Understanding Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is perhaps the most litigated and expansively interpreted fundamental right. What began as a seemingly narrow protection against arbitrary arrest has evolved into the repository of nearly every conceivable human right through seven decades of constitutional jurisprudence.

The Text of Article 21

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

At first glance, this provision appears straightforward—a negative right that simply requires the State to follow some procedure before taking away life or liberty. However, through transformative judicial interpretation, Article 21 has become the fountain of fundamental rights in India.

Original Scope: The Narrow Beginning

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

The first significant interpretation of Article 21 came in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, decided just months after the Constitution came into force.

Facts: A.K. Gopalan, a Communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention, arguing that Article 21 should be read with Article 19 (freedom of movement) and Article 14 (equality).

The Majority View:

• Articles 19, 21, and 22 are mutually exclusive
• “Procedure established by law” means procedure prescribed by enacted law (State-made law)
• Courts cannot examine whether the procedure is fair, just, or reasonable
• If the legislature prescribes a procedure, Article 21 is satisfied

Justice Fazl Ali’s Dissent (prophetic): He argued that “law” in Article 21 must mean reasonable law, not arbitrary State action. This dissent would eventually become the majority view 28 years later.

Impact: This restrictive interpretation allowed the State significant latitude to curtail personal liberty through legislative action, regardless of fairness.

The Watershed Moment: Maneka Gandhi (1978)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, is the single most important judgment in Article 21 jurisprudence. It fundamentally transformed constitutional interpretation in India.

Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. The impounding order gave no reasons. When she sought reasons, she was told it was “in the interest of the general public.”

The Seven-Judge Bench Ruling:

1. Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but interconnected

   “The attempt of the 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 construction.” — Justice P.N. Bhagwati

2. “Procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable

   • Not merely any procedure prescribed by statute
   • Must satisfy requirements of natural justice
   • Must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive

3. The right to go abroad is part of “personal liberty”

   • Personal liberty includes all freedoms, not just freedom from physical detention

4. Due process imported without using the term

   • While the Constitution deliberately avoided the American “due process” language, Maneka effectively imported it

Justice Krishna Iyer’s Observation:

“Procedure established by law does not mean any procedure but a procedure which is reasonable in a given circumstance.”

Impact: This judgment:

• Overruled the narrow Gopalan interpretation
• Made Article 21 the most dynamic provision of the Constitution
• Established that any law restricting life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable
• Created the foundation for expanding Article 21 to include numerous unenumerated rights

The Expanding Universe of Article 21

After Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court embarked on an unprecedented expansion of Article 21’s scope.

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, established that Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity.

Key Holding:

“The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.”

Rights Recognized:

• Right to adequate nutrition
• Right to clothing
• Right to shelter
• Right to education (first recognition)
• Right to mix and mingle with fellow human beings

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

The pavement dwellers case, AIR 1986 SC 180, extended Article 21 to include the right to livelihood.

Key Holding:

“If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.”

This judgment recognized that:

• Right to life includes right to livelihood
• Eviction without rehabilitation affects the right to life
• Economic rights are integral to Article 21

Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of AP, AIR 1993 SC 2178, declared that the right to education flows directly from Article 21.

Key Holding:

“The right to education flows directly from the right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.”

Impact:

• Recognized education up to age 14 as a fundamental right under Article 21
• Led to the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) inserting Article 21A
• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, followed

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, is a landmark in gender justice jurisprudence.

Background: Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped for preventing child marriage. The acquittal of the accused sparked national outrage.

Key Holding: The Supreme Court:

• Recognized that sexual harassment at the workplace violates Article 21
• Laid down binding guidelines (the “Vishaka Guidelines”) to prevent sexual harassment
• Exercised legislative power in the absence of law to protect fundamental rights

The Vishaka Guidelines operated as binding law until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Rights Recognized:

• Right to work in a safe environment
• Right to gender equality in the workplace
• Right to dignity at work

NALSA v. Union of India (2014)

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, is the landmark judgment on transgender rights.

Key Holdings:

• Transgender persons have the right to decide their self-identified gender
• Recognition of third gender for legal purposes
• Fundamental rights under Article 21 apply to transgender persons
• State must provide affirmative action for transgender community

Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan:

“Recognition of transgenders as a third gender is not a social or medical issue but a human rights issue.”

Rights Recognized:

• Right to gender identity
• Right to self-determination of gender
• Right to dignity as transgender persons

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The Right to Privacy judgment, (2017) 10 SCC 1, is one of the most significant constitutional decisions of recent times.

Background: A nine-judge bench was constituted to determine whether privacy is a fundamental right, given earlier judgments (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) that had held otherwise.

Unanimous Holding:

“The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.”

