By Aashima Kakkar & Archana S
Introduction
In today’s scenario India as a country is fighting a big pandemic of the disease Covid-19, Many grey areas have been cropped up in the current situation. For example, Bombay Municipal Corporation has provided sanitisers mask for the protection of life of the citizens.
Also, the Government of India’s Responsibility to protect its citizens has increased a lot, for that the government has made efforts to rescue the life of the citizens of India by providing many reliefs such as vaccination, food, treatments and many more.
This all comes under Indian Constitution which provide certain rights in the form of Article 21.
Article 21 is the heart of our Indian Constitution given to every citizen of this country. The Article has a huge wide scope hence it talks about everything that a human need for its survival and growth.
This pandemic has also made us to think about the wider scope of this Article, has also suggested to the union lawmakers to introduce Health Welfare of the citizen as a Fundamental Rights, as the country is facing Economic and health due to covid-19.
Recent developments in the field of technology many new and major issues have come up about the privacy of a citizen of India which now has to be addressed and a new amendment for the Welfare of the citizen has to be focused by the government of India.
Today, Technology where data has become the new oil in the market and everybody wants to mine and make capital for them, a major responsibility of the government has to be taken on very priority as every individual and citizen’s personal and Private data can go in the wrong hands.
Article 21 of The Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. The state and its citizens must take responsibility for the right to clean the environment because we live in this environment.
What are the different types of Article-21?
- Right to life
Right to life as many other rights which are included, the word life has a wider scope which includes right to life liberty security etc right to life is a fundamental ride in the Indian Constitution human rights are only attached to living being’s right to life as the scope is wider without such a human cannot survive it includes every aspect of life to make a human beings meaningful and complete living of a human life.
The wider meaning also provides right to shelter growth nourishment or some other rights this is a basic recruitment and every individual or a human should have these essential rights for a person to leave.
In the case of Kharak Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh[1] –
The existence of animals is more vital in terms of life. All of the limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed are protected from deprivation.
The article also outlaws the mutilation of the body, such as the amputation of an armoured leg or the removal of an eye, as well as the destruction of any other part of the body through which our soul connects with the outside world.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to privacy is not a basic right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
- Right to Personal Liberty
As our Indian Constitution states, the safeguarding of our liberty is solely the responsibility of our legislation. As we can see, the Supreme Court is the defender of India’s Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court’s sole job, according to this court, is to preserve and ensure basic rights.
As an Indian citizen, we have all of the essential rights guaranteed by law. As a result, we can use the Supreme Court to enforce it whenever our fundamental rights are violated.
Because the right to a constitutional remedy is included in fundamental rights, it is the Supreme Court’s role to exercise Judicial Review by issuing writs or orders to enforce fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has established the legal process as a stronghold for individual liberty.
The Indian Constitution is the most valuable piece of legislation. The Magna Carta is the foundation for personal liberty. In no way is personal liberty subjected to incarceration, arrest, or other forms of physical force. Personal independence is built on the foundation of positivity.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India[2] –
Maneka Gandhi obtained a passport for the foreign trip from the passport office in this case. However, the petitioner was told about the passport by the Regional Passport Officer in Delhi, who stated that the decision to accept the passport was made by the Government of India.
As a result, the petitioner was required to return her passport within seven days. After some time, the government rejected the passport, claiming that it was not in the public’s best interests.
After then, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the government’s refusal to impound the passport.
The Supreme Court Reinterpreted Article 21 in the case of Maneka Gandhi, ruling that the right to life included not only bodily survival but also the right to live in dignity.
Rights in purview of Right to Life
- Right to Equality
This right includes equality before the law any prohibition or any discrimination is bin considered knows it can’t be discriminated against based on sex cast colour creed or religion and cannot be violated by anyone in case of any designer of these articles this ride gets violated.
The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of law within the territory of India the rule of law is governed by the state government or the people who are appointed by the law.
Hence equality before the law means every person has to follow the rules and regulations of the law no laws should be violated by any person if there is any violation, they are punishable by the court of law rule of law also confers that every person also is protected with in the territory of India, no person can be discriminated in any of sex, gender, caste, religion.
