Article 21-2 Student Brief

Right to livelihood:
The court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip kumar Raghavendranath
Nandkarni,1983 came to hold that “the right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 includes “the
right to livelihood”.
SLUM DWELLERS Case : In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp,1985 the Supreme
Court has made a significant pronouncement on the impact of Art. 21 on urbanization. In this
case the Supreme Court accepted the plea that the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 include
the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court ruled that the eviction of persons from pavement
or a slum not only results in deprivation of shelter but would also inevitably lead to
deprivation of their means of livelihood which means deprivation of their life.
Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air
In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar,1991 it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable for insuring 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
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India(1988), the Supreme Court ordered closure of tanneries
that were polluting water.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India(1997), the Supreme Court issued several guideline and
directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental
degradation.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India,1996 the Court took cognizance
of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water
resources, rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land. The Court issued several
directions to deal with the problem.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006), the Court held that the blatant and large-scale
misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi, violated the right to pollution
free environment. Taking note of the problem the Court issued directives to the Government
on the same.
In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India,2001 the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be
compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of act of smokers. 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, the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious levels
of noise due to bursting of crackers during Diwali.
Right to Privacy
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1962 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. In Kharak Singh: Court invalidated Regulation 236(b) of the
U.P. Police Regulations that permitted nightly domiciliary visits by policemen to persons
classified as habitual criminals.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 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. But in Govind case : Reg 855, 856 were framed under Section
46(2)(e) of Police Act so had Force of law which Kharak singh Regulations did not have.
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 are subjected to
surveillance.”
The court accepted a limited fundamental right to privacy as an emanation from Arts.19(a),
(d) and 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India, 2017 is a resounding victory for
privacy. The ruling is the outcome of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the
Indian biometric identity scheme Aadhaar. The Government of India defended the rule
stating that authentication through Aadhaar, by scanning one’s fingerprint or iris, enlivened
the Fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. After all, to live with
dignity and privacy under Article 21, Indians ought to be able to access food, employment
and other welfare benefits, the State reasoned. No citizen could have a "reasonable
expectation of privacy" over their fingerprints or iris-scans as they were not intimate aspects
an individual’s life, the State said. Once again, the question before the Court was whether the
State could attempt to ensure access to welfare benefits and subsidies to protect one’s
dignity, by overriding one’s right to privacy and dignity. Yet, the court upheld the rule
mandating Aadhaar for welfare benefits. In the court’s words, they were concerned with “...
the balancing of the two facets of dignity".
In the case of Ramleela Maidan Incident, 2012 Justice B.S. Chauhan in his opinion wrote
that when police disturbed the crowd at night at 1:00 a.m., their right to sleep was violated.
He held that right to sleep forms an essential part of Article 21 which guarantees personal
liberty and life to all. Sleep forms an essential part of living a peaceful life, hence it is a
fundamental right.
More Cases under Art.21:
 SC (Indian Young Lawyer Association Vs. State Of Kerala, 2018) allows women
entry to Sabarimala temple, says exclusionary practices violate right to worship under
Art.25, 14, and 21. Rules disallowing women in Sabarimala are unconstitutional and
violative of Article 21,
 Supreme Court Struck down (Joseph Shine v UOI(2017) Victorian era Section 497
of IPC as Unconstitutional, Plea filed in the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC, by an NRI from Kerala, Joseph Shine,
who in his petition said Section 497 was "prima facie unconstitutional on the ground
that it discriminates against men and violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution".
 Suresh Kumar Kaushal versus Naz Foundation, 2013 which upheld the legalities of
Section 377. The judgment had struck down the Delhi High Court judgment
decriminalising homo sexuality. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Supreme
Court on Sept,2018-pronounced that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is
unconstitutional. The five-judge bench read out four judgments, all of which held that
the law, which criminalises 'unnatural sex' between consenting adults, and has been
used to target the LGBTQI+ community in India, has been struck down in so far as it
criminalises same sex intercourse.LGBT rights.On 6 September 2018, the court
delivered its verdict, declaring portions of the law relating to consensual sexual acts
between adults unconstitutional in a unanimous decision. This decision overturns the
2013 ruling in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation in which the court upheld
the law. However, other portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-
consensual sexual acts, and bestiality remain in force. The court found that the
criminalisation of sexual acts between consenting adults violated the right to
equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The court ruled that LGBT people in
India are entitled to all constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by
the Constitution of India. This included "the choice of whom to partner, the ability to
find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory
behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation". The
judgement also made note that LGBTs are entitled to an equal citizenship and
protection under law, without discrimination. While the statute criminalises all anal
sex and oral sex, including between opposite-sex couples, it has largely affected
same-sex relationships. As such, the verdict was hailed as a landmark decision
for LGBT rights in India, with campaigners waiting outside the court cheering after
the verdict was pronounced.
Live-in relationships
Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation,1978 gave legal validity to a 50-year live-in

