Article 21 and Expanding Scope of Right to Life

Article 21 and Expanding Scope of Right to Life

Introduction

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” While initially interpreted narrowly, over the decades, the Supreme Court has expanded its scope, making Article 21 one of the most significant provisions protecting human dignity, liberty, and rights. Today, it not only protects life and liberty in a narrow sense but also encompasses quality of life, health, environment, privacy, education, and livelihood, reflecting a dynamic and evolving understanding of the right to life.

Original Scope of Article 21

1. Literal Interpretation:
   • Initially, Article 21 was confined to protection against arbitrary arrest or detention and violation of procedural law.
2. Procedural Safeguard:
   • Parliament or State could restrict life or liberty only according to “procedure established by law”.
   • Cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) limited its scope to physical restraint.
3. Focus on Negative Rights:
   • The early interpretation focused on freedom from state action, not positive entitlements like health or livelihood.

Judicial Expansion of Article 21

Over the decades, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal interpretation, incorporating various dimensions:

1. Right to Livelihood:
   • In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court recognized that right to life includes the right to livelihood, ensuring that eviction without rehabilitation violates Article 21.
2. Right to Health and Medical Care:
   • In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), access to healthcare was held essential for meaningful life.
3. Right to Clean Environment:
   • In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court ruled that a polluted environment affects life, extending Article 21 to environmental protection.
4. Right to Privacy:
   • In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Court declared privacy as intrinsic to Article 21, covering personal autonomy, dignity, and information protection.
5. Right to Education:
   • Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) linked education to the right to life, later codified in Article 21A for children.
6. Right Against Torture and Inhuman Treatment:
   • Courts have held that custodial torture, inhuman prison conditions, and degrading treatment violate Article 21, reinforcing human dignity.
7. Right to Shelter and Food:
   • Public interest litigations have extended Article 21 to adequate housing and nutrition, ensuring basic survival needs.

Principles Emerging from Judicial Interpretation

1. Substantive vs. Procedural Rights:
   • Article 21 is no longer limited to procedural safeguards; it ensures substantive rights like dignity, health, and livelihood.
2. Dynamic Interpretation:
   • Courts interpret Article 21 in light of contemporary societal needs, international human rights standards, and emerging challenges.
3. Positive Obligation on the State:
   • State must actively ensure conditions conducive to meaningful life, not merely refrain from arbitrary deprivation.
4. Integration with Other Fundamental Rights:
   • Article 21 acts as a repository for other rights like Articles 14, 19, and 39, creating a comprehensive protection framework.

Challenges and Debates

1. Overreach of Judicial Power:
   • Critics argue that expanding Article 21 risks judicial overreach into policy and legislative domains.
2. Resource Constraints:
   • Ensuring rights under Article 21, such as healthcare, education, and environment, requires state capacity and budgetary support.
3. Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest:
   • Conflicts may arise between right to livelihood, development projects, and environmental conservation.
4. Clarity and Uniformity:
   • Broad interpretation can sometimes create ambiguity in enforceability and uniform application across states.

Way Forward

1. Codification and Policy Support:
   • Legislative measures should support judicially recognized rights under Article 21, e.g., healthcare schemes, housing, and social security.
2. Strengthening Implementation:
   • Effective mechanisms for judicial monitoring, public accountability, and grievance redress are needed.
3. Awareness and Education:
   • Citizens must be aware of Article 21 rights to assert them effectively.
4. Balancing Rights and Development:
   • Courts and policymakers should ensure equitable balance between individual rights and societal development.

Conclusion

Article 21 has evolved from a narrow protection against arbitrary deprivation to a broad guarantor of human dignity, liberty, and quality of life. Judicial activism has expanded its scope to include health, education, livelihood, privacy, environment, and protection from inhuman treatment, making it central to India’s constitutional framework. While challenges of implementation, resource allocation, and balancing competing interests remain, Article 21 continues to serve as a dynamic instrument for safeguarding human rights and ensuring meaningful life. Its evolution reflects the commitment of the Indian judiciary to adapt constitutional principles to contemporary needs, making the right to life comprehensive, substantive, and inclusive.