Right to life and personal liberty under The Constitution of India
Author: Yashi Sharma
Introduction:
Right to life and personal liberty was considered as a natural right in traditional times, but with the evolution of human society its definition and interpretation started changing. This right has been described as ‘Heart of Fundamental Rights’ by the Supreme court of India.
According to Article 21 of Indian Constitution,” No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 provides two main rights that are:
- Right to life
- Right to Personal liberty
The right to life and personal liberty was first introduced in Magna Charta of 1215. The importance of this right was realized at that time only. Not only in Indian Constitution but this right secures a place in Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says,” Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. Hence, this right is very important from a point a view of an individual.
In India, judicial interpretation of right to life and personal liberty in Maneka Gandhi case led to expansion of provisions of right to life and personal liberty.
Objective:
- To study about the judicial interpretation of right to life and personal liberty.
- To study different cases related to right to life and personal liberty.
Meaning of Right to Life:
There is no universally accepted definition of Right to life. It has been described differently in different cases, such as in case of Munn v. State of Illinois[1] it was observed that the term ‘life’ means something which mean more than mere animal existence. Hence, quality of life should also be included in right to life. Also, this case was the first case to define the term life.
In other case of Francis Coraliee Vs. Delhi[2], it was held that,” Right to life includes right to live with human dignity and basic necessities such as clothing, shelter and food.”
Hence, there is a very broad definition of right to life which includes right to live quality of life and right to live with human dignity.
Meaning of Personal liberty:
The meaning of personal liberty has evolved with the time and the scope of personal liberty has also widened. Personal liberty is not just physical liberty from external forces but it is more than that. Before Maneka Gandhi case personal liberty was not broadly classified.
Personal liberty was first defined in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[3], in 1950. In this case it was held that personal liberty is not more than liberty of physical body which is freedom from false imprisonment and unfair arrest.
In another case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.[4], it was held that personal liberty includes free from interference in one’s private life. It was observed that personal liberty is not only limited to physical freedom.
But the case of Maneka Gandhi proved to be one of the most important case to understand the widening scope of personal liberty. As in this case right to travel was included in definition of personal liberty. It was held that Right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed except according to the procedure established by law.
Meaning of Procedure established by law:
The expression ‘procedure established by law’ holds a very important position in Article 21. Procedure established by law means the law which is enacted by legislature or any concerned official body.
CJI H.J. Kania in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras said that,” Law in Article 21 must mean that the law of state or the enacted law and not the rules of natural justice.” American concept of due procedural process was introduced in India through the provision of ‘procedure established by law’.
In case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India[5], it was held that ordinance is also included in the procedure established by law that is in Article 21. In the Indian Constitution, there is no difference between the law made by the legislature and the ordinance issued by the President. Hence, ordinance is part of law in Article 21.
Scope of Right to life and Personal Liberty:
Right to Live with human dignity:
Supreme Court of India gave a new dimension to Article 21 in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[6]. The Supreme Court of India in this case held that right to live not only includes physical right but it also includes the right to live with human dignity.
The scope of right to live with human dignity widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[7], where the Supreme court characterized the right to life as heart of fundamental rights. Justice Bhagwati in this case observed that,” It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country, to live with human dignity free from exploitation. 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.”
After this widened view of right to live with human dignity, the Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[8], held that it is denial of right to
live with human dignity to a labourer when he is not paid minimum wages for his work. It was also observed as the violation of Article 21 of Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court.
Right to Livelihood:
Right to livelihood was not the part of Article 21 of Indian Constitution at first. Even in case of Re Sant Ram [9], the court held that the term ‘life’ in Article 21 does not include right to livelihood in it.
But this view completely changed in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni[10], contrary to previous judgement the court included right to livelihood in right to life. In this case, the definition of term ‘life’ was interpreted broadly.
One of the landmark cases, in this regard Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[11], the court stated that,” 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.”
Thus, from the above cases it can be observed that right to livelihood is also a part of right to life which is in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, any denial to the right of livelihood is considered as the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Right against sexual harassment at workplace:
Sexual harassment of women at work place which is considered as a very sensitive crime is now considered as violation of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of Article 21 is broadly interpreted when sexual harassment is included in it.
In the famous case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[12], the Supreme court of India held that sexual harassment of women at workplace is violation of right to life, equality and liberty. In this case, guidelines and norms were also laid by Supreme court for the organizations to prevent sexual harassment at workplace. Hence, sexual harassment is violation of not only Article 21 of the Constitution but it is also violation of Article 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Also, there is Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act which was passed in 2013 to protect women at the workplace. To protect women from increasing sexual harassment these measures were taken.
Right to Privacy:
Right to privacy is not a Fundamental right under Indian Constitution but it holds a value in heart of Fundamental rights i.e., right to life and personal liberty which is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Right to privacy was asserted in right to life and personal liberty in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy(Retd) v. Union Of India[13]. After this case right to privacy was broadly interpreted.
The first time Right to privacy was discussed in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors[14], in this case right to privacy was considered connected with personal liberty. The Supreme Court in this case held that right to privacy is a part of personal liberty and right to protection of life. Whereas, in a minority case judgement, Justice Subba Rao observed 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.”
Govind v. State of M.P.[15] , this was the first case in which Supreme Court of India declared
right to privacy as a fundamental right. However, the court also held that right to privacy is not an absolute right and it is subject to state interest.
But, after the Puttuswamy judgement right to privacy became a important part of right to life and personal dignity.
Right against rape:
Rape is not only a serious crime but it is also a serious crime against human rights. Rape has been held to be a violation of a person’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21. It is considered violation of right to life, live and human dignity. As right to life include all the aspects that make life worthful and meaningful.
In the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty[16], it was observed by the Supreme court that,” 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 pushes 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”.
Thus, rape is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion:
Right to life and personal liberty is not only a fundamental right but it is a basic human right that should be given to every human. Its importance was realized in the British era only. This right is important as it creates a sense of security among the people. Any violation of right to life and personal liberty can led to serious consequences. The scope of right to life and personal liberty is very wide and it has a broad interpretation. Not only citizens of India but this right is enjoyed by non-citizens in India also as this right is a basic human right and discretion cannot be made on the basis of nation boundaries.
Right to livelihood which is a part of right to life and personal liberty, also important from a point of view of an individual. Right against sexual harassment of women and right against rape are also very essential in order to protect women from exploitation.
Every human wants privacy and wants to live its life with dignity. Right to life and personal liberty is a right which ensures these small but essential things that makes a man’s life meaningful.
[1] USA, 1877
[2] AIR 1981 SC849
[3] AIR1950 SC 27
[4] AIR1963 SC 1295
[5] AIR1982 SC 710
[6] AIR1978 SC597
[7] AIR 1984 SC 802
[8] AIR 1982, SC 456
[9] AIR 1960 SC 932
[10] AIR 1983 SC 109
[11] AIR 1986 SC 180
[12] AIR 1997 SC 3011
[13] AIR 2017 SC 4161
[14] AIR 1963 SC 1295
[15] AIR 1975 SC1378
[16] 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490
