THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY
OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
ASSIGNMENT WINTER SEMESTER
2022

BATCH OF 2025
ID NUMBER: 220062
 SUBMITTED BY:
SUPERVISED BY:
UTSAV MANDAL DR.
SHAMEEK SEN
Article 21 – The miscellany article
Overview
The article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
Thus, article 21 secures two rights: Right to life and right to personal liberty.
The Government of India Act of 1935 established Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It
states that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with
the legal procedure. Article 21 is one of the essential privileges granted to all Indian citizens
which is included in Part III of the Indian constitution. 
No legal provision has sparked greater dissension than Article 21 of the Constitution. The
judicial interpretation and judicial activism have given this article immense facets, making it
a miscellany article.
Fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution form the spirit of the Suprema Lex,
and they are safeguarded by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, which provide the
Supreme Court and the High Court writ jurisdiction, respectively. In terms of judicial
interpretation and activism, a new branch of rights has emerged in relation to article 21 over
the last decade—the reason for this is that, under the scheme of the Indian Constitution,
judicial decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have the force of being the 'law of the land.'

The Chairman Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs.

Chandrima Das & Ors1
This case is one of the very first instances where the potency of this article was explored
beyond any grasp and destined, in which the apex court went on record to state that while
article 21 is in the scheme of the fundamental rights conferred by the constitution and these
rights are available only to citizens, article 21 is a majestic exception as it is applicable even
to foreign nationals.
Article 21 of the Constitution defines life as more than just respiration. It does not imply a
purely animal existence or a life of drudgery. It encompasses a far broader range of rights,
1
The Chairman Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors (2000) 2 SCC 465
such as the right to live in dignity, the right to a livelihood, the right to health, the right to
clean air, and so on.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, 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
armoured 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.”
The Supreme Court agreed with the aforementioned views in Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration3. It was held that the 'right to life' encompassed the right to live a healthy life
in which all of the human body's capabilities were in peak form. It would also include the
right to protect a person's tradition, culture, and heritage, as well as anything else that gives
significance to his existence. It also includes the freedom to live and sleep peacefully, as well
as the right to rest and health.

The Aspects of Article 21

Is the right to life inclusive of the right to die?
Is the right to life inclusive of the right to die? – In the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 4,
it was held that, in terms of article 21, the word 'life' should be read in tandem with the word
'dignity,' but that the right to life does not, by any realm of imagination, include the right to
die. 'Right to life' means 'right to live with human dignity,' not merely animal existence; yet,
it does not include the right to end one's life under medical supervision, whether by the
administration of fatal medications or other means.
It is the Aruna Shanbaug5 case that provided a legal breakthrough, as the Supreme Court for
the first time granted validity to the idea of euthanasia or mercy killing in some form along
with some terms relevant. A person in a persistent vegetative state (PVC) who is dependent
on a life support system can request euthanasia, but his death will not be caused by the
administration of a lethal injection or any other method, but rather by the removal of the life
support system from which he (patient) is dependent. It is fair to state that, as society's social
and psychological growth progresses, Article 21 has progressed dramatically—truly, it is a
welfare piece of legislation.

Sec 377 of IPC and Article 21’s interrelation

The Delhi High Court decision in July 2009 granted the green light to consenting sexual
intercourse between people of the same sex. For LGBT rights activists in general and the
2
In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1964 SCR (1) 332
3
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 SCR (2) 557
4
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 SCC (2) 648
5
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454
NAZ Foundation in particular, it was a time of celebration, but the decision drew a lot of ire
and condemnation. The core of the decision was a judicial interpretation of Article 21. An
appeal to the Supreme Court was filed against the Delhi High Court's decision almost
immediately.
It was on September 6, 2018, a five-member Supreme Court bench declared that Section 377
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) violated India's constitutional morality insofar as it applied to
consenting adults. The historic decision not only impacted the lives of millions of LGBTQ+
individuals, but it also overturned a previous finding that had criminalised the LGBTQ+
community only five winters before. On December 11, 2013, two Supreme Court judges
concluded that India's LGBTQ+ group was a "minuscule minority" and reintroduced the IPC
section (which had been overturned by a previous Delhi high court judgement in 2009),
essentially making LGBTQ+ individuals "criminals."  Justice Indu Malhotra, one of the five
justices who handed out four simultaneous rulings on September 6, put it, society owes the
LGBTQ+ community an apology for the wrongs committed against it.

Narco-analysis test and Article 21’s

interrelation
The Article 20 of the constitution explicitly states three principles-Ex post facto law, which
states that no one can be punished for a law that is no longer in effect and that no one can be
punished more than the statutory maximum; self-incrimination, which states that no one can
be forced to testify against himself; and double jeopardy, which states that no one can be
punished twice for the same crime or felony charge.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka6, was the case in which the Supreme Court of India forever
changed the fortunes of the country's expert agencies specialising in performing narco-
analysis tests, brain mapping tests, and polygraph tests. The supreme court held that
administering such tests is a violation of people' 'right against self-incrimination,' based on
the terminology used in Article 20(3).
The Supreme Court went on record to find the narco-analysis test to be in violation of the
core of Article 21. However, this decision literally attracted a series of criticisms The narco-
analysis test, brain mapping exam, and polygraph test are all administered under medical
supervision by a medical expert and hence fall under the purview of section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The narco-analysis test is considered a full proof measure since it is done first,
and then the findings are reviewed and scrutinised using lie detector tests, polygraph tests,
and brain mapping tests. Declaring that a lie detector test or a brain mapping test is not an
admissible piece of evidence is a step backwards in a world where scientists are working to
determine the evidentiary permissibility of PLR testing (past life regression analysis).

