A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 21 By- Mr. Kush Ahuja

A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 21

Authored By- Mr. Kush Ahuja

Assistant Professor

School of Legal Studies

Om Sterling Global University

ABSTRACT

As the "right to life and personal liberty" is the fulcrum around which all other rights of the individual swing, the research takes on a significant amount of significance as a result. The "right to life and personal liberty" is one of the fundamental human rights that is the most fundamentally important and unique. Understanding the "right to life" requires, first and foremost, the study of the function that the Supreme Court plays as a guardian of fundamental human rights. The most well-known part of the Indian Constitution is called "Article 21," and it has a unique and important status as a fundamental right. It protects citizens and immigrants alike from dangers to their "right to life" and freedom and is legally obligatory against the state.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi, a new interpretation of "Article 21" has marked the beginning of a new era in which the boundaries of the "right to life and personal liberty" are being expanded. The wide interpretation that is now being given to this situation incorporates a variety of possibilities that the authors of the Constitution may or may not have envisaged at the time it was written. As a result, the purpose of this piece of study is to get an understanding of the numerous dimensional approaches used by the court towards the interpretation of "Article 21."[1]

1. INTRODUCTION

Fundamental rights in India are safeguarded under Article 21, included in Chapter III of the country's constitution. Article 12 of Part III of the Indian Constitution states that people have the right to challenge the government for infringing upon their rights. As used above, "State" includes the Union of India, the Parliament of India, the governments and legislatures of each of India's various states, and all local and regional governments in India or under the supervision of the Union of India.[2] Article 13 states that any law that breaches or impinges upon fundamental rights is null and void to the extent of the violation or infringement. The State is further warned not to pass any laws that would undermine or limit the protections provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with Article 13 shall be null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. No one's right to life or freedom shall be arbitrarily or unlawfully abridged or otherwise impaired in any manner not provided for in Article 21.[3]

This article is written in a critical tone and warns the state that it cannot take away the life or freedom of anyone, not just a citizen unless it follows a legal process. This prohibition applies to all individuals, not just citizens. Everyone, not only citizens, is covered by this rule. It goes without saying that the only way the government may take away someone's life or freedom is via the application of a law that is legitimate.[4] It is only when certain conditions are met that the denial of an individual's right to life or liberty may be justified under procedure law. For instance, in order for the prescribed procedure to be legitimate, the authority that created the law must have lawfully used its powers to enact such legislation.[5] Simply said, this kind of law can only be passed by a legislature with substantial prior expertise in the area. A statute that overstepped the legislative body's authority would be deemed "still-born" or "incompetent" if its procedure were formed by a legislature that didn't know what it was doing.

1. SALIENT FEATURE OF ARTICLE 21

When the Constituent Assembly first accepted this Article for inclusion in the Constitution, the founding fathers did indeed place a great deal of emphasis on the phrases "life" and "personal liberty." This was especially the case in regard to detention under the standards of any legitimate and valid legislation.[6] The present iteration of "Article 21" makes use of the phrase "deprivation of life"; however, this does not have to indicate that there is no longer any bodily existence at all.

The interpretation of the term "life" in Article 21 has been called into question as a result of a number of decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. Your lack of access to financial resources might be the cause of your death or strip your life of all significance.

There is no use in surviving for someone who is starving to death. Even though someone is physically alive, he is not necessarily experiencing life to its fullest. When people are starving, they will resort to whatever means necessary to survive.

In "Article 21," the Indian people argue that their government must go through due process before taking someone's "life" since they did not want to starve. Hence, the right to a good manner to earn a livelihood and work must be included in the term "life" in "Article 21," lest the individual becomes a mere shell of who they really are. Article 21 is worded negatively, but Article 19(1)(g) is worded positively.[7]

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees each citizen the "effective and dignified living" they deserve. This includes the potential for joy and wellness. If one did this, they could rest certain that they would always have money coming in and enough to eat. The State shall not abridge the right of any person to the enjoyment of physical and mental health except by means of lawful legislation (Article 21); accordingly, the guiding principles as enshrined in the aforementioned Articles shall inexorably have to be interpreted in conjunction with and not dehors it.[8] This reading makes it very obvious that the Indian government is responsible for ensuring that all people have the means to support themselves and search for productive jobs.

