Article 21: Beyond Life and Liberty - How Courts Have Expanded Its Meaning
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, looks surprisingly short. It simply says:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
At first glance, it seems limited or almost narrow. Life and liberty, protected only if the law allows it. But over the years, Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have transformed this small provision into one of the most powerful and meaningful fundamental rights. Today, Article 21 is not just about being alive or free from physical restraint. It is about living with dignity.
The Early Interpretation: A Narrow View
In the early years after independence, courts interpreted Article 21 quite strictly. The turning point was the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
In this case, the Supreme Court held that as long as a law existed and the procedure laid down in that law was followed, Article 21 was satisfied , even if the law was unfair or unreasonable. The court did not examine whether the procedure itself was just.
This meant that personal liberty had very limited protection. The State had wide powers, and individual rights were secondary. For many years, Article 21 remained confined to this narrow understanding.
Maneka Gandhi: A Constitutional Revolution
Everything changed with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her proper reasons or a chance to be heard. She challenged this action as a violation of her personal liberty under Article 21.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court completely changed the interpretation of Article 21. The Court held that:
- The procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.
- Article 21 cannot be read in isolation; it must be read along with Articles 14 and 19.
- Any law affecting life or liberty must pass the tests of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
This judgment expanded Article 21 from a narrow rule into a living, dynamic right. After Maneka Gandhi, Article 21 became the foundation for many unenumerated rights.
Life Means More Than Mere Survival
One of the most important ideas developed by courts is that “life” does not mean mere animal existence.
In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity. This includes basic necessities such as:
- adequate nutrition
- clothing
- shelter
- freedom to express oneself
Similarly, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court recognised that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life. The reasoning was simple and human: if a person is deprived of their livelihood, their life itself becomes meaningless.
This case showed how courts started looking at real human conditions, not just legal theory.
In recent years, courts have continued this dignity-based approach while dealing with education and individual growth. In Shreya Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court held that a student’s right to appear in examinations forms part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court observed that arbitrary administrative actions which derail a student’s academic career directly affect her future and self-respect. This decision reflects how Article 21 now protects not only survival, but also opportunities essential for a meaningful life.
Right to Education, Health, and Clean Environment
Over time, Article 21 became the source of several socio-economic rights.
In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and later in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that the right to education flows from Article 21. Education was seen as essential for living with dignity.
The right to health was also recognised as part of Article 21. In cases like Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Court held that preservation of human life is of paramount importance, and hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment.
Environmental protection also found a place under Article 21. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free air and water.
These judgments show how Article 21 moved beyond individual liberty to address collective human well-being.
Privacy, Choice, and Personal Autonomy
For a long time, privacy was not explicitly recognised as a fundamental right. That changed with the historic judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Privacy was linked to personal autonomy, dignity, and freedom of choice.
This judgment had far-reaching implications, affecting areas such as data protection, bodily autonomy, and personal decisions.
Similarly, in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Court recognised the right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. This showed that Article 21 respects not just life, but also the quality and dignity of life.
Article 21 and Protection of Reputation and Fair Treatment
Courts have also recognised that dignity under Article 21 includes protection from public humiliation and reputational harm. In Islam Khan v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court strongly condemned the practice of police authorities publishing photographs of arrested persons. The Court held that such acts violate the right to dignity and the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 21, and directed the immediate removal of such images.
Similarly, in IE Online Media Services v. Nitin Bhatnagar, the Delhi High Court acknowledged that an acquitted person has a right to move on with life. The Court held that continued digital circulation of old criminal allegations infringes the right to dignity under Article 21 and may justify de-indexing of online content. These cases show how Article 21 has adapted to challenges posed by the digital age.
Article 21 has also been invoked to protect individuals from misuse of criminal law. In Umme Farva v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court observed that registration of false and malicious FIRs causes serious mental trauma and violates personal liberty under Article 21. The Court stressed that constitutional courts must act as guardians against abuse of State power.
At the same time, courts have clarified that the right to life and liberty is not absolute. In Afzal Basha v. National Investigation Agency, the Karnataka High Court held that individual liberty under Article 21 may be reasonably restricted in cases involving threats to public order and communal harmony. This balance ensures that Article 21 remains strong yet responsible.
Why Article 21 Matters Today
What makes Article 21 special is its flexibility. It grows with society. Courts have used it to respond to changing social realities such as poverty, health crises, environmental damage, and technological advancements.
However, this expansion also raises questions. Some critics argue that courts sometimes go too far and enter the domain of the legislature. Others believe that such judicial creativity is necessary in a country where many people still struggle for basic dignity.
Perhaps the real strength of Article 21 lies in its human focus. It reminds us that the Constitution is not just a legal document but it is a promise to ensure that every person can live with dignity, respect, and freedom.
Conclusion
Article 21 started as a simple sentence. Today, it is the heart of fundamental rights in India. Through progressive judicial interpretation, courts have transformed it into a source of numerous rights that touch everyday human life.
From personal liberty to privacy, from livelihood to clean environment, Article 21 reflects the idea that life is not just about existence, but about living well.
And as society evolves, Article 21 will likely continue to grow quietly , reminding the State that law exists for people, not the other way around.
Keep Learning!
Read More News at legalwiki.co.
Join our WhatsApp group for more updates!
