Scope of right to life and personal liberty under article 21

1. Thapeshvar S – (917722G110)
Thiru Selvan R – (917722G111)
Vasantha kumar S.K – (917722G112)
Yaswanth Siva S – (917722G115)
15

2.  Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law” 1.
 It safeguards two fundamental rights:
 Right to Life: Ensures protection against arbitrary deprivation of life.
 Right to Personal Liberty: Guards against unwarranted restrictions on individual freedom.

3. The concept of this right has evolved from international human
rights charters.
It emphasizes that life and liberty are essential for human dignity
and well-being.

4. 1. Right to Live with Human Dignity
2. Right to Livelihood
3. Right to a Clean Environment
4. Right to Health
5. Right to Privacy
6. Right to Reproductive Choices
7. Right to Choose One’s Partner
8. Right to Shelter
9. Right to Die (with Dignity)

5.  Article 21 ensures that every individual has the right to live with dignity. This
includes protection against any act that violates a person’s dignity or
subjects them to inhumane treatment.
1.Punishment:
1. Violations of the right to live with human dignity can lead to legal consequences.
2. Specific punishments depend on the nature and severity of the violation. Legal remedies
may include compensation, injunctions, or criminal penalties.
3. Courts play a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing this right, ensuring that
individuals are treated with respect and dignity.

6.  The right to livelihood is an integral part of Article 21. It recognizes that individuals have the
right to earn a living through lawful means and pursue their chosen profession or
occupation.
 Violation of the right to livelihood occurs when a person’s means of earning a living
is unjustly curtailed. The Indian judiciary recognizes that the right to livelihood is
intrinsically linked to the right to life.
 Punishment for violating the right to livelihood depends on the specific
circumstances and the legal framework. However, the focus is often
on compensation rather than punitive measures. Courts have held that the State has
an obligation to protect the right to life and liberty.
 Capital punishment (death penalty) has also been a subject of discussion in the
context of Article 21

7.  Article 21 extends to environmental protection. It acknowledges the right to
live in a healthy and pollution-free environment.
 The Right to a Clean Environment is a fundamental human right, essential
for a dignified and healthy life. It encompasses access to fresh air, clean water, and
other basic necessities
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Indian Penal Code (IPC)

8.  Section 15 of this act stipulates penalties for contravening its
provisions, orders, rules, and directions. Offenders can face
imprisonment for up to 5 years or fines.
 This act was established in1986.
 Section 278 of the IPC deals with pollution of the atmosphere that
negatively affects people’s health. Anyone found guilty of such pollution
may be fined up to five hundred rupees

9.  The right to health is implicit in Article 21. It includes access to medical
facilities, healthcare, and a healthy life.
• The right to health is a fundamental human right recognized globally. It encompasses
the right to access healthcare services, medical treatment, and a healthy environment.
• People should have the possibility of seeking effective remedies for violations such as
the denial of health services.
 India’s Healthcare Crisis
 Legal Framework
 Children’s Right to Health

10. • During the COVID-19 pandemic, India faced a massive oxygen shortage, and its
healthcare infrastructure crumbled under the strain.
• In the capital city alone, twenty-five patients died due to oxygen shortages on April
24th.
• The government’s inadequacy in providing healthcare facilities violated
citizens’ human right to health.
• The Patna High Court expressed strong displeasure over these deaths, emphasizing
that inadequate healthcare during a pandemic violates citizens’ right to life under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

11. • India’s jurisprudence around the right to health began shaping after 1988 when
the Supreme Court recognized the state’s legal obligation to provide medical
attention to every citizen.
• The Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution also emphasize
the right to health.
• Although Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the Supreme Court has highlighted
their importance and binding nature on state organs.
• The right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, includes protection of
health

12. • The Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges states to protect children from all
forms of violence, including ensuring their right to health.
• States must abolish traditional practices prejudicial to children’s health and ensure
that school discipline respects their human dignity.
• Children should not be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment

13.  The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. Every citizen in India has the right to privacy and the right
to defend themselves from anguish, social harm, embarrassment, and
other forms of harassment, including any invasion of privacy that
threatens human dignity and reputation
 Punishment for Invasion of Privacy:
 Violation of privacy can lead to imprisonment for up to 3 years and a
fine of up to INR 2 lakhs, or both.

