An overview on Article 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India

 By - Saumya Singh

Course - B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Year - 3 & Semester - 6

College - JEMTEC School of Law (JIMS), Greater Noida affiliated to GGSIPU, Delhi

Designation - Legal Intern at Lexis and Company (Module 4 VIP Advance)

Task Day 14 - An overview on Article 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India.

An overview on Article 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India -

Article 21 & 21A (Protection of Life and Personal Libety & Education) -

•In this article question arises is -

- what do we include in life and personal liberty i.e. what is it's scope.

- what is procedure established by law?

•To know this let us first understand

a) what is "Due process of law"?-

Due process follows American Constitution and checks whether any law in question is fair and

not arbitrary and with this power courts get wide power or scope to grant protection to the

rights of it's citizens.

b) Procedure Established By Law? -

It means that a law that is duly enacted by legislature or the body in question is valid, if the

procedure to establish it has been correctly followed.

A rigid and inflexible following of the procedure established by law may raise the risk of

compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to unjust laws made by the law

making authorities

c)What includes or Facets of "Life and Liberty"?-

(i)Right to live with human dignity-

Cases - Occupational Health and Safety Association v UOI 2014- In this case the protection of

health and strength of workers and their access to just and humane conditions of work were

taken as an essential conditions to live with human dignity.

Navtej Singh Johar v UOI 2018- Section 377 of IPC, 1860 was held as unconstitutional insofar as

it criminalizes(now after this discriminalized) homosexual acts between consenting adults,

human dignity is an important consideration of this judgement because human dignity is not a

straight jacket idea rather it involves all those rights and freedoms which enables the person to

live life without encroachment upon his or her self-respect, pride and safety.

Joseph Shine v UOI 2019- Offence of Adultery Unconstitutional.

Here wife was treated as property as if she found in intimate condition with other married man

so her husband can file case against that man and not against his wife. Section 497 of IPC was

held unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates women's right to dignity and hence it

infringed the article 21.

(ii) Right to Self Determination of Gender is Fundamental Right-

Case- National Legal Service Authority v UOI 2014

(iii) Right to Livelihood-

Case - Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986- This case was regarding forceible

evictions of slum dwellers. The court concluded that though the slum and pavement dwellers

were deprived of their right to livelihood, The government was justified in evicting them as they

were making use of the public property for private purposes. However they should not be

considered as trespassers as they occupied the filthy places out of sheer helplessness. It was

observed that any eviction would take place only after the approaching monsoon season And

the persons who were censused before 1976 would be entitled to resettlement.

(iv) Right to Health and Medical Assistance-

Case- Parmanand Katara v UOI 1989- Supreme Court held that all the doctors(private or

government) to extend medical assistance to injured immediately without asking for legal

informalities.

(v) Right to Die-

Section 309 IPC, criminalizes attempt to suicide, with the convicted person facing upto 2 years

of imprisonment or fine or both.

Cases-

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v UOI 2011 - Court held that passive(if person is in coma or

ventilator, in vegetative state or no scope of recovery of life) euthanasia can be allowed in

certain cases.

Note - you will not kill that concerning person by giving posion or by killing only you can stop

giving that person any medicine or remove from ventilator.

(vi) Right to Privacy-

Case- People's Union for Civil Liberties v UOI 1997- Telephone tapping is a violation of

fundamental rights, unless reasonable grounds are there for doing same.

Surjit Singh Thind v Kanwaljit Kaur 2003- Court held that allowing the medical examination of

women's virginity violets are right to privacy under article 21 of the constitution.

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retired) & Anothers v UOI (Aadhar Judgement) 2019- Aadhar(Targeted

Delivery of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was held to be

constitutional but some individual sections violating fundamental rights were stuck down.

(vii) Right to Sleep-

Case-

Ramleela Maidan v Home Secretary, UOI 2012- Yoga training camp was held in ramlila maidan

during June 2011 but on 4th June it turned into a hunger strike against black money and

corruption led by Baba Ramdev. The protest took place all day and 12:30 at night, When all the

protesters were sleeping, a large number of CRPS Delhi Police Force and Rapid Action Force

personnel reached the venue to bring the sadhu out. A scuffle ensured between the personnel

and the sadhu's supporters which ended in throwing teargas shellls on the people.

Court held that every person is entitled to sleep as comfortably and freely as he breathes. If any

person's sleep is disturbed without any reasonable justification, it amounts torture and is

violation of his human rights.

(viii) Right to Education(Article 21A)- Added by 86th CAA 12 December 2002

Cases-

Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka 1992 - In this case right to education at all levels was held to be

a fundamental right.

Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh 1992 - Supreme Court held that right to education is a

fundamental right flowing from Art. 21 but right to free education is available to children and

until they complete the age of 14 years. After that application of state to provide education is

subject to economic capacity &development.