The concept of Death Penalty and Article 21’s

interrelation

6
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
According to Section 354 (3) of the Cr.P.C7, the death sentence can be imposed only in the
rarest of situations, if the facts and circumstances and the very details of the case are so
serious that they shock the court's conscience. In addition, this section states that the judge
presiding over the case must submit "reasons" for their judgement if the punishment is life
imprisonment, and "special reasons" if the punishment is death sentence.
It was in the case of Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal8, where it was decided that
"life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception" – and that the death penalty
is unconstitutional under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in cases such as Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab 9, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 10, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee v.
State of West Bengal11, the death sentence has been affirmed as a matter to accomplish the
goals of justice. It is The reformers claim that because crime fosters crime and murder breeds
murder, murder and capital punishment are not diametrically opposed but of the same sort. In
terms of criminal jurisprudence and 'conceptions of punishment,' the tendency has been
revolutionary, moving away from retribution and deterrent ideas of punishment and toward
preventative, reformatory, and rehabilitative theories.
However, the fact is that India is still in the process of reinventing its moral and ethical
foundations, as well as breaking free from ancient habits, usages, and practises that are
impeding its socioeconomic and political development. India is through a period of rapid
legal growth, although the country's crime rate keeps rising. In terms of the ethicality of the
death penalty in relation to Article 21, the facts on record show that sec. 354(3) of the
C.R.P.C., 1973 in content and spirit is sufficient to address that, as the language employed in
the section are prescient and very far.

Sexual Harassment at Workplace and Article

21’s interrelation
The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual harassment of women violates one of the most
valued fundamental rights, the Right to Life enshrined in Art. 21. In the famous Vishakha
decision, Justice Verma liberalised the interpretation of Article 21. As a result, it becomes
even more liberatory.
“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 Supreme Court ruled in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan 12 that sexual harassment at work
violates the right to equality, life, and liberty. As a result, there is a violation of Articles 14,
15, and 21 of the Constitution.In this case, because there was no applicable statute against
sexual harassment, the Supreme Court established the following standards to promote gender
equality in the workplace.This meant that all employers or people in control of workplaces,
7
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1986, §354 (3)
8
Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal 1979 SCR (3) 355
9
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
10
Machhi Singh And Others vs State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957
11
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 1994 SCR (1) 37
12
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
whether in the public or private sector, have to take adequate precautions to avoid sexual
misconduct.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Vishakha judgement in Apparel Export Promotion
Council v. A.K. Chopra13 and stated 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….”
Rape has been deemed a breach of a person's basic right to life granted by Article 21. As a
result, the right to life would encompass all aspects of life that contribute to making life
meaningful, complete, and worthwhile.14

Privacy and Article 21’s interrelation

Even though not officially stated in the Constitution, the right to privacy was deemed a
"lacunar right" under the Constitution, i.e. a right determined by the Supreme Court to be
inherent to the basic right to life and liberty. Following the KS Puttuswamy 15 decision, the
Court has interpreted and grasped the right to privacy in a number of significant decisions.
In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 16, the Court questioned for the first time whether
the right to privacy may be assumed from existing basic rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e),
and 21. "Surveillance" under Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations violated any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Regulation 236(b), which
allowed monitoring by "domiciliary visits at night," was found to be in violation of Article
21.
The bench ruled in majority decision that
"The definitions of the phrases "life" and "personal liberty" in Article 21 were addressed by
this Court in Kharak Singh's case." Although the majority found no specific provision of a
"right to privacy" in the Constitution, it interpreted the right to personal liberty broadly to
encompass a right to dignity. It concluded that "an unlawful entry into a person's house, and
the disruption caused to him as a result, is as it were a breach of a common law right of a
man - an ultimate requirement of organised liberty, if not of the very notion of society."
However, in minority judgement, Justice Subba Rao held another view
"The right to personal liberty includes not only the right to be free from limits on his
movements, but also the right to be free from encroachments on his private life." True, our
13
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625
14
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty 1996 AIR 922
15
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 4161
16
Kharak Singh vs The State of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295
Constitution does not clearly state that the right to privacy is a basic right, but it is an
essential component of human liberty. Every democratic country reveres household life; it is
intended to provide him with rest, physical enjoyment, mental calm, and security. In the end,
a person's home, where he lives with his family, serves as his "castle"; it serves as his
"rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty."
It is this case, particularly the views of Justice Subba Rao, that laid the ground for following
elaborations on the right to privacy under Article 21, for its further development to more
court judgements.
The Supreme Court examined the right to privacy in greater depth in the case of Govind v.
State of Madhya Pradesh17. In this case, the Court was considering the constitutionality of
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which permitted for police monitoring of serial
criminals, including domiciliary visits and picketing of the suspects. The Supreme Court
declined to overturn these intrusive measures, stating that: This can be maintained that
monitoring via domiciliary visit is always an unacceptable limitation on the right to privacy."
Only individuals suspected of being chronic offenders or those determined to conduct a
criminal life are exposed to monitoring.
As a result of Arts. 19(a), (d), and 21, the Court recognised a limited basic right to privacy. In
the case at hand, Mathew J. observed,
"As a result, the right to privacy will have to go through a case-by-case growth process." As
a result, assuming the right to personal liberty. We do not believe that the ability to roam
freely throughout India and freedom of expression generate an independent basic right of
privacy as an emanation from them that can be characterised as a fundamental right, and we
do not believe that the right is complete”
Considering that a citizen's fundamental rights have lacunar zones and that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right in and of itself, that fundamental right must be subject to
constraints based on persuasive interest of the public.

