the rule of absolute liability was introduced. The court eventually decided not to adjudicate on whether the article 21 is available against Shri Ram or not. the court however directed Delhi legal aid and advised to take up the cases of all those who claim to have suffered on the count of oleum gas and to file action on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against Shriram. The court also laid emphasis on right to clean and healthy environment as it is incorporated under article 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #39: Chameli v State of UP

The Supreme Court unambiguously stated in its verdict: “Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to life, should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right.”

In this judgement, the Supreme Court took a very pro-government approach and gave directions to take macro level measures to address the starvation problem such as implementing irrigation projects in the state so as to reduce the drought in the region, measures to ensure fair selling price of paddy and appointing of a Natural Calamities Committee. None of these measures actually directly affected the immediate needs of the petitioner, i.e., to prevent people from dying of hunger.

The Court considering the mandate of human right to shelter read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India to guarantee right to residence and settlement. Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life. Right to social and economic justice conjointly commingles with right to shelter as an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. The court also held that Food, shelter and clothing are minimal human rights, and it is a facet of conjoined meaning of right to life under Article 21.

In a democratic society as a member of the ordered civic community, one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy.

Article 21 - Landmark Judgement #40: Rudal Shah v state of Bihar

Rudul Shah was arrested for the murder of his wife in the year 1953. Later on, he was acquitted in 1968 by court of sessions in Bihar but was ordered to be detained in prison till further order of state government. Rudul Shah was detained for more than 14 years in jail. As a result, he filed habeas Corpus petition under article 32 of the constitution praying for his release on the ground that his detention in jail was unlawful.

The decision was delivered by the then Chief Justice Chandrachud on 1st August 1983.

It was held by the court that the right to move to supreme court under article 32 for the enforcement of any right conferred by part 3 of the constitution is itself a fundamental right. And the court also held that the supreme court could pass an order for payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental rights. The court held that if it refused to award compensation and ordered him to approach the civil court it will be doing a mere lip-service to his fundamental rights to liberty which the state government has so grossly violated. It was also observed that right to life and personal liberty which is guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution will be stripped of its significance if the court’s powers are limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention and that of awarding compensation. It was necessary in this case to secure due compliance with the mandate of article 21.

Most importantly the court held that, "The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of state are a shield".

Click here to read more about the same.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

11511 Views

Category Constitutional Law , Other Articles by - Ishaan  

Recent Articles

• The High Court�s Revisionary Power: Scope And Implications
• Shield Turned Weapon: Decoding Misuse Of Sec 498a Ipc
• Condonation Of Delay Under Section 5 Of The Limitation Act
• Cyber Appellate Tribunal and it's significance in India: A Short Analysis
• Accused Not Entitled To Pre-hearing Before Lodging Of FIR: Chhattisgarh HC
• Legal Guidelines for Electrical Safety Compliance
• The Beginner's Guide to Starting an LLC
• Data Subject Rights And Protection In Indian Legislation: A Comparative Analysis (gdpr Vs. Dpdpa)
• Important Ios Mcqs - Pyq Series: Judiciary Special
• Deciphering Legislation: An In-depth Exploration Of Statutory Interpretation

More »

Popular Articles

• Children Of Armed Forces Cannot Be Discriminated Due To Place Of Posting Of Parents: SC
• Dissolution Of Marriage Under Muslim Law
• �five-year Duration For Ll.b. Course Unreasonable�- Plea In Supreme Court For Three-year Law Degree Course After 12th Standard
• Scope And Relevance Of Statements Recorded Under Section 161 Of Criminal Procedure Code (crpc)
• Exploring The Differences Between Judicial Separation And Divorce Under The Hindu Marriage Acr 1955
• Fair Trial in Criminal Cases Involving Cross-Complaints Necessitates Both Cases Be Tried Together by the Same Judge To Avoid Prejudice: AP HC
• Paradigm Shift: High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Embraces Virtual Hearings In Sarvesh Mathur Vs Registrar General
• All About The The Best Evidence Doctrine In Descriptive Detail
• Transfer Of Property Mcqs � Pyq Series: Judiciary Special

LCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to email

Browse by Category

• Business Law
• Constitutional Law
• Labour & Service Law
• Legal Documents
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Property Law

• Top Members
• Share Files
• LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,50,058 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

• We are Hiring
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

• Submit Articles
• Lawyers Registration

File your Caveat in Supreme Court INSTANTLY

• Legal Advice
• Lawyers Search
• lawyers in India
• Law of Wills
• Cheque bounce
• Medico Legal
• Transfer of Petition
• Supreme Court
• File Caveat
• Lawyers Forum
• Immigration Law
• Contract laws
• law Library
• Disability laws

Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study

Author name:   noorameena, the appellant is a doctor who completed his graduation in 1987 and joined nagaland state medical and health service as assistant surgeon grade-i in 1991.....

