JUDICIAL PROUNCEMENT
HAVE UPLIFTED THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (scope of article 21 of the constitution
of India)
Introduction: Art. 21 of the constitution of India guaranteed the fundamental right to life and personal liberty
to citizens as well as to non-citizens (Chairman,
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das). The object of the fundamental right of
Art. 21 is to prevent infringement upon personal liberty and deprivation of
life except according to the procedure established by law must be strictly
followed.
Art.21 of the constitution reads
as “No person shall be deprived of his
life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.
Prior to the Maneka Gandhi’s decision Art. 21 guaranteed the right to life
and personal liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the
executive and not from legislative action. The state could interfere with the
liberty of citizens if it could support its action by a valid law.
Scope of Art.21- meaning and
scope:
The scope of Art.21 was bit
narrow till 50s. The meaning of the words “personal liberty” came up for
consideration of the Supreme Court for the first time in A.K. Gopalan v. union of India AIR 1950 SC 27. In this case
the petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader was detained under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the
detention under the Act on the ground that it was violative of his right to
freedom of movement U/Art.19 (1) (d) which is the very essence of personal liberty
is guaranteed by Art.21. But the court held that the ‘personal liberty’
contained in art.21 means nothing more than the liberty of the physical body,
that freedom from arrest and detention without the authority of law.
But this restrictive
interpretation of the expression personal liberty in A.K. Gopalan’s case has
not been followed by the SC in its later decisions. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR1963 SC1295 the SC held
that the personal liberty is not only limited to bodily restraint or
confinement to prisons only, it is used as compendious term including within
itself all the varieties of rights which going to make up personal liberty of a
man other than those dealt within Art.19 (1).
After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC597 case the SC
not only overruled Gopalan’s case but has widened the scope of the words ‘personal
liberty’ considerably. Bhagwati, J. observed:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’
in art. 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to
constitute personal liberty of man and some of them have risen to the status of
distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under art.19.” Further
held that “The attempt of court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the
fundamental rights rather than to attenuate their meaning and content by a
process of judicial restriction.”
The court lays down great stress
on the procedural safeguard. The procedure must satisfy the requirement of
natural justice, it must be just, fair and reasonable.
In Francis Coralie v. Delhi Administration (AIR1981 SC746),
held that the word personal liberty is of widest amplitude and it includes the ‘right
to socialize’ (by detenu) with members of family and friends subject to
reasonable prison regulations. Detenu’s right to have interview with his lawyer
and family members is part of his personal liberty guaranteed by art 21. Right to
‘live’ is not confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit
the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely
the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter,
and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing ourselves in diverse forms,
freely moving and mixing with fellow human beings.
The scope of art21 is further
widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984,SC 802 in respect of the bonded labour
and weaker section of the society. The state is under constitutional obligation
to see that there is no violation of fundamental right of any person,
particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is
unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent, who is
exploiting him. As art.21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free
from exploitation, the central and the state govt. therefore bound to ensure
observance on the various social welfare and labour laws enacted by Parliament
for the purpose of securing to the workman a life basic human dignity in
compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
It was observed in the case of Unni Krishnan that Art.21 is the
heart of the fundamental rights and it has extended the scope of this Art. by
observing that the right to life includes the right to education too. (By the 86th constitutional
amendment act 2002, right to education has been inserted under Art.21-A of the
constitution).
The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and
others it was held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Art.21 of the
constitution, it is the duty of the state to create a climate where member of
the society belonging to the different faith, caste and creed live together and
therefore the state has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and
worth of individual which should not be jeopardized.
Further in the case of Subhas Kumar vs. State of Bihar the apex court held that Public Interest
Litigation is maintainable for ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and
air which is included in the ‘right to live’ under Art. 21.
Right to privacy as a part of Art.21 : In R.
Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) popularly known as “Auto Shankar case”
the supreme court has expressly held the “right to privacy”, or the right to be
let alone is guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution.
In Surjit Singh Thind vs Kanwaljit Kaur, the Punjab and Haryana
HC has held that allowing medical examination of a woman for her virginity amounts
to violation of her right to privacy and personal liberty enshrined under Art.21.
Conclusion: To sum up the above discussion it is clear
that the provision of Art.21 was constructed narrowly at the inception but the
law in respect of life and personal liberty of a person was developed
gradually. New dimension have been added to Art.21 from time to time. The interpretation
which has been given to the word life and personal liberty in various decisions
of the apex court, it can be said that the protection of life and personal liberty
has got multidimensional meaning and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act
of the state which deprived life or personal liberty of a person would be against
that provision of Art.21 of the constitution.
Art 21 , maneka gandhi vs union of india
No comments:
Post a Comment