Prisoner’s Rights and Article 21’s interrelation

It is noteworthy that even incarcerated felons have access to Article 21 protection. Convicts
are not robbed of all of their fundamental rights just because they were convicted. Following
a convict's incarceration, he may be denied essential liberties such as the right to roam freely
across India's territory. A felon, on the other hand, is entitled to the valuable right protected
by Article 21, and he must not be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless via a legal
procedure.
The Supreme Court elaborated on Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 18. The
Court has given Article 21 the broadest interpretation conceivable. When they are convicted
of a crime and stripped of their liberty in accordance with the law. Article 21 established a
new constitutional and penal jurisprudence. The rights and safeguards that have been
established are Right to Free Legal Aid and Appeal, right to a Speedy Trial, right to a Fair

17
Govind vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, 1975 AIR 1378
18
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Trial,right to Bail, Right Against Handcuffing, Right Against Solitary Confinement, and
Right Against Custodial Violence.
The constitutional legitimacy of the death penalty by hanging was challenged in Deena v.
Union of Indiaas "cruel and barbaric, brutal, and humiliating," and therefore in violation of
Article 21.In this instance, the Court resorted to the 1949 Report of the UK Royal
Commission, the opinion of the Director-General of Health Services of India, the Law
Commission's 35th Report, and the view of the Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine
Experts. Finally, it concluded that hanging was the most humane and least painful manner of
carrying out the death punishment. As a result, there is no violation of Article 21.

Emergency and Article 21’s interrelation

The Supreme Court decided in ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla 19, often known as the habeas
corpus case, that Article 21 was the exclusive repository of the right to life and personal
liberty. As a result, if the presidential decree suspends the detainee's right to petition any
court to enforce that right under Article 359, he would have no locus standi to file a writ
petition challenging the constitutionality of his incarceration.
Thus, such a broad interpretation of Article 359 deprived residents valued right to personal
liberty. During the emergence of 1975, experience demonstrated that the people's basic
freedom had lost any value. To ensure that it does not happen again, the constitution act of
1978 revised article 359 to provide that the remedy for enforcing the basic right granted by
article 21 would not be suspended under a presidential order while the declaration of
emergency was in place.

A set of exhaustive rights that Article 21 is

capable of providing in both substance and
essence:

Sll No. Rights offered under Article Case law that leads its inception
21.

1. Right to food People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI20

2. Right to shelter Chameli Singh v. State of U.P21.

3. Right to livelihood Olega Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation22

4. Right to education Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka;23

19
Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207
20
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 568
21
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P 1996 2 SCC 549
22
Olega Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
23
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858
 Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P24.

5. Right to clean environment M.C.Mehta  v. UOI25

6. Right to privacy Govind v. State of M.P26.

7. Right to marriage Lata Singh v. State of U.P27.

8. Right to travel abroad Maneka Gandhi v. UOI28

9. Right to live with human Maneka Gandhi v. UOI29

dignity

10. Right against bondage Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. UOI30

11. Right to emergency medical Parmanand Katara v. UOI31

aid

12. Right, not to be driven out of NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh32

a state

Conclusion
The tale of Article 21 is unending, and it goes without saying that it is a welfare piece of law;
its scope is constantly expanded and re-extended. No basic right has ever been construed with
such insight and sensitivity as article 21. Judicial activity and fair judicial interpretation of
legal provisions are the keys to public welfare in all areas of action, as the article 21 saga
demonstrates- all legal and judicial knowledge must be summed up in the words 'Salus
populi est suprema lex,' the spirit of pro bono publico.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS-
 M.P. JAIN “INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW”, 8TH EDITION 2021

24
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P 1993 AIR 2178
25
M.C.Mehta  v. UOI 1987 SCR (1) 819
26
Govind vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, 1975 AIR 1378
27
Lata Singh V. State of U.P. & Another (2006) 5 SCC 475
28
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
29
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
30
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. UOI 1984 AIR 802
31
Parmanand Katara v. UOI 1989 AIR 2039
32
NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 1996 AIR 1234
WEB SOURCES-
 JSTOR
 SCC ONLINE