Right to privacy under Article 21: A case study

Preliminary information: Name of the case: Mr. X v. Hospital Z Citation: AIR 1999 SC 495, JT 1998 (7) SC626, 1998 (6) SCALE 230, (1998) 8 SCC 296, 1999 (1) UJ 232 (SC). Nature of the case: Civil Appeal (C.A. No. 4641 of 1998) Date of decision: 21.09.1998 Appellant: Mr. 'X' Respondent: Hospital 'Z' Bench: Division Bench Judges: S. Saghir Ahmed and B.N. Kirpal, JJ. Judge who delivered the judgement: S. Saghir Ahmed, J. Facts of the case: The appellant is a doctor who completed his graduation in 1987 and joined Nagaland State Medical and Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I in 1991. As a part of his duty, he was directed to accompany a patient whose disease was diagnosed as Aortic Anuerism to Hospital Z where he was asked to donate blood to the patient. His blood samples were taken and the result was shown to be A ( ). After two months, the appellant proposed marriage to a girl, which was accepted but subsequently called off on the ground of blood test conducted at the respondent's hospital in which the appellant was found to be HIV( ). Since the marriage had been settled but was subsequently called off, several people including members of the appellant's family and persons belonging to his community became aware of the appellant's HIV ( ) status. This resulted in severe criticism of the appellant and he was ostracized by the community. The appellant then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for damages against the respondents, on the ground that the information which was required to be kept secret under Medical ethics was disclosed illegally and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay damages. The petition was rejected on the ground that the appellant may seek his remedy in the civil court and therefore appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. X v. Hospital Z was not the first case in India to discuss right to privacy as an element of right to life and liberty under Article 21. The various precedents in the issue were discussed by the judge in the instant case and reiterated the position. The approach to be taken where there is a conflict between two derived rights under Article 21 also came under discussion in the instant case. The right to privacy of an individual and right to health of another were clashed in the instant case. The court tried to evolve an applicable standard in cases of such conflicts after appraisal of the previous judgements and the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Right to privacy – definition It is now a settled position that right to life and liberty under Art. 21 includes right to privacy. Right to privacy is ‘a right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. Duty to maintain confidentiality Duty of care in medical profession includes the duty to maintain confidentiality. The duty to maintain confidentiality has its origin in Hippocratic Oath which is adopted as a guide to conduct in medical profession. “ Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge as reckoning that all such should be kept secret .” The International Code of Medical Ethics has also laid down as follows: "A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even after his patient has died." S.33 (m) of The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1964 read with S.20A maintains the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics as prescribed by the Medical Council of India to be observed by medical practitioners. The Code of Medical Ethics so formulated provides thus, “ Do not disclose the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise of your profession except in a court of law under orders of the presiding judge ." The Hon’ble court also takes a cue from the English Medical Council Act which carves exception to the rule of confidentiality which permits disclosure with the consent, or in the best interests, of the patient, in compliance with a court order or other legally enforceable duty and, in very limited circumstances, where the public interest so requires. The General Medical Council of Great Britain in its guidance on HIV infection and AIDS has specifically provided that a doctor may consider it a duty to ensure that any sexual partner is informed regardless of the patient's own wishes and to any third person when he feels that there is a serious risk of another person getting infected. The Code of Medical Ethics also carves out an exception to the rule of confidentiality and permits the disclosure in the circumstances enumerated above under which public interest would override the duty of confidentiality, particularly where there is an immediate future health risk to others. Right to privacy is not an absolute right Right to life includes right to privacy. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP , the court held that police surveillance of a person by domiciliary visits would be violative of Article 21of the Constitution. The majority judgement in the impugned case was of the opinion that our constitution does not in terms confer any constitutional guarantee like right to privacy. But, Subba Rao, J. in his minority judgement opined that though the constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21. The right to personal liberty takes in not only the right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. Mathew, J. in his classic judgment in Govind v. State of MP , accepted the right to privacy as an emanation from Arts. 19 (a), (d) and 21, but right to privacy is not an absolute right. “Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest.”Surveillance by domiciliary visits need not always be an unreasonable encroachment on the privacy of a person owing to the character and antecedents of the person subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which surveillance is made. The right to privacy deals with ‘persons, not places’. It is now a settled position that right to life and liberty under Art. 21 includes right to privacy. Right to privacy is ‘a right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. Any person publishing anything concerning the above matters except with the consent of the person would be liable in action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy. Right to marriage Physical and mental capacity is an essential condition of marriage. One of the spouses suffering from a virulent venereal disease is a ground for the other party to claim divorce under every personal laws in India, say, S.13 (1) (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, S.32 of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, S.10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and S.27 of Special Marriage Act. Where venereal disease is a ground for divorce, such a person suffering from venereal disease cannot claim a right to marry so long as he is cured from the disease. Any such person entering into marital ties with another without disclosing the factum of disease should be injuncted from it so as to prevent him from spoiling the health and life of another. Moreover, right to marriage of a person suffering from such venereal disease is with a corresponding duty to inform the other part about the ailment. Right to marriage of a person ailing with a venereal disease is a suspended right, which cannot be enforced in a court of law unless cured of it. Any negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life is punishable under Ss. 269 and 270 of IPC. Any person suffering from a dreadful disease like AIDS marrying another person without disclosing the disease is committing an offence under Ss. 269 and 270 of IPC. Maintaining strict secrecy in such a scenario by the respondents per se would be abetment which would make them participant criminis. The respondent hospital cannot be held guilty of disclosing confidential information regarding the appellant with an object to save the life of an innocent party. Right to privacy vs Right to health Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which advances public morality or public interest should alone be enforced by a process of court. The right to privacy of the appellant and the right to lead a healthy life of another person were clashed, both of it having its origin in Article 21. The disclosure of confidential information regarding the appellant would invariably result in saving an innocent person from contracting a deadly disease like AIDS. The disclosure of such information is sensitive and might lead to social ostracism and cannot be done except with an overwhelming consideration of public morality and public health. AIDS patients deserve all respect as human beings and no person shall be denied any opportunity or government jobs or service on the ground of disease, but having ‘sex’ with them shall be avoided as the same would lead to the communication of a dreadful disease and the court shall not assist the person in achieving that object. Hence, in case of a conflict between right to privacy and right to health of another, the latter prevails, upon greater considerations of public morality and public interest. Conclusion Right to privacy is an essential component of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Right of privacy may, apart from contract, also arise out of a particular specific relationship, which may be commercial, matrimonial, or even political. Right to privacy is not an absolute right; it is subject to reasonable restrictions for prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which advances public morality and public interest prevails. Later developments in Right to Privacy Right to privacy, once incorporated as a fundamental right, is wide enough to encroach into any sphere of activity. The conferment of such a right has become extremely difficult with the advancement of technology and the social networking sites. But the other side of the picture is that right to privacy of a person includes the right to maintain seclusion or seclude personal information as well as the right to disclose personal information. The extent to which the realm of privacy of each person should remain is subjective, which might differ from person to person. The recognition of right to privacy can also be seen in S.43 of Information Technology Act which makes unauthorized access into a computer, computer system or computer resources invoke liability. Today, each person is a press, taking in view the emergence of blog spots and social networking sites. Many a times, the right to privacy may come in conflict with the right to press. The right to press is a right derived from Article 19 (1) (a) in particular. The right to expression of a person may come in conflict with the right to privacy of another person. The question, where there is a conflict, which should prevail over the other, is well explained by bringing in the concept of ‘public interest’ and ‘public morality’. The publication of personal information of an individual without his consent or approval is justified if such information forms part of public records including Court records. Each case is distinct and each right is special. Any right derived from Article 19 can be derived from Article 21 too, under the wide interpretation of ‘personal liberty’. Though the court generally applies the test of ‘public interest’ or ‘public morality’ in case of conflict between two derived rights, another interpretation is also possible. A right derived under Article 21 is superior to a right derived under Article 19, since the state enacting law in contravention of such right can be saved under the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) to (5). The position was different in the pre-Maneka Gandhi era, when Article 21 was not a source of substantive right. The right to privacy may come in conflict with the investigation of police in several aspects. Narco-analysis, polygraph test and brain mapping tests, in application, make unwarranted intrusion into the right to privacy of a person. The Supreme Court was acknowledging the individual right to privacy by declaring these tests inhuman and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue and Anr v. Mohammed Nisar Holia cited the US Supreme Court judgement which held ‘thermal imaging’, a sophisticated sense enhancing technology which when kept outside the residential house of a person can detect whether the inmate has kept narcotic substance within as infringement on the right to privacy of the said person. The court discouraged the unnecessary infringement of the right to privacy of persons and held that no authority shall be given untrammeled power to infringe the right to privacy of a person, the court held while reversing the conviction for non-compliance of statutory requirements of search and seizure. Although a statutory power to make a search and seizure by itself may not offend the right of privacy but in a case of this nature, the least that a court can do is- to see that such a right is not unnecessarily infringed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ # R. Rajagopal v. State of TN, AIR 1995 SC 264. # AIR 1963 SC 1295. # AIR 1975 SC 1378. # Supra n.1. # Supra n.1. # Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263. # (2008) 2 SCC 370. # Danny Lee Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, 01 CDOS 4749, 2001 DJ D.A.R. 5879, 14 Fla. L. W F. S 329, 2001 DJCAR 2926. # Supra n.6. The accused was convicted by the Trial Court under NDPS Act in pursuance of the search made in the hotel room. The fax copy of the consignment note transporting Madrex tablets from Delhi to Mumbai was seized. The conviction was reversed on appeal for non-compliance of the requirements under S.42, NDPS Act relating to search and arrest. # Ibid.

The  author can be reached at:  [email protected]

Author Bio:   Noor Ameena National University of Advanced Legal Studies Kochi

Email:   [email protected], website:   http://www., how to submit your article:, follow the procedure below to submit your articles, file your copyright - right now.

File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

SC Judgment on Climate Change: Recognizing the Right to a Healthy Environment

Last updated on April 16, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

The Supreme Court passed its judgment in a case titled M K Ranjitsinh & Ors versus Union of India & Ors.

The case was regarding the protection of two critically endangered bird species on the  IUCN Red List  – the great Indian bustard (GIB) and the lesser florican.

Both the bird species are listed under Part III of Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Table of Contents

SC Judgment on Climate Change

The Supreme Court has extended the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the fundamental right and ruled that people have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.

• Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantee fundamental rights to equality and life respectively.
• In a very recent event, the right to a clean environment was also considered a fundamental right under the Right to Life of Article 21.
• The court also highlighted the interconnection between climate change and various human rights, including the right to health, indigenous rights, gender equality , and the right to development.

Expanding the Scope of the Right to Life

• The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the right to life under Article 21 must be interpreted progressively to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, which is essential for the enjoyment of other fundamental rights.
• Justice S. Ravindra Bhat stated that the “right to life” must be understood to include the “right to a healthy environment, free from the adverse effects of climate change.”
• This interpretation expands the traditional understanding of the right to life, recognizing the intrinsic link between human well-being and the state of the environment.