This is the principle of equality before the law the rule of law is not easily changeable it is stable law that are an essential part of an individual freedom and security.
- Right to live with Human Dignity
The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India[3] gave Article 21 a new dimension, holding that the right to life is not just a physical right, but also encompasses the right to live with dignity.
In Francis Coralie Vs Union Territory of Delhi[4], the Court elaborated on the same point, saying:
“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.”
Another wide expression of the idea of life to dignity can be found in Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India[5]. The Court gave Article 21 a wider interpretation, describing it as the “heart” of fundamental rights. Bhagwati J. made the following observation:
“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
“These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”
In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India[6], the Supreme Court decided that non-payment of minimum wages to employees working in various Asiad Projects in Delhi constituted a deprivation of their right to live with basic human dignity and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to Bhagwati J., the rights and benefits placed on contractors’ employees under various labour regulations are obviously designed to ensure workers’ basic human dignity.
He held that the non-implementation of the laws by private contractors hired to build a building for the Asian Games in Delhi, as well as the State Authorities’ failure to enforce the laws’ provisions, were violations of the fundamental right of workers to live in dignity, as enshrined in Article 21.[7]
It was held in Chandra Raja Kumar Vs Police Commissioner Hyderabad[8] that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and decency, and that holding a beauty contest is repugnant to women’s dignity and decency, and only offends Article 21 of the Constitution if it is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene, or intended for blundering.
Under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Undesirable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956, the government has the authority to declare the contest an objectionable performance.
In State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrabhan[9], the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provided for the payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Rs. 1 per month to a suspended Government Servant upon conviction during the pendency of his appeal, on the grounds that it violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Right of opportunity to employment
Every person educated or uneducated or belongs to lower or upper society has the right to choose, the right to work and in their area of interest it includes even women to work in reputed companies and institutions. This right also includes any weaker sections of society where there should be no discrimination against them.
Also, every child has a right to get marks in the examination based on their merits and can select for higher studies. Also, anyone can start business as they require.
Employment rights also includes reservations for special persons right against untouchability. The Supreme Court has abolished untouchability hence no man gets discriminated against based on caste or untouchability.
- Right to privacy
The right to privacy is protected as an instinct part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of freedom guaranteed by part three of the Constitution.
Privacy of an individual is very important and responsibility of the government say for example Aadhar card the government ID proof its biometric and other details are to be protected by the government and NGO fraud should happen is the responsibility of the government.
In the case of Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration[10] –
The petitioner is a prisoner who has been tortured in this case. Other detainees allegedly tortured the victim to recover money, according to the court’s judges. This case has been converted to Habeas Corpus as a result of the letter.
In another case R. Rajgopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu[11] –
The case involved three petitioners. The first is the editor, printer, and publisher of the Tamil weekly magazine Nakkheeran, which is published in Madras.
The second petitioner works as the magazine’s associate editor. All of the petitioners were accused of committing at least six murders. He was found guilty and given the death penalty. The petitioner appeared in court, but the judges ruled against him.
-
- Tapping of telephone
Tapping of phones is a violation of privacy only the authorised home minister has a right to give permission in case of any infringement of law.
-
- Privacy in relation to Aadhaar Card
It is the Governments responsibility to protect the records of the population against the frauds who try to get information from Aadhaar Cards. These cards should be biometric protected and the details should be safeguarded from any kind of online attack.
- Right against Sexual Harassment at Workplace
The case of Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan[12] deals with the evil of Sexual Harassment of a woman at her workplace. It is a landmark judgment case in the history of sexual harassment which as being decide by Supreme Court.
Sexual Harassment means an uninvited/unwelcome sexual favour or sexual gestures from one gender towards the other gender. It makes the person feel humiliated, offended and insulted to whom it has been done.
In many of the cases, it has been observed that homosexual labour harasses an employee belonging to the same sex to which he belongs.
The court decided that the consideration of “International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein.”
The petition resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 has, provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with.
This has emerged as a significant legal victory for women’s groups in India.
