Article 21 Indian Constitution : Right to life and personal liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is arguably the most profound and dynamic of all fundamental rights. Encapsulated in a single, elegantly simple sentence, it has evolved from a basic guarantee against arbitrary state action into a vast repository of human rights. Through decades of progressive judicial interpretation, this article has become the constitutional fountainhead for a spectrum of liberties that are considered essential for a meaningful human existence.¹ Its journey from a narrowly construed provision to the “heart of the fundamental rights” is a testament to the living and breathing nature of the Indian Constitution.

The Foundational Text: A Promise of Life and Liberty

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

The key elements of this text are:

“Person”: Unlike many other rights that are available only to citizens (like Article 19), the protection of Article 21 extends to every person within the territory of India, citizen or non-citizen alike.
“Life and Personal Liberty”: These are the core rights being protected. The interpretation of their scope has been the subject of intense judicial evolution.
“Procedure Established by Law”: This phrase is the procedural safeguard. It means that the state can deprive a person of their life or liberty, but only if it follows a pre-existing law and the procedure laid down in that law.

The Great Judicial Transformation: From Gopalan to Maneka

The story of Article 21 is a tale of two landmark cases that represent a monumental shift in judicial philosophy.

The Restrictive Phase: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
In its early years, the Supreme Court adopted a very literal and narrow interpretation of Article 21.4 In the Gopalan case, it held that the term “procedure established by law” meant any procedure laid down by a statute passed by the legislature, as long as it was followed correctly. The Court refused to consider whether the law itself was fair, just, or reasonable. This interpretation effectively meant that as long as a law was formally passed, it could prescribe an arbitrary or oppressive procedure to take away life and liberty. The court also read the fundamental rights in isolation, refusing to see them as an integrated scheme.
“Landmark judgments expanding Article 21 scope”The Expansive Revolution: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This case marked a watershed moment. The Supreme Court dramatically overturned its previous stance and ushered in a new era of human rights jurisprudence. It held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. By doing so, it effectively infused the American concept of “due process of law” into Article 21.
The Court ruled that the fundamental rights in Part III form an integrated scheme and must be read together. Therefore, a procedure under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 14 (it must be non-arbitrary) and Article 19 (any restriction it imposes on freedoms must be reasonable). This “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21 now serves as the ultimate test for the constitutional validity of any state action that affects personal liberty.

The Unwritten Rights: A Universe of Implied Freedoms

Following the Maneka Gandhi judgment, the Supreme Court began to interpret the words “life and personal liberty” with extraordinary creativity and foresight. It held that the right to “life” means much more than mere animal existence; it means the right to live with human dignity. This expansive reading has allowed the Court to recognize a host of unenumerated rights as implicit within Article 21. These include:

Right to Live with Human Dignity: The foundational principle from which many other rights flow (Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 1981).
Right to a Livelihood: As life cannot be sustained without a means of living (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985).
Right to Privacy: Declared a fundamental right in the historic judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which held that privacy is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty.
Right to a Clean Environment: The Court has repeatedly held that a life with dignity is impossible without access to clean water and unpolluted air (Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996).
Right to Health: The State is obligated to provide for the health and well-being of its people (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, 1996).
Right to a Speedy Trial: Recognized as essential to prevent undue hardship and anxiety for the accused (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979).
Right to Shelter: Acknowledged as a necessary component of the right to life, as a roof over one’s head is essential for a dignified existence.
Right to Free Legal Aid: To ensure that justice is not denied to anyone due to economic or other disabilities.
Right Against Solitary Confinement and Handcuffing: Seen as dehumanizing practices that violate human dignity.

The Ever-Vigilant Guardian

Article 21 has transformed from a passive shield against executive action into an active source of positive rights that impose a duty on the State to protect and promote human well-being.¹³ It is the most fertile ground for the evolution of constitutional law in India, continuously adapting to meet the challenges of a new era, from digital privacy to environmental crises. By reading dignity, fairness, and reason into its core, the Indian judiciary has ensured that Article 21 remains the ever-vigilant guardian of the sanctity of human life and liberty, making it the undeniable heart of the Constitution.

Article 21 Indian Constitution : Right to life and personal liberty