Incorporating International Law Principles

• The Supreme Court’s judgment draws heavily from international law principles, particularly the concept of the “right to a healthy environment” recognized by various international treaties and declarations.
• The Court relied on the Stockholm Declaration (1972) , the Rio Declaration (1992), and the Paris Agreement (2015) to establish the global consensus on the human right to a healthy environment.
• By incorporating these international frameworks, the judgment strengthens the legal foundation for the recognition of this right in the Indian context.

Imposing Duties on the Government

The Supreme Court’s ruling not only recognizes the right to a healthy environment but also imposes specific duties on the government to take necessary actions to protect this right.

The judgment mandates the central and state governments to:

Add IAS, IPS, or IFS to Your Name!

Your Effort. Our Expertise.

Join ClearIAS

• Formulate and implement a comprehensive climate change policy that addresses mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.
• Ensure that the policy is aligned with India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement.
• Establish a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism to regularly assess the progress and effectiveness of climate actions.
• Provide adequate financial resources and technological support to facilitate the implementation of the climate policy.

Addressing Intergenerational Equity

• The judgment recognizes the intergenerational nature of the climate crisis, acknowledging that the current generation has a responsibility to protect the environment for future generations.
• The Court emphasizes that the right to a healthy environment is not limited to the present but extends to future generations, who have an equal claim to a livable planet.
• This principle of intergenerational equity is an essential aspect of the judgment, as it establishes a long-term, sustainable approach to climate action.

Possible Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on the right against the adverse effects of climate change has far-reaching implications for India’s climate policy and governance.

• The judgment opens the door for increased climate litigation in India, as individuals and civil society organizations can now challenge the government’s climate policies and measures through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) . This can lead to more robust judicial oversight and pressure on the government to strengthen its climate actions.
• The Court’s directive to the government to formulate a comprehensive climate change policy, aligned with international commitments, can drive the development of a more holistic and ambitious climate action plan.
• This has the potential to accelerate India’s transition towards a low-carbon economy and build resilience against the impacts of climate change.
• The recognition of the right to a healthy environment also has implications for addressing the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized and vulnerable communities.

However, the implementation of this landmark judgment also presents significant challenges.

• Translating the Court’s directives into effective and measurable climate actions will require strong political will, robust institutional frameworks, and sustained public engagement.
• Coordinating climate policy across different levels of government (central, state, and local) and ensuring adequate financial and technological resources for implementation will be crucial for the successful realization of the right to a healthy environment.

The Great Indian Bustard

The Great Indian Bustard ( Ardeotis nigriceps ) is the state bird of Rajasthan.

• The Great Indian Bustard is an important species that represents the health of grassland habitats in India.
• This means that if the GIB is doing well, it’s a sign that the grasslands it lives in are also in good condition.
• The GIB is mostly found in the Indian states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. There are also small populations in a few other states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.

A judgement was pronounced in open court, constituting an expert committee to examine the problem faced by the bird species whose natural habitat and flight routes collide with power transmission lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Protection status of The Great Indian Bustard

The Great Indian Bustard has special protection status:

UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024

Take All-India Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress!

• It is listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List.
• It is included in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) , which means trade in this species is strictly prohibited.
• It is also listed in Appendix I of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) .
• In India, it is protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which provides the highest level of protection.

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the right against the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right under Article 21 has the potential to be a transformative moment in India’s climate governance.

By elevating environmental protection to the realm of constitutional rights, the Court has paved the way for a more accountable, inclusive, and sustainable approach to addressing the climate crisis.

This landmark decision not only strengthens the legal framework for climate action but also empowers citizens to participate actively in the process of shaping India’s climate future.

Related articles:

• Right to be forgotten
• Right to health
• Right to disconnect

Article Written By: Priti Raj

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

UPSC Prelims Test Series for GS and CSAT: With Performance Analysis and All-India Ranking (Online)

₹9999 ₹4999

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Architecture News

Pierre Koenig’s Historic Case Study House #21 Could Be Yours... for the Right Price

• Written by Alyssa Wu
• Published on November 07, 2016

One of modernism’s most iconic houses, Case Study House 21 (Bailey House) by Pierre Koenig , is now on sale. The two-bed/two-bath Hollywood Hills landmark has been touted as among the finest of Arts & Architecture Magazine’s Case Study Houses , and one of the program’s few truly experimental projects to explore groundbreaking design and materials.

In this early-career exploration, Koenig used a constrained set of industrial materials—primarily steel and glass—to execute a pure expression of his design approach. His philosophy of functionality and honesty in aesthetics manifests in a structure that appears simple but contains complexity in plan and organization.

The design emphasizes harmony of materials and balance between interior and exterior through the use of terraces, water, glazing, and skylights. A 60-foot reflecting pool frames the undulating steel facade on the east and another pool traces the covered carport. Interlocking steel decking on the roof and an all-glass north wall add drama to the main entry, drawing visitors in, while the southern wall’s sliding glass doors extend the living area into the exterior terrace.

Views of the expansive and carefully considered landscaping permeate the house. In the core of the house is a courtyard and the bathrooms; the bedrooms are also connected to the exterior via sliding glass doors.

Built in 1958, Case Study House 21 underwent a restoration by Koenig to his original intent and design in 1998, including the addition of updated appliances and cabinetry. The house was last sold in an auction in December 2006 for an estimated $2.5 million – $3.5 million.

Update [Nov. 7, 2016]: A previous headline for this article suggested that the house is currently on the market for $3 million – this was based on the estimated sale price from its last sale in 2006. Instead, the listing is currently on the market as “Price Upon Request.” 

News via: Sotheby’s International Realty

Image gallery

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

皮尔·柯宁格的住宅案例研究 #21,贝利住宅

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

The fishy death of Red Lobster

Endless Shrimp didn't sink the seafood chain. Wall Street did.

With the chain on the verge of bankruptcy, it has become abundantly clear that Red Lobster letting customers eat all the shrimp their hearts desire was not a great business idea . It's also not the reason the restaurant is in a deep financial mess .

In mid-April, Bloomberg reported the debt-laden seafood chain and home of beloved cheddar biscuits was considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Red Lobster is being bogged down by increased labor costs and expensive leases on its restaurants. Some observers were quick to blame the financial woes on its decision last year to make its "Endless Shrimp" promotion, which used to be an occasional, limited-time offering, permanent. The move was not a smart one. While Red Lobster increased traffic somewhat, people coming in to chow down on all-you-can-eat shrimp was a money bleeder. The company blamed Endless Shrimp for its $11 million losses in the third quarter of 2023, and in the fourth quarter, the picture got even worse, with the restaurant chain seeing $12.5 million in operating losses.

But the story about what's gone wrong with Red Lobster is much more complicated than a bunch of stoners pigging out on shrimp (and, later, lobster ) en masse. The brand has been plagued by various problems — waning customer interest, constant leadership turnover, and, as has become a common tale, private equity's meddling in the business.

"If anything, the Endless Shrimp deals are probably as much a symbol of just either desperation or poor management or both," Jonathan Maze, the editor in chief of Restaurant Business Magazine, said.

Red Lobster first opened in Lakeland, Florida, in 1968 and was acquired by the food conglomerate General Mills in 1970. General Mills then spun the chain off in 1995 along with the rest of its restaurant division, which also included Olive Garden, as Darden Restaurants. In 2014, amid flagging sales and pressure from investors, Darden sold Red Lobster for $2.1 billion to Golden Gate Capital, a San Francisco private-equity firm.

If anything, the Endless Shrimp deals are probably as much a symbol of just either desperation or poor management or both.