Components of Privacy Recognized:

• Physical privacy (bodily integrity)
• Informational privacy (control over personal data)
• Decisional privacy (intimate personal choices)

Impact:

• Overruled contrary observations in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962)
• Laid foundation for the Personal Data Protection Bill
• Influenced subsequent Aadhaar judgment
• Informed the reading down of Section 377 in Navtej Singh Johar

Comprehensive List: Rights Under Article 21

Through decades of judicial interpretation, the following rights have been recognized under Article 21:

Personal Rights

• Right to life with dignity
• Right to privacy
• Right against custodial torture
• Right against solitary confinement
• Right to speedy trial
• Right to legal aid
• Right against handcuffing
• Right to fair trial
• Right against delayed execution
• Right to reputation

Social & Economic Rights

• Right to livelihood
• Right to shelter
• Right to clean environment
• Right to health and medical care
• Right to education (now Article 21A)
• Right to food
• Right to clean drinking water
• Right to electricity
• Right against bonded labor

Dignitary Rights

• Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia)
• Right against sexual harassment
• Right to gender identity
• Right against public hanging
• Right to sleep

Procedural Rights

• Right to information under Article 21
• Right to travel abroad
• Right to compensation for illegal detention
• Right against arbitrary arrest

Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process

Understanding the distinction between these concepts is crucial for practitioners.

The American “Due Process”

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee “due process of law.” American courts interpret this to include:

• Procedural due process: Fair procedures before deprivation
• Substantive due process: Reasonable substantive standards

India’s “Procedure Established by Law”

The Constituent Assembly deliberately chose “procedure established by law” over “due process” to:

• Prevent judicial subjectivity
• Allow legislative supremacy in procedure
• Avoid the Lochner-era problems of American courts

However, after Maneka Gandhi (1978):

• Indian courts now examine substantive and procedural fairness
• “Procedure established by law” must meet tests of reasonableness
• Practical difference from American due process has narrowed significantly

Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi:

“The procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”

Practical Implications for Practitioners

1. Drafting Writ Petitions

When invoking Article 21:

• Connect the right claimed to the broader framework of dignity
• Cite the evolutionary chain of precedents
• Demonstrate how State action violates fair procedure

Structure:

1. Identify the specific right under Article 21
2. Cite foundational judgment (Maneka Gandhi)
3. Cite specific precedent recognizing that right
4. Show how impugned action violates that right
5. Demonstrate lack of fair, just, and reasonable procedure

2. PIL Strategy

Article 21’s expansive interpretation makes it ideal for Public Interest Litigation:

• Environmental protection (M.C. Mehta cases)
• Prisoner rights (D.K. Basu guidelines)
• Healthcare access (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity)
• Education rights (pre-Article 21A litigation)

3. Criminal Defense

Article 21 provides powerful defenses:

• Challenge inhumane prison conditions
• Argue speedy trial violations (Hussainara Khatoon)
• Contest prolonged undertrial detention
• Challenge arbitrary investigation procedures

4. Compensation Claims

Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985) and subsequent cases establish:

• Compensation is a constitutional remedy for Article 21 violation
• State liability for custodial deaths
• Compensation for wrongful detention

5. Limitations to Remember

Article 21 is not absolute:

• Reasonable restrictions can be imposed by law
• Emergency provisions under Article 352 affected Article 21 historically (now amended by 44th Amendment)
• Death penalty, if prescribed by fair procedure, does not violate Article 21 (Bachan Singh)

Conclusion

Article 21 stands as a testament to the transformative power of constitutional interpretation. From its narrow beginnings in A.K. Gopalan to its current expansive scope, it has become the primary repository of human rights in India.

For practitioners, understanding Article 21’s evolution is not merely academic—it is essential for effective advocacy. The genius of Maneka Gandhi lies not in any single holding but in its methodology: reading fundamental rights expansively, interconnectedly, and purposively.

As the Supreme Court continues to confront new challenges—from artificial intelligence to genetic privacy to climate change—Article 21 will likely continue to evolve, protecting rights our Constitution’s framers could not have imagined.

---

Key Citations Reference

Case	Citation	Key Principle
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras	AIR 1950 SC 27	Original narrow interpretation
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	AIR 1978 SC 597	Fair, just, and reasonable procedure
Francis Coralie v. UT of Delhi	AIR 1981 SC 746	Right to live with dignity
Olga Tellis v. BMC	AIR 1986 SC 180	Right to livelihood
Unnikrishnan v. State of AP	AIR 1993 SC 2178	Right to education
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan	AIR 1997 SC 3011	Protection against sexual harassment
NALSA v. Union of India	(2014) 5 SCC 438	Transgender rights
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India	(2017) 10 SCC 1	Right to privacy

---

This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal matters, please consult a qualified advocate.

Want to find more Article 21 cases? Try LexGyan’s SmartSearch — describe what you’re looking for in plain language and find relevant precedents instantly.