No Indian citizen has the right to insist on undertaking any task that is offensive in and of itself or which is unlawful; doing so would be a breach of "Article 19(1)(g)" read with "Article 19 sub-clause 6 and also Article 14," which also protects non-citizens. A person has the right to engage in any lawful occupation or hobby in order to provide for themselves and their loved ones, as guaranteed by "Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21." It seems to reason that a process that violates "Article 14" requirements could not be the legally established system for violating the right of any individual to be supplied by the State with the means to survive or enough chances for employment. Legislation cannot infringe a person's "right to life" and freedom under Article 21 unless it is incompatible with all of the limitations placed on the relevant legislature by "Articles 14 and 19(1) (g). Any procedure legislation that violates one of these rights is null and void as a matter of "Article 13" law.

Another noteworthy aspect of "Article 21" is that it is binding upon all residents of India regardless of citizenship status. Nevertheless, only Indian nationals have access to the positive right protected by Article 19(1)(g). To rephrase, the positive requirement in Article 19(1)(g) only applies to a restricted subset of Indian residents, but the negative injunction in "Article 21" spans a wider region and includes noncitizens. But, unlike Article 19, "Article 21" does not include any caveats or limitations. No matter whether you're a citizen of India or not, it applies to you if you own a vehicle or live in India. The interaction started out with a resounding negative. The use of the adverbial phrases "must" and "except" establishes that the will of the Indian people is absolute.[9]

1. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM– DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TOWARDS ARTICLE 21

There have been many alternative inferences and interpretations drawn from this article, including those related to the "right to liberty," "education," "a clean environment," "sleep," "prisoner's rights," and so on. Others have suggested that activist judges are to blame for this resultant reading of the text. As a result, judicial activism is largely responsible for the maturation of this basic right and its continued importance in the contemporary world. After the emergency, the Judiciary stepped up and fulfilled its role as the guardian of the constitution, establishing a vast divide between the decisions made before and after the emergency.

The word "process established by law" was narrowed in the case "A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India"[10] to include only statutory procedure. It was inarguable that the reasonableness of rules dictating the means by which a person's life or freedom may be taken away should also be evaluated. In this circumstance, it was inappropriate to disagree with a law that was founded on the principles of natural justice[11].

Nevertheless, the case "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India"[12] set legal limits on the ability to pass laws that violate basic human rights. The legal process must also be rational, fair, and just. As a result, the Judiciary seemed to be making progress, proving that justice will finally win out over tyranny. There have been several court rulings on the issue of "Judicial Activism" in relation to the interpretation of "personal liberty" and other rights, such as the right to an adequate education and a healthy environment.

As a result, several legal disputes have arisen around the protections guaranteed by "Article 21 of the constitution." In "Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi,[13]" one of the most expansive interpretations, the Honourable SC said, "Article 21 of the constitution provides the right to freedom of expression." Human dignity, including the capacity to read, write, and express oneself in a variety of ways, to move around freely, and to meet and mingle with other people, are all part of what is meant by "the right to life."

Protecting individual liberties has risen to the forefront of concerns as a result of "Article 21" judicial activism. This was taken into account in the "Kharak Singh case," which ruled on the constitutionality of the "U.P. Police Regulations," which allowed for surveillance methods including home visits and covert picketing. The court cited the American case Munn v. Illinois, which held that "life" included more than merely the physical existence of an organism. This was used to illustrate the concept of "individual freedom." Everything that made life worth living was protected by the rule against taking it away.

Cutting off a limb, implanting an eye, or severing any other bodily function that permitted the soul to express itself to the outer world was likewise forbidden under this commandment. The majority decided that the U.P. Police Regulations that allowed for nighttime