To raise enough cash to make the deal happen, Golden Gate sold off Red Lobster's real estate to another entity — in this case, a company called American Realty Capital Properties — and then immediately leased the restaurants back. The next year, Red Lobster bought back some sites, but many of its restaurants were suddenly strapped with added rent expenses. Even if Darden had kept Red Lobster, it's not clear it would have taken a different route: A press release from the time says it had contacted buyers to explore such a transaction. But in Maze's view, the sale of the real estate was sort of an original sin for Red Lobster's current troubles. He compared it to throwing out a spare parachute — chances are, you'll be OK, but if the first parachute fails, you're in deep trouble.

"The thing that private equity does is just unload assets and monetize assets. And so they effectively paid for the purchase of Red Lobster by selling the real estate," he said. "It'll probably be fine, generally, but there's going to come a time in which your sales fall, your profitability is challenged, and your debt looks too bad, and then suddenly those leases are going to look awfully ugly."

That time, according to recent reporting, is now. With struggling sales and operational losses, the leases are an added headache that is helping push the company to the brink, though bankruptcy may help Red Lobster get some wiggle room on them.

Eileen Appelbaum, a codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank, and a longtime private-equity critic, said in 2014 that private equity wouldn't be the solution to Red Lobster's ills. She isn't surprised about how this is all turning out.

"Once they sell the real estate, then the private-equity company is golden, and they've made their money back and probably more than what they paid," she said, noting that this was a common theme in other restaurants and retailers and adding: "The retail apocalypse is all about having your real estate sold out from under you so that you have to pay the rent in good times and in bad."

After the real estate move, Golden Gate sold 25% of the company in 2016 to Thai Union, a Thailand seafood company, for $575 million and unloaded the rest of the company to an investor group called the Seafood Alliance, of which Thai Union was a part, in 2020. Golden Gate likely came out ahead, but the same can't be said for Thai Union, which also controls the Chicken of the Sea brand. It is now looking to get out of its stake in Red Lobster and took a one-time charge of $530 million on its investment in the fourth quarter of last year. In 2021, Red Lobster refinanced its debt, with one of its new lenders being Fortress Investment Group, an investment-management group and private-equity firm. According to Bloomberg, it's one of the "key lenders" involved in debt negotiations now.

Beyond the pandemic-related troubles that hit restaurants across the country , analysts and experts say that Red Lobster's particular problems are attributable to a mix of poor brand positioning and unstable leadership. The seafood-restaurant business is a tough one in the US, and people who are hankering for lobster or fish are increasingly going to steak houses that offer those options, said Darren Tristano, the CEO and founder of Foodservice Results, a food-industry consultancy.

"What's truly happened with Red Lobster is that the consumer base has changed and Red Lobster hasn't," he said. "Red Lobster isn't losing to a competitor in their space — they're losing to competitors outside their space."

John Gordon, a restaurant analyst in San Diego, said Red Lobster had been on the decline for 20 years but that it didn't "fall on the knife" until Thai Union got it. "They were totally unprepared to hold a casual-dining restaurant," he said. Kim Lopdrup, Red Lobster's longtime CEO, retired in 2021, and since then, the restaurant hasn't had much in the way of stable leadership. His successor resigned after only a matter of months, and the role remained vacant for more than a year before someone else was appointed. He's left, too, and now Jonathan Tibus, an expert in restructuring, is at the helm.

"One of the problems is that Thai Union just had no credibility in terms of recruiting a new CEO," Gordon said.

Essentially, Red Lobster finds itself in a landscape where there just aren't a lot of bright spots. Add on the weight of the debt and lease obligations the company's private-equity owners saddled the brand with, and a turnaround becomes a gargantuan task.

"It's hard to blame leadership when you have a problem that is unsolvable — I mean, getting the consumer back in the door, increasing traffic. All-you-can-eat shrimp can only do so much," Tristano said.

Red Lobster did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Golden Gate declined to comment. Thai Union pointed to a press release about its intention to exit its investment and said it didn't wish to comment further.

One bad promotion should not doom a restaurant chain like that.

As to what drove Red Lobster to the edge, it's clear that despite not being a very good idea, the blame doesn't fall on Endless Shrimp. Years of changing tastes, tough industry conditions, and poor brand management all contributed to the chain's difficult position. But plenty of other restaurants have faced similar issues and aren't on the verge of bankruptcy. What separates Red Lobster is a decade of private-equity and investor tampering. Pinging from owner to owner makes it hard to settle on a turnaround vision. The company faces challenges that necessitate a long-term view that requires patience — the kind that the short-term-focused Wall Street often struggles to tackle. Whether Red Lobster can turn it around from here remains to be seen: Even if it files for bankruptcy protection, the chain may not disappear. Plenty of companies go bankrupt and keep on keeping on.

"You've got to at least be able to pay your bills, and what's happened over the last five years is the cost of operating a restaurant has taken off," Maze said. "One bad promotion should not doom a restaurant chain like that."

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

About Discourse Stories

Through our Discourse journalism, Business Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here .

Related stories

More from Retail

Most popular

• Main content

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

When Is the Best Time to Work Out?

It’s an age-old question. But a few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer.

By Alexander Nazaryan

What is the best time of day to exercise?

It’s a straightforward question with a frustrating number of answers, based on research results that can be downright contradictory.

The latest piece of evidence came last month from a group of Australian researchers, who argued that evening was the healthiest time to break a sweat, at least for those who are overweight. Their study looked at 30,000 middle-aged people with obesity and found that evening exercisers were 28 percent less likely to die of any cause than those who worked out in the morning or afternoon.

“We were surprised by the gap,” said Angelo Sabag, an exercise physiologist at the University of Sydney who led the study. The team expected to see a benefit from evening workouts, but “we didn’t think the risk reduction would be as pronounced as it was.”

So does that mean that evening swimmers and night runners had the right idea all along?

“It’s not settled,” said Juleen Zierath, a physiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. “It’s an emerging area of research. We haven’t done all the experiments. We’re learning a lot every month.”

No single study can dictate when you should exercise. For many people, the choice comes down to fitness goals, work schedules and plain old preferences. That said, certain times of day may offer slight advantages, depending on what you hope to achieve.

The case for morning exercise

According to a 2022 study , morning exercise may be especially beneficial for heart health. It may also lead to better sleep .

And when it comes to weight loss, there have been good arguments made for morning workouts. Last year, a study published in the journal Obesity found that people who exercised between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. had a lower body mass index than counterparts who exercised in the afternoon or at night, though it did not track them over time, unlike the Australian study, which followed participants for an average of eight years.

Of course, the biggest argument for morning exercise may be purely practical. “For a lot of people, the morning is more convenient,” said Shawn Youngstedt, an exercise science professor at Arizona State University. Even if rising early to work out can be challenging at first , morning exercise won’t get in the way of Zoom meetings, play dates or your latest Netflix binge.

The case for afternoon exercise

A few small studies suggest that the best workout time, at least for elite athletes, might be the least convenient for many of us.

Body temperature, which is lower in the morning but peaks in late afternoon, plays a role in athletic performance. Several recent small studies with competitive athletes suggest that lower body temperature reduces performance (though warm-ups exercises help counter that) and afternoon workouts help them play better and sleep longer .

If you have the luxury of ample time, one small New Zealand study found that it can help to nap first. As far as the rest of us are concerned, a Chinese study of 92,000 people found that the best time to exercise for your heart was between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

“The main difference is our population,” Dr. Sabag said. While his study was restricted to obese people, the Chinese study was not. “Individuals with obesity may be more sensitive to the time-of-day effects of exercise,” he said.

The case for evening exercise

This latest study may not settle the debate, but it certainly suggests that those struggling with obesity might benefit from a later workout.

Exercise makes insulin more effective at lowering blood sugar levels, which in turn fends off weight gain and Type 2 diabetes, a common and devastating consequence of obesity.

“In the evening, you are most insulin resistant,” Dr. Sabag said. “So if you can compensate for that natural change in insulin sensitivity by doing exercise,” he explained, you can lower your blood glucose levels, and thus help keep diabetes and cardiovascular disease at bay.

One persistent concern about evening exercise is that vigorous activity can disturb sleep. However, some experts have argued that these concerns have been overstated.