14.  Article 21 encompasses the right to make informed decisions about reproduction, family
planning, and reproductive health.
 The Supreme Court of India has declared that the right of every woman to make
reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea
of human dignity. This landmark ruling emphasizes the competence and authority of
every woman to make decisions regarding her reproductive health, including the
choice to terminate a pregnancy.
 Punishment for Violation:
• Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, causing a miscarriage
without the consent of the pregnant woman, regardless of the stage of her pregnancy,
is considered a criminal offense. The punishment can range from life
imprisonment to a jail term of up to 10 years, along with a fine

15.  Individuals have the right to choose their life partner without interference from external authorities
 The Supreme Court of India has unequivocally recognized that the choice of a life
partner is a fundamental right for every individual

16.  The right to shelter is a fundamental right recognized in India. It provides protection
against forced evictions, arbitrary destruction, and demolition of one’s home.
 Indian courts have linked the right to shelter with the right to life, emphasizing that
housing is implied under the right to life.
 Punishments:
In general, if anyone violates the rule of law related to shelter, they are subject to
punishment by a court of law

17.  The Right to Die with Dignity is a complex and sensitive issue that involves ethical,
legal, and human rights considerations.
• he concept of euthanasia (assisted dying) is closely related to the right to die with
dignity.
• Active euthanasia (administered by a doctor) and self-administered euthanasia (by the
individual) have different legal implications
• If a doctor administers active euthanasia, they may be convicted under Section 304 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 Capital punishment (the death penalty) is constitutionally valid in India, despite its
conflict with the right to life and dignity guaranteed by Article 21

18. 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964)
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
4. Hadiya case in March (2018)

20.  Case Name: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
 Year : 1950
 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
 Key Parties: A.K. Gopalan (Petitioner) v. State of Madras (Respondent)
 Legal Issue : The main issue in this case was whether the Preventive Detention Act of 1950
was constitutional, particularly in relation to Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution,
which guarantee the rights to equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, and
protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.
 Decision : The Supreme Court held that the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was
constitutional. The majority judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Harilal J. Kania, concluded
that the Act did not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of preventive detention in maintaining
public order and security, especially during times of emergency or threat.

22.  1. Issue : The case questioned the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Police Regulations concerning police surveillance and domiciliary visits.
 2. Petitioner's Argument : Kharak Singh argued that these provisions violated his
fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.
 3. Court's Finding : The Supreme Court acknowledged the implicit existence of the right to
privacy within the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
 4. Decision : However, the court narrowly ruled on procedural grounds, stating that the
petitioner's rights were not infringed upon in this specific instance.
 5. Significance : Although the court's decision was limited, it laid the foundation for
recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right in subsequent legal interpretations and
legislative actions in India.

24.  1. Issue : The case revolved around the constitutional validity of passport regulations and the
government's power to impound passports.
 2. Petitioner's Argument : Maneka Gandhi challenged the government's decision to impound
her passport without providing reasons or an opportunity to be heard, alleging violation of
her fundamental rights.
 3. Court's Finding : The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is an
essential part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
 4. Expanded Interpretation : The court broadened the scope of Article 21, stating that it
encompasses not just physical freedom but also other facets of personal liberty, including the
right to travel abroad.
 5. Procedural Safeguards : The court ruled that any restriction on the right to travel abroad
must be reasonable and fair, and individuals must be given a chance to contest the restriction.
 6. Invalidation of Arbitrary Powers: The court declared that arbitrary exercise of power by
the government, such as impounding passports without providing reasons or opportunity to
be heard, violates the principles of natural justice and is unconstitutional.
 7. Impact: The case significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21, reinforcing the
importance of procedural fairness and individual liberties, and setting a precedent for judicial
review of government actions affecting personal freedoms.

26.  Background: The case involved Hadiya, a woman from Kerala, India, who converted to Islam and
married a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan.
 Allegations of Forced Conversion: Hadiya's father filed a petition in the Kerala High Court alleging
that her conversion to Islam was involuntary and that she was a victim of "love jihad" – a term
used to describe an alleged conspiracy to convert Hindu women to Islam through marriage
 High Court Decision: The Kerala High Court annulled Hadiya and Shafin Jahan's marriage, and
placed Hadiya under the custody of her parents, claiming she was brainwashed.Supreme Court
Intervention: Shafin Jahan appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, challenging
the annulment of their marriage and the restrictions placed on Hadiya's freedom.
 Supreme Court Verdict: The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, overturned the High
Court's decision, stating that adults have the right to choose their partners and convert to any
religion of their choice.
 Protection of Individual Rights: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of individual
autonomy and upheld Hadiya's right to make her own decisions regarding marriage and religion.
 Recognition of Fundamental Rights: The case underscored the significance of fundamental rights
such as the right to privacy, freedom of religion, and freedom of choice in personal matters.
 Impact: The Hadiya case set a precedent for upholding the rights of individuals, particularly
women, to choose their partners and practice their chosen religion freely, without interference
from the state or family members.

27. Thank you