- Right against Rape
Rape has been declared a breach of a person’s right to a fundamental life protected by Article 21. The right to life includes the right to live in dignity.
As a result, the right to life would encompass all aspects of life that contribute to making life meaningful, complete, and worthwhile.
The Supreme Court ruled in Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty[13] that:
“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Article 21”.
- Right to reputation
The importance of one’s reputation in one’s life cannot be overstated. It is one of the more beautiful aspects of human civilisation that makes life worthwhile. The Supreme Court held in Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry[14] that:
“Good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.”
The same American decision was also referred to in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Public Concern of Governance Trust[15], where the Court held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the constitution, equally with the right to vote.
In the case of State of Bihar Vs Lal Krishna Advani[16], a two-member commission of inquiry appointed to investigate communal disturbances in Bhagalpur district on October 24, 1989, made some remarks in their report that harmed the respondent’s reputation as a public official without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court found that it was abundantly evident that one had the right to have and maintain one’s reputation, as well as the right to safeguard one’s reputation.
The Court went on to add that whenever any authority transgresses into the sphere of personal reputation in the course of carrying out its legal obligations, it must provide him an opportunity to have his say in the matter.
The Court stated that the concept of natural justice required the authority to provide the person a chance before making any comment or expressing an opinion that was likely to be harmful to that person.
- Right against Honour Killing
Very recent instances of killing for honour have been seen. All these cases show that families kill their own kin for the honour or for them to not get involved with people from other religions.[17]
But these killings have been discussed by the Allahabad High Court long ago in the case of Surjit Kumar Vs State of U.P.[18], a division bench of the Court took serious note of harassment, ill-treatment, and killing of a major for wanting to marry someone from another caste or community, for bringing dishonour to the family, despite the fact that intercommunity marriage was not prohibited by law.
As a result, the court ordered the police to take tough measures against anyone who carried out similar “honour killings.”
- Right to health
The right to life protected under Article 21 includes the right to health and medical care, according to the decision in State of Punjab Vs M.S. Chawla[19].
In this context, Article47, a Directive Principle of State Policy, emphasises the need of improving public health and prohibiting harmful medicines as one of the state’s fundamental responsibilities.
The Supreme Court ruled in Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs Union of India[20] that:
“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and liveable with human dignity requires the State to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The health and strength of worker, the court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Article 21.”
- Right to Medical Care
As the pandemic has hit the country throughout last year, everyone has been actively availing medical services as a fundamental right, but the road was not easy.
The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally in Parmananda Katara Vs Union of India[21] that the preservation of life is of primary significance. ‘Once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored[xlviii],’ the Supreme Court stated. It was decided that all doctors, whether government or private, have a professional obligation to provide medical help to the injured as soon as possible in order to save their lives without having to comply with legal formalities imposed by the police.
Article 21 imposes a duty on the state to protect human life. Those in charge of the community’s health have a responsibility to preserve life so that the innocent can be protected and the criminal can be punished.
No law or official action can be used to postpone or absolve members of the medical profession of this vital responsibility.
No law or state action can prevent or postpone the discharge of the most important responsibility entrusted to medical professionals.
Because the commitment is comprehensive, absolute, and paramount, any laws of procedure, whether enacted by statute or otherwise, that would obstruct the discharge of this obligation cannot be supported and must be abandoned. The court went on to say:
“Article 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the State to preserve life. The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment…. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.”
In another case, Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs State of West Bengal[22], a person with serious brain injuries sustained in a train accident was denied treatment at multiple institutions on the grounds that they lacked the necessary equipment and infrastructure.
In this decision, the Supreme Court expanded on the right to emergency care, stating that a government hospital’s failure to give timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment constitutes a breach of the individual’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 21.
It acknowledged the lack of financial resources to carry out such a right, but held that the State must provide for the resources necessary to carry out the people’s right to receive emergency medical treatment.
It has been said numerous times that providing emergency medical care should not be hampered.