The case that it may not matter

While many of these studies are fascinating, none of them is definitive. For one thing, most are simply showing a correlation between exercise times and health benefits, not identifying them as the cause.

“The definitive study would be to actually randomize people to different times,” Dr. Youngstedt said, which would be phenomenally expensive and difficult for academics.

One thing public health experts do agree on is that most Americans are far too sedentary. And that any movement is good movement.

“Whenever you can exercise,” Dr. Sabag urged. “That is the answer.”

In a recent edition of his newsletter that discussed the Australian study, Arnold Schwarzenegger — bodybuilder, actor, former governor — seemed to agree. He cited a 2023 study suggesting that there really isn’t any difference in outcomes based on which time of day you exercise. In which case, it’s all about what works best for you.

“I will continue to train in the morning,” the former Mr. Universe wrote. “It’s automatic for me.”

Alexander Nazaryan is a science and culture writer who prefers to run in the early evening.

Let Us Help You Pick Your Next Workout

Looking for a new way to get moving we have plenty of options..

What is the best time of day to exercise? A few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer .

Sprinting, at least for short distances, can be a great way to level up your workout routine .

Cycling isn’t just fun. It can also deliver big fitness gains with the right gear and strategy.

VO2 max has become ubiquitous in fitness circles. But what does it measure  and how important is it to know yours?

Is your workout really working for you? Take our quiz to find out .

Pick the Right Equipment With Wirecutter’s Recommendations

Want to build a home gym? These five things can help you transform your space  into a fitness center.

Transform your upper-body workouts with a simple pull-up bar  and an adjustable dumbbell set .

Choosing the best  running shoes  and running gear can be tricky. These tips  make the process easier.

A comfortable sports bra can improve your overall workout experience. These are the best on the market .

Few things are more annoying than ill-fitting, hard-to-use headphones. Here are the best ones for the gym  and for runners .

Real estate developments in residential architecture: a case study of Jeddah

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 08 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alaa M. Shatwan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6887-341X 1  

Home should be a place for social activities that satisfy both physical and social needs. Real estate developers in Jeddah currently show little consideration for cultural and social patterns of users in residential interior layouts. Therefore, this study aims to investigate apartments released by real estate developers in Jeddah from users’ perspectives. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are applied through in-depth interviews with 21 participants. The interviews investigate participants’ satisfaction, desire to make changes, reasons for making changes, and reasons for not making changes. This study finds that the majority of participants want to make changes to the layout of their homes owing to social activities. The SPSS analysis shows that most participants are less satisfied with the home layouts of RED than homes that are self-built, with a statistical significance of P = 0.002. This study recommends that RED companies should consider open spaces when designing apartments for sale so as to allow users to divide the interior layouts of reception and living zones according to their needs. In order to achieve this by RED, the study recommends more study by electrical engineer for electricity switches location, architects for window location, and construction engineers for column arrangement.

Article Highlights

This study investigates satisfaction with apartments bought in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The study discusses finding in comparison between self-builder and Real estate- developer.

The study conducts 21 interviews with residents and applies a mixed qualitative– quantitative approach for the analysis.

The study discussed privacy, safety and room size or layout as factors for making changes.

In this study a self-builder refers to an owner who deals with a contractor to build a home on their land.

RED refers to Real estate developers

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Home is the most important place for all people, as it is where they perform most of their activities, such as sleeping, eating, relaxing, cooking, and working. In the Middle East, major, economic and social changes have occurred over the last 10 years, with major shifts in the cities of most countries [ 1 ]. As a result, noticeable changes in economy and culture have occurred, reflecting people’s behaviors and lifestyles, including those related to housing [ 2 ]. Based on these changes, the Saudi 2030 vision aims to increase the number of Saudis who own homes, a common dream in Saudi Arabia [ 3 ].

Many studies have discussed the provision of affordable housing design. They have highlighted insufficient housing as a major issue in many countries [ 4 , 5 ]. For instance, Mulliner and Algrnas [ 6 ] investigated whether housing design fulfill residents’ need and results in housing satisfaction. Ali [ 7 ] argued that home design quality requires further investigation. Other studies, stated that professionals do not focus on thermal comfort or sustainability as much as they care about finishing, building quality, internal layout, and design [ 4 , 8 ]. Meanwhile, many studies have asserted that internal layout and residents’ needs at home are not considered in current design in different countries [ 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In Saudi Arabia, public-private partnership is established to increase the involvement of private sector in order to help in financing and providing affordable house [ 13 ].

2 Factors influencing home purchases

Al-Nahdi, Nyakwende [ 11 ] studied the factors that influence the purchase of homes in Saudi Arabia. He asserts that attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and finance are the major factors guiding Saudi consumers to purchase real estate. Many studies agree that attitude is a major factor influencing people ’s home [ 11 , 14 , 15 ]. Attitude is defined as a person favoring or disfavoring an action [ 16 ]. It is also defined as the way in which a person reacts to an object [ 17 ]. Therefore, customers compare the available service with what they expect; if they feel that the provided service does not meet their expectations, it would dissatisfy them. However, if customers meet their expectations and feel satisfied, they purchase from a service provider [ 18 ]. This is in line with [ 19 ], who asserted that purchasers’ feelings are a factor affecting those who buy prefabricated houses. This indicates that the psychological mechanisms underpinning human needs must be considered in home design to fulfill essential human needs [ 20 ]. Meanwhile, many studies have discussed how cultural values and changes in social lifestyles affect people’s preferences for home [ 21 , 22 ] as home reflects social changes [ 2 ].

2.1 Society and culture

Some studies have claimed that a residence is an image that shows the connection between the built environment and cultural values. Therefore, the residence is a window that shows the relationship between culture and the built environment according, create community identity[ 23 ].

This does not end as a building face; it also continues to the interior layout as culture can be recognized from the home layout [ 24 ]. The interior Layout of a residence is a major indicator of its culture and lifestyle [ 22 , 25 ]. Shehab and Kandar [ 21 ] found a strong relationship between home layouts and social changes in Jordan. According to Yazdanfar and Naserdoost [ 26 ] homes are places where people perform their social activities, but there is a noticeable ignorance of the behavioral, cultural, and residential patterns of users in the contemporary design construction industry. Many studies have discussed the relationship between the home and sociocultural values that affect user activities. These factors vary from social norms, cultural values, lifestyles, social status, social network, hospitality, gender segregation, safety, and privacy [2, 9, 21, 22, 24, 25].

The governments of some countries, such as Nigeria, have started to encourage optimal housing design to accommodate user preferences, leading to the production of homes that consider the sociocultural attributes of residence [ 27 ]. According to Mnea and Zairul [ 4 ] architectural design that fulfills social needs in Saudi Arabia is called “ socially based design, ” as many studies have confirmed the importance of home, health, and social factors that reflect home design housing [ 4 , 28 ]. Abed, Obeidat [ 12 ] found that sociocultural factors play a major role in residents’ satisfaction and unit layout transformation. The author asserts that sociocultural factors lead people to change their home layouts. The four main reasons for layout transformation are gender segregation, privacy, social networking, and safety. The quantitative and qualitative analyses in this study revealed that privacy is a major social factor in the internal layout.

The issue of privacy has been addressed in many studies, as it plays a major role in spatial design. It is one of the reasons why residents change their interior layout after renting or buying a home [ 2 , 9 ]. Although privacy is important to all humans, it is highly connected to religion and culture in the Middle East [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].

2.2 Layout transformation

Layout transformation differs from rearrangement. rearrangement changes the color of walls or furniture. Meanwhile, structural transformations, such as breaking or adding walls, result in home layout transformation, which can occur over time in a series of processes [ 32 ] . Others have defined residential layout changes as the process of expanding or modifying interior or exterior layout arrangements. These changes can occur in small or large parts of a home, leading to structural changes. This is done for various reasons such as social, growth, and self-expression [ 33 ]. Similarly, Makachia [ 34 ], van Griethuijsen [ 35 ] concurred that this transformation is a result of the physical, behavioral, and cultural needs of residents. Therefore, understanding residents’ social and physical needs helps create relationships between the motivational factors for users and the housing layout. According to Abed, Obeidat [ 12 ] layout transformation is a common phenomenon that require s” identification in terms of cause and effect ”.

