Scope For Expansion Under The Purview Of Article 21 Of Constitution

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of our land which articulates the basic framework demarcating fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is getting stronger and stronger proving its dynamism as a living document even after 103 successful surgeries in terms of amendments. It races with the pace of the changing needs of society.

Article 21 is the basic foundation or the bedrock of our constitution. Though it is the living document strangely the concept of the “Life” mentioned under Article 21 has never evolved further as it could gain only one addition over the last 70 years viz Article 21(A) – Right to Education. Hence this paper attempts to explore the core content envisaged under the scope and meaning of Article 21 of our Constitution. The reason attributed to this phenomenon may be its wide application to the Criminal Jurisprudence as it Article is strongly embedded with two other neighbours (Article 20- Protection in respect of conviction of offence and Article 22- Protection against Arrest and detention) to restrict its expansion to other branches of law. It is often understood that this Article is being misued to gain shelter as it serves as an umbrella to evolve undue benefits. At the same time our Apex court over the last four decades have delivered landmark judgements enlarging the scope of this Article to ensure that many new rights are identified. However this paper studies further scope for the present needs of the society where deprival of many of them has led to disruption in the overall Constitution Scheme. It states as under:

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

Thus the three important components embedded in this single sentence article are : (a) Life (b) Personal Liberty (c) Procedure established by Law..

Justice Field in the famous case “Munn v. Illinois” the word “life” is more than mere animal existence and it embraces within itself not only the physical existence but also the quality of life. The expression “Personal liberty” not only means freedom from arrest, detention and false or wrongful confinement but also covers those rights and privileges that are essential to achieve happiness with freedom.

Supreme Court of India examined the “Right to personal liberty” under Article 21 in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: AIR 1950 SC 27 (Preventive Detention Act, 1950) has narrowed down the meaning and scope of “personal liberty” and held that the term “personal liberty” relates only freedom of the physical body and that Articles 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 have to treated separately.

Justice Bhagwati P.N. in Francis Coralie Mullin case (The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974)  (1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516) said that “The fundamental right to life which is the most precious human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person. Now obviously, the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival.”

Supreme Court has enlarged  the meaning and expression of “personal liberty” in many cases to reach an interpretation that could best protect the liberty and freedom of an individual in its judgement in Kharak Singh v. State of UP: AIR 1963 SC 129(Regulation 236 of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulation) where it held the regulation as ultravires Article 21 and Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution and held that domiciliary visits by the police every night to check and monitor the doings of Kharak Singh were violative of his right to personal liberty and right to freedom of movement as “personal liberty meant much more than mere animal existence”.

In R.C. Cooper v. Union of India: AIR 1970 SC 564- (Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969)  the Apex court overruled the ratio laid down in A. K. Gopalan case and rejected the mutual exclusivity theory. In case effect of any act violates the fundamental rights of citizens,

Supreme Court in the  Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India­­­: AIR 1978 SC 597 (Passports Act, 1960)  gaven widest possible interpretation was given to words and expression “personal liberty” observing that the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers variety of rights which constitute the personal liberty of a man and Article 21 and Article 19 go together and they mutually co-exist to the extent that if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of his personal liberty and though there is no infringement of the fundamental right under Article 21 but any such law and procedure would have to meet the challenges of Article 19.

SCOPE FOR NEW RIGHTS UNDER THE AMBIT OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

There are many specific laws provided to curb the above social wrongs and protect the affected. There are many landmark judicial precedents too established by many courts in our country to safeguard and uphold all these above propositions. But these implied rights coming under the scope and ambit of Article 21 is often taken up to Court for adjudication since it is expressly not provided under the constitution.  Hence, in true reality there is no guarantee spelt out under our Constitution for any citizen to stake his claim as a matter of right to lead his life with Choice and Dignity.Artcile 21 needs to be developed further to ensure that all wisdom reiterated from time to time under the basic structure of our Constitution defined in its’s Preamble.