In the case of Ruby General Hospital & Others Vs Pravat Kumar Mukherjee[23] It was decided that a hospital has a legal obligation to accept accident victims and patients in critical condition, and that it cannot refuse treatment on the grounds that the victim is unable to pay the fee or meet the expenses, or that no close relative of the victim is available to give consent for medical treatment.
The court has emphasised a key point: the state cannot claim a lack of financial means to carry out these orders aimed at providing proper medical care to the people.
Due to financial restrictions, the state cannot escape its constitutional commitment to provide basic medical care to individuals.
However, in State of Punjab Vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga[24], the Supreme Court acknowledged that health-care services cannot be provided indefinitely. The court ruled that it must be to the extent that finances allow. No country can spend an endless amount of money on any of its projects.
When is Article 21 violated?
The Constitutional remedy as a fundamental right has been given to over citizens so it is a fundamental responsibility of a Supreme Court to review an exercise through writs.
Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12.
In the case of Mansingh Surajsingh Padvi vs. Maharashtra State[25], the appeal was filed against the Bombay High Court’s judgement, which was issued by the Maharashtra government in exercise of its powers under sub-para (1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, and the West Khandesh Mehwassi Estate Regulation, 1961, which was issued by the Maharashtra Governor under sub-para (2) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court has infringed on the respondent’s fundamental right.
In another case, Executive Engineer vs. K.P Hussain Reddy and Others[26] –
The petitioner brought the action because the defendant did not pay the compensation. The petitioner sends a letter to the respondent, asking payment of Rs. 4,67,622 in land purchase fees. However, the respondent did not pay the amount due.
The defendant was served with a land amount notice by the court. The court dismissed the case in March, stating that the land acquisition process would be completed in six months.
Conclusion
Fundamental rights are the birth rights given to every citizen of India. In today’s world the government’s responsibilities are increasing day by day and have to be at par as new invention which leads to more protection of a citizen’s way of living.
Hence the government has to on its day to day have to make amendments in the Article 21 for a safe n free life of citizens. In today’s scenario judiciary has an important role in our Indian Constitution as it provides basic rights to the person but yes, every citizen is equally responsible.
References
- timesofindia.indiatimes.com
- indiankanoon.org
- blog.ipleaders.in
- Article 21 : Constitution of India
- .lawctopus.com
- Kharak Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 AIR 1295 ↑
- Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597 ↑
- Ibid ↑
- Francis Coralie Vs Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746 ↑
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India 1984 AIR 802 ↑
- Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India 1982 AIR 1473 ↑
- J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42nd Ed. (2005), p. 222 ↑
- Chandra Raja Kumar Vs Police Commissioner Hyderabad AIR 1998 AP 302 ↑
- State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrabhan 1983 SCR (3) 327 ↑
- Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579 ↑
- R. Rajgopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264 ↑
- Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011 ↑
- Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty 1996 AIR 922 ↑
- Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry 1989 AIR 703 ↑
- State of Maharashtra Vs Public Concern of Governance Trust AIR 1989 SC 714 ↑
- State of Bihar Vs Lal Krishna Advani AIR 2003 SC 3357 ↑
- ‘Honour killing’ in Dwarka: Accused hid inside couple’s home – Investigators said that the woman’s brother, the alleged “mastermind”, is absconding. Police said he had been arrested four years ago as well in connection with a murder case, available at: indianexpress.com (Last visited on 13th July 2021) ↑
- Surjit Kumar Vs State of U.P. AIR 2002 NOC 265 ↑
- State of Punjab Vs M.S. Chawla AIR 1997 SC 1225 ↑
- Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs Union of India 1995 AIR 922 ↑
- Parmananda Katara Vs Union of India 1989 AIR 2039 ↑
- Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs State of West Bengal 1996 SCC (4) 37 ↑
- Ruby General Hospital & Others Vs Pravat Kumar Mukherjee 2005 CPJ 35 NC ↑
- State of Punjab Vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga AIR 1998 SC 1703 ↑
- Mansingh Surajsingh Padvi vs. Maharashtra State (1968) 70 BOMLR 654 ↑
- Executive Engineer vs. K.P Hussain Reddy and Others 2003 (1) ALD 43 ↑