Other studies have discussed cultural changes and home layouts in the Western and Eastern regions [ 2 , 12 , 24 , 31 ]. Additionally, Rapoport [ 36 ] states that home layouts can be supportive or disruptive of residents’ social and cultural needs. Therefore, changes in culture

should be considered in housing design, as it is an important determinant of residents’ satisfaction [ 22 ]. Coming along with Farhat and Alaeddine [ 37 ] claimed that respect for users’ needs should be considered in many aspects, including psychological and economic aspects. Privacy is considered a major psychological and physical aspect affecting residents’ comfort. Privacy is either visual or physical and is a major part of cultural and religious beliefs [ 2 , 30 , 31 ]. This is in line with other studies that have found that ignoring cultural needs, such as privacy, leads to residents’ dissatisfaction and making changes in their home layout [ 2 , 12 ]. Privacy requires gender segregation between the same family or between the family and guests [ 2 , 12 , 31 , 38 ]. Tomah, Ismail [ 29 ] assessed home layouts in Amman to discover how new domestic designs affect users’ privacy in their homes. He analyzed different home layouts in terms of privacy and functional zones. This study found that the number of zones and privacy increased in the homes. He asserted that there is a real need to study different space layouts to achieve a high level of privacy, which will result in an increase in the quality of life.

Avogo [ 39 ] highlighted that transforming the layout of public homes is an essential part of human life. In the same context, a study by Obeidat, Abed [ 9 ] highlighted the importance of creating levels of flexibility in public residential layouts. He asserted that if architects consider residents' satisfaction and spatial flexibility in their design, they can help stakeholders understand these points during the planning and design stages. Minami [ 10 ] investigated layout changes in different types of apartments in Japan and found that the room layout changed in most cases to increase the size of living rooms or private rooms. He also found that most layout changes occur after children become older and leave home. They moved the partitioning wall to separate the two rooms to adapt to the changing needs of the residents. Similarly, Agyefi-Mensah S [ 40 ] asserted that most residents modified their home layout after moving home to fulfill their needs.

The concept of flexibility in home design involves creating movable parts or open plans [ 41 ]. For example, in traditional Malay housing, social and religious values are reflected through the application of spatial flexibility. Flexibility refers to an open plan with fewer walls and boundaries to create open spaces [ 42 ]. Flexible domestic practices provide an opportunity for users to participate in their home design, such as arranging their living areas according to their needs and life changes. This indicates that flexible housing helps users develop a sense of belonging to their living space, as they can adapt it according to their different demands [ 41 ].

Studies have investigated the concept of layout transformation from a historical perspective, such as [ 2 ] or from socioeconomic, cost, and price policies [ 3 ]. Other studies in Japan, Jordon investigated the phenomena of home layout transformation according to their culture needs [ 9 , 10 , 24 ]. Despite the importance of such studies, little attention has been paid to home layout transformations in Saudi Arabia. Mohanna [ 43 ]studies housing preferences across Saudi Arabia in Dammam. The study found that of the three types of homes–villas, detached duplexes, and semi-detached duplexes–detached duplexes are most preferred for nuclear families. However, the statistics show that apartments are the most purchased type of residence in Jeddah. Therefore, this study focuses on home layout transformation, particularly in Jeddah City, which is the second most important city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In addition, the

city has faced a boom in apartments designed by real-estate developers over the last 10 years. The high cost of houses in Jeddah has led people to buy apartments.

2.3 Domestics in Jeddah

Jeddah City is located on the west coast of Saudi Arabia and experiences hot and humid weather [ 44 ]. It is the second largest urban area and an important commercial center in the Kingdom [ 45 ]. The Population in Jeddah has grown rapidly over the last 10 years, reaching an estimated 3,712,917 million. The number of people who owned apartments in Jeddah was 109, 870, and 39,464, respectively. Meanwhile, the number of people who own a house is 65,184 and 24, 426 rent a house [ 46 ]. This shows that Apartment is more preferred by people in Jeddah even if they dream of owning a house due to high cost of living [ 47 ]. This made the release of apartments a trend in Jeddah City, as finance is a major factor affecting customers’ decisions when purchasing housing. Similarly, Paço [ 48 ] claims that finance is sometimes the most influential purchaser decision when buying a home. In Saudi Arabia, most reports assert high demand in the real estate market for real estate units, especially residences, write the number of home needs [ 49 ]. To help Saudis own their homes by providing funds. This fund is called the Real Estate Development Fund (REDF). It reached 500, 000 SR with no interest. The condition for this fund, which takes a maximum of 25 years to return, is to be above 21 years old and did not receive the fund before, so it was once per life. However, people seek homes that fulfill their needs; therefore, it is important to investigate the factors guiding people to buy a home in the Saudi market [ 11 ]. Therefore, this study aims to investigate satisfaction with apartments bought in Jeddah from users’ perception in relation to type of builder either self-builder and Real estate-developer as little studies have been conducted to discuss this subject. In order to fulfill this gap in Knowledge, the study conducted 21 interviews with residents and apply a mixed qualitative– quantitative approach to analyze reasons for making changes in home is such as privacy, safety, and room size or layout, and obstacles for not making changes.

3 Methodology

This study applied a mixed-method qualitative and quantitative approach to investigate participants’ satisfaction with their purchased apartments. It also discusses participants’ desire to make changes and reasons for making changes or for not being able to make them. Face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with space owners (only females). Spatial architecture plans of the participants' apartments were discussed through interviews to help them discuss the issues in the apartment plan; however, most plans could not be displayed here, as most participants requested.

3.1 Interviews

The research explained study objectives, aim, and role of participants in the study. A verbal consent upon starting interview was obtained from all participants. The researcher conducted in- depth semi-structured interviews with 21 residents who owned apartments in Jeddah to collect the data required for the study. The interview questions were presented in Arabic because most

participants spoke Arabic only. All Interviews were conducted face-to-face, and the participants brought a printed copy of the apartment floor plan. The interviews lasted 30–45 min. The aim of these interviews was to understand why residents changed the layout of their apartments either before or after they lived in it. NVivi 12 software was used to analyze the data and identify the main points from the participants’ discussions. Interviews were conducted after obtaining permission from participants. the following axes are addressed:

First axis: Demographic questions, gender, age, family members, and type of home.

Second axes: years living in the apartments, type of builder.

Third axes: satisfaction with the apartments.

Fourth axis: The three major factors for layout transformation are privacy, safety, room size, and flat layout.

Fifth axes: obstacle that stops them from making the change.

A previous study discussed the reasons for layout changes, such as privacy, safety, hospitality, and social values, as shown in Table 1 . The reasons discussed in this study are safety, privacy, room size, and flat layout.

3.2 Study sample

A total of 21 female were interviewed to represent the study sample. Table 2 organizes participants according to their demographic information, age, family members, and type of home.

3.3 Data analysis

Analysis of the interview transcript theme organization was performed using NVivo 12. NVivo helps the researcher to categorize, count, and organize the number of participants who discussed certain themes or gave similar answers. The analysis was performed in five steps as shown in Fig. 1 . First, participants were asked whether they were self-builders or real estate developers. It discussed the participants’ desire to make changes (whether they did or did not). Subsequently, the changes made by the participants and the reasons for these changes were analyzed. Subsequently, we discuss the reasons for these changes. It is important to highlight whether these changes were related to the type of builder used. Also, the author’s observation of current floor plans for RED that is for sale is analyzed.

Source: Author (2024)

Steps of data analysis.