relationship.
In Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan,2001, court held, “In our opinion, a man and a woman, even
without getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by
society, but it is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.”
In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, 2010, the Court held that, the live-in relationship if
continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there
is a presumption of marriage between the parties.
In landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal 2010, the Supreme Court held that a living
relationship comes within the ambit of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two major living
together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, 2013: Ms. Indra Sarma, an unmarried woman, left her job and
began a “live-in” relationship with Mr. V.K.V. Sarma for a period as long as 18 years, despite
knowing that he was married. Mr. Sarma abandoned Ms. Sarma in a state where she could not
maintain herself. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, failure to
maintain a woman involved in a “domestic relationship” amounts to “domestic violence.” Two
lower courts held that Mr. V.K.V. committed domestic violence by not maintaining Ms. Sarma,
and directed Mr. Sarma to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.18,000 per month. Thereafter, on
appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the orders of the lower courts on the ground that
Ms. Sarma was aware that Mr. Sarma was married and thus her relationship with him would fall
outside the protected ambit of “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On further appeal, the Supreme Court, while
affirming the High Court’s order, created an exception to the general rule. The Supreme Court
clarified that a woman who begins to live with a man who is already married to someone else,
without knowing that he is married, will still be considered to be in a “domestic relationship”
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; thus, the man’s failure to
maintain her will amount to “domestic violence” within the meaning of the Act and she will be
eligible to claim reliefs such as maintenance and compensation. Court held that, “when the
woman is aware of the fact that the man with whom she is in a live-in relationship and who
already has a legally wedded wife and two children, is not entitled to various reliefs available to
a legally wedded wife and also to those who enter into a relationship in the nature of marriage”
Supreme Court emphasised that there is a great need to extend Section 2(f) which defines
“domestic relationships” in DVAct, 2005 so as to include victims of illegal relationships who are
poor, illiterate along with their children who are born out of such relationships and who do not
have any source of income. Further, Supreme Court requested Parliament to enact a new
legislation based on certain guidelines given by it so that the victims can be given protection
from any societal wrong caused from such relationships.
Following are the guidelines given by Supreme Court:
“(1) Duration of Period of Relationship
Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act has used the expression ‘at any point of time’,
which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary
from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.
(2) Shared Household
The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further
elaboration……. ETC.
Section 125 CrPC was incorporated in order to avoid vagrancy and destitution for a wife/minor
children/old age parents, and the same has now been extended by judicial interpretation to
partners of a live-in relationship (held in Ajay Bhardwaj v. Jyotsna, 2016)
In Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, 2015, Supreme Court decided out that couples living in live-in
relationship will be presumed legally married. The Bench also added that the woman in the
relationship would be eligible to inherit the property after the death of her partne
Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya, 2008 has held that a child born out of such relationship
will no longer be considered as an illegitimate child. The important precondition for the same
should be that the parents must have lived under one roof and cohabited for a significantly long
time for the society to recognise them as husband and wife and it should not be a “walk-in and
walk-out” relationship(Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, (2010)
In Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan2010, the Supreme Court held that a child born out
of a live-in relationship may be allowed to inherit the property of the parents (if any) and
therefore be given legitimacy in the eyes of law.
Asok Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2011 remarked that irrespective of the
relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such relationship has to be viewed
independently of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child
born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges available
to children born out of valid marriages. Court held, “With changing social norms of legitimacy in
every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today.”

Article 21-2 Student Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 21-2 Student Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 21-2 Student Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right to livelihood:

Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

Right to Clean Environment

Right Against Noise Pollution

More Cases under Art.21:

Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation,1978 gave legal validity to a 50-year live-in

You might also like