3.4 Statistical analysis

To support the interview findings, a statistical analysis of the 21 participants was performed to determine whether the type of builder or years of living in the flat created any significant differences in terms of the need for layout transformation or participants’ satisfaction. SPSS software was used to perform statistical analysis (version 27). A chi-square test was used to examine the participants’ satisfaction and type of builder or years of living in the flat, which resulted in any significant differences needed for layout transformation. The data presented in the results are frequencies. Statistical significance was set at be statistically significant.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 type of builder.

Table 3 illustrates that the majority of participants (6%) had bought their homes in the last 5 years through a real estate development company. Only 47% of participants had self-built. It is important to note that 28% participant out of 47% owned a home 10 years previously. This indicates that real estate developers were more likely to be major sellers in the last 5 years. It was also found that the most common age for buying a home was 40 years and older. This could be because time was needed to save money, as participants mentioned. It is also found that 13 out of 21 own home in east and south zone of Jeddah. This is because homes in these zones are less expensive than those in the northern or western zones of the city. This is in line with the two most influential factors affecting buyer decisions to own a house: location and price (Nowilaty and Saci [ 50 ]). Finance is a strong factor affecting home purchases in Saudi Arabia [ 11 ].

4.2 Layout transformation

Previous studies have revealed that the lack of sociocultural considerations in designing houses’ internal layouts limits residents’ satisfaction [ 2 , 22 , 30 ]. Users change their residential interior layout in public housing because of a lack of flexibility [ 51 ]. Other studies have revealed that gender segregation and privacy are two major factors for layout transformations in residence [ 9 , 12 ]. Previous studies have discussed reasons for layout changes, including privacy, safety, hospitality, and social values [ 9 , 12 ]. Safety affects housing layout, as it makes residents cover balconies and add new entrances [ 12 ].

In this study, Fig. 2 shows compares the desire to make changes in relation to years of residence and type of builder. The majority of participants (50%) who bought homes from real estate developers wanted to make up to four changes within less than 5 years of living. Meanwhile, only 20% participants who had built their own homes wanted to make changes. Fig. 3 Privacy was the main reason, with 63% citing this as the reason for changes, followed by apartment layout and room size (44%) and safety (40%). Participants discussed that the room size is much larger if it is built by a self-builder, especially before 10 years. Regarding safety, Fig. 4 illustrates that 45% of participants claimed that in real estate developer apartments, windows had no safety iron on the outside to protect children, as in the past for self-built homes. Furthermore, an open kitchen was an issue for 31% of participants, as they found that it was not safe for children. In addition to safety, Fig. 5 shows that,18% of participants found that open kitchens were not private if there were guests.

Reasons for making changes.

Number of changes participants want to make at their home in relation to years of residence and type of builder.

Safety issues in participants home design.

Privacy issues with participants’ home design.

In the last 5 years, flat layout and room size have decreased. This is in line with Minami [ 10 ], who found that in Japan, residents change their home layout to increase the size of living rooms or private rooms. In align with Minami, observation in this study indicates that breaking walls to make one large room from two rooms was a common change among the participants. Participants made this change in the reception and dining rooms. Table 4 shows the observation of architectural and constructional Issues at participants' floor plan. It highlights that distance between two columns is small, which will not help if residence want to open two rooms to become one big room. It also shows that the number of doors can be an issue when arranging furniture. Additionally, big façade window with no safe balcony for cleaning needs more study by architects. One of the most important observations that roof apartments do not have big window for view, which is also recommended by residences. Hence, the internal design does not provide enough space for domestic Worker room, storage spaces for machines such as Vacuum, and laundry room. Bedroom must have enough space for closet to store clothes. Therefore, Specialists in designing interior spaces must intervene in the design, meaning that the plans can be presented as competitions in architecture colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to come up with the best design that is compatible with the needs of the Saudi family.

The SPSS analysis in Table 5 shows the main causes of the changes in houses. Among safety, privacy, and number of rooms, only privacy was statistically significant (P=0.02). For individuals who made changes in their houses, privacy scored the lowest at 2.8± 1.6 whereas for individuals who did not apply changes, privacy scored higher at 4.2±1.1.

4.3 Data presented as mean and stander division

Table 6 presents the relationships between satisfaction, years of living, and type of builder. General satisfaction was not related to years of living or the type of builder. A statistical significant correlation was observed between satisfaction with distribution and type of builder, where individuals who bought their homes from real estate developers had a lower satisfaction score of 1.8± 1.2 compared with self-builders, who scored 3.9± 1.3 (P=0.002).

4.4 Reasons for not making changes

As Al-Nahdi, Nyakwende [ 11 ], Paço [ 48 ], Abd Rahman, Sulong [ 52 ] showed, finance is the main reason users buy houses or flats. This study found that financial reasons were a major reason for not making changes in the participants’ homes after purchasing, as shown in Fig. 6 . This indicates that 59% of participants claimed that they could not make changes because of financial reasons. Then, 50% cited building rules for making external changes, such as making a balcony because a window was large and could not be cleaned from the outside, necessitating a small balcony. Time and leaving home were cited least often as the reasons at 27% and 13%, respectively.

Reasons for not making changes.

The SPSS analysis in Table 7 represents the barriers to not making changes to the house. Although there were no statistically significant differences between individuals who made changes and those who did not (P>0.05), the financial barriers for not making changes scored highest at 4.2±1.4, followed by building rules 4±1.6, going out 3±1.6, and time 2.6±1.5.

5 Conclusion

The Saudi 2030 vision aims to increase the number of Saudis who own home, a common dream in Saudi Arabia [ 3 ]. This makes home ownership an important investment for Saudi families, as most people spend a considerable amount of time at home. Thus, home design should consider residents’ needs [ 12 ]. Mulliner and Algrnas [ 6 ] investigated whether housing design fulfills residents’ needs and results in housing satisfaction. Ali [ 7 ] argued that home design quality requires further investigation. Meanwhile, many studies have asserted that internal layout and residents’ needs at home are not considered in the current design of homes in different countries [ 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In aligned with the above studies, this study revealed that participants; needs should be considered by real estate developers in Jeddah. This study discussed participants’ need for layout transformation in their own apartments in Jeddah. A qualitative approach was employed to conduct interviews with 21 female residents. The study found that the majority of participants wanted to make changes to their homes owing to considerations of privacy, safety, and room size or layout. However, this is another expense on top of the high cost of buying a home. The study found that financial reasons were the main reasons constraining the study participants from making changes to their homes. Residents were not fully satisfied with the layout of most apartments designed for sale in Jeddah. The were differences in satisfaction of house distribution between homes bought from real estate developers and self-built homes, where self-builders were more satisfied than those who bought from real estate developers.

In Conclusion, it is important to highlight that this study is only limited to on city, which is Jeddah. Further studies need to be conducted in different cities of Saudi Arabia. Also, the study recommends that real estate development companies should consider open spaces in the design of apartments for sale to allow users to divide the interior layouts of reception and living zones according to their needs.

6 Recommendations

This study also recommends Stakeholders more survey about open space sale apartments.

Further research by construction engineers to study column arrangement, as this is one of the obstacles to making changes.

Study by electrical engineers is recommended as switches location for open space is important.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request from corresponding author.

Malkawi F (2011) The new Arab metropolis: a new research agenda. The evolving arab city—tradition, modernity and urban development. Routledge, London, pp 2–36

Google Scholar  

Shatwan AM (2018) Domestic window design and interior daylight in Jeddah: Designing for Saudi Women. 2018.

Hosing BA (2018) Saudi Arabia: Dar Daka.

Mnea A, Zairul M (2023) Housing design studies in Saudi Arabia: a thematic review. J Constr Dev Countr 28(1):317–339

Alqahtany A (2019) People’s perceptions of sustainable housing in developing countries: the case of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Housing Care Support 23(3):93–109

Mulliner E, Algrnas M (2018) Preferences for housing attributes in Saudi Arabia: a comparison between consumers’ and property practitioners’ views. Cities 83:152–164

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali M (2018) Interpreting the meaning of housing quality towards creating better residential environment. Environ Behav Proc J 3(8):141–148

Zairul M (2021) A thematic review on Industrialised Building System (IBS) publications from 2015–2019: Analysis of patterns and trends for future studies of IBS in Malaysia. Pertanika J Soc Sci Humanit 29(1):652–635

Obeidat B, Abed A, Gharaibeh I (2022) Privacy as a motivating factor for spatial layout transformation in Jordanian public housing. City Territ Arch 9(1):14

Minami K (2007) A post–occupancy evaluation of layout changes made to KEP adaptable housing. J Asian Arch Build Eng 6(2):245–250

Al-Nahdi TS et al (2015) Factors affecting purchasing behavior in real estate in Saudi Arabia. Int J Bus Soc Sci 6 (2).

Abed A, Obeidat B, Gharaibeh I (2023) The impact of socio-cultural factors on the transformation of house layout: a case of public housing-Zebdeh-Farkouh, in Jordan. J Asian Arch Build Eng 22(3):1195–1208

Alshahrani A, Alaboud N, Ahmed Y, Karban A, Majrashi AA, Altowerqi Z (2023) Critical sucssess factor of PPP for affordable housing provision in Mekkah, Saudi Arabia. J Um AlQura Univ Eng Arch. 14(1):36–44

Ramayah T, May OS, Omar A (2007) Behavioral determinants of online banking adoption: Some evidence from a multicultural society. I-Manager’s J Manag 2(3):29–37

Han H, Kim Y (2010) An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. Int J Hosp Manag 29(4):659–668

Al-Nahdi TS, Ismail I, Haron H, Islam M (2008) A, Intention to patronage halal restaurants among Malaysian Muslims? An issue of halal perception, in Global Business Summit Conference. Kelantan, Malaysia

Yusliza M, Ramayah T (2011) Explaining the intention to use electronic HRM among HR professionals: results from a pilot study. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5(8):489–497

Kotler P, Keller K. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. 2006.

Kokliÿc MK, Vida I (2009) A strategic household purchase: consumer house buying behavior. Manag Glob Trans 7(1):75–96

Rapoport A (2005) Culture, architecture, and design. Locke Science Publishing Company Inc., Chicago

Shehab A, Kandar M (2016) The influences of socio-cultural values on sustainable housing design: evidences among Arab countries. Sci Int (Lahore) 28(7):1703–1710

Shatwan APDA (2022) Cultural changes and flexibility in residential architectural design. J Art Arch Hum 7(31):58–69

Forouzmand S (2013) (Master’s Thesis), E, A Survey on Changing Socio-Spatial Patterns in Contemporary Housing of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), Cyprus.

Al-Betawi YN et al (2020) Transformations in the built form as a reflection of social change, the case of apartment buildings in Amman. Open House Int 45(1/2):143–171

Al-Homoud M, Al-Oun S, Abed A (2003) Reflective lifestyle on Badu homes in Jordan. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. 2003.

Yazdanfar SA, Naserdoost Z (2019) Changes of lifestyle and physical patterns of houses and their reciprocal influences (case study: maragheh city). J Iran Arch Urban (JIAU) 10(1):37–60

Fakere AA et al (2018) Effects of socioeconomic characteristics on residents’ satisfaction with housing infrastructural facilities in Akure, Nigeria. Inclus City Growth Poor 6(2):137–148

Alqahtany A (2020) Affordable housing in Saudi Arabia’s vision 2030: new developments and new challenges. Int J Hous Markets Anal 14(1):243–256

Tomah AN, Ismail HB, Abed A (2016) The concept of privacy and its effects on residential layout and design: amman as a case study. Habitat Int 53:1–7

Sobh R, Belk RW (2011) Privacy and gendered spaces in Arab Gulf homes. Home Cultures 8(3):317–340

Othman Z, Aird R, Buys L (2015) Privacy, modesty, hospitality, and the design of Muslim homes: a literature review. Front Arch Res 4(1):12–23

Popkin SJ, Rich MJ, Hendey L, Hayes C, Parilla J, Galster G (2012) Public housing transformation and crime: making the case for responsible relocation. Cityscape 14:137–160

Aryani SM (2015) The house design transformation: the preferences and the patterns. Proc Environ Sci 28:717–724

Makachia P (2015) Influence of house form on dweller initiated transformations in urban housing.

van Griethuijsen ALFR, van Eijck MW, Haste H, den Brok PJ, Skinner NC, Mansour N, SavranGencer A, BouJaoude S (2015) Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Res Sci Educ 45(4):581–603

Rapoport, A., Human aspects of urban form: towards a man—environment approach to urban form and design. 2016: Elsevier.

Farhat BI, Alaeddine HO (2023) Improving assessment criteria of universal design: Towards an equitable approach. MSA Eng J 2(3):132–167

Shatwan A (2017) Women’s satisfaction of daylight in contemporary Jeddah’s flats. Enquiry ARCC J Arch Res 14(1):23–36

Avogo FA, Akiweley Wedam E, Mensah Opoku S (2017) Housing transformation and livelihood outcomes in Accra, Ghana. Cities 68:92–103

Agyefi-Mensah S et al (2020) Residential adaptations as users’ tacit means of communicating spatial needs in housing design: a case study. J Eng Des Technol. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2019-0073

Raviz SRH et al (2015) Flexible housing: the role of spatial organization in achieving functional efficiency. ArchNet-IJAR 9(2):65

Abdul Rahim A, Abu Hassan F (2012) Study on space configuration and its effect on privacy provision in traditional Malay and Iranian courtyard house. Int Proc Econ Dev Res 42:115–119

Mohanna AB (2019) Identifying the preference of buyers of single-family homes in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Int J Hous Markets Analysis 13(2):165–184

Qari MH (2009) Geomorphology of Jeddah Governate, with emphasis on drainage systems. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.4197/Ear.20-1.6

Khodeir M et al (2012) Source apportionment and elemental composition of PM2.5 and PM10 in Jeddah City. Saudi Arabia. Atmos Pollut Res 3(3):331–340

SaudiCensus, Population In Jeddah City, S. Census, Editor. 2023: General Authority for Statistics

Al-Omari AA (2019) Societal dimensions of ownership apartment housing: a field study in some neighborhoods of the city of Jeddah. J Faculty of Arts Zagazig Univ 2019.

Paço A, Raposo M (2009) Green” segmentation: an application to the Portuguese consumer market. Mark Intell Plan 27(3):3

Opoku RA, Abdul-Muhmin AG (2010) Housing preferences and attribute importance among low- income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int 34(2):219–227

Nowilaty YR, Saci K (2021) A comparative analysis of the pricing factors of the residential properties in central JEDDAH. PalArch’s J Archaeol Egypt/Egyptology 18(13):818–826

Aduwo BE (2011) Housing Transformation and Its Impact on Neighbourhoods in Selected low-income Public Housing Estates in Lagos. Covenant University

Abd Rahman S et al (2019) Identifying the psychosocial aspects of crowd during pilgrimage: the experiences of a group of Pakistani Female Hajj Pilgrims (Mengenalpasti Aspek Psikososial Orang ramai Yang Bersesak Semasa Haji: Pengalaman Kumpulan Jama’ah Haji Wanita Pakistan). J Islam Asia 16(3):416–435 ( E-ISSN 2289-8077 )

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all participants for their participation in the study.

This study did not receive any source of financial funds.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Interior Design Department, College of Arts and Design, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Alaa M. Shatwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AMS conducted interviews, analyzed data, and wrote manuscripts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alaa M. Shatwan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Author declares no competing interests.

Consent for publication

A written consent was obtained from study participants for publishing images or floor planed.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Shatwan, A.M. Real estate developments in residential architecture: a case study of Jeddah. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Eng.Archit. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-024-00059-z

Download citation

Received : 12 February 2024

Accepted : 31 March 2024

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-024-00059-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Layout Transformation
• Real-estate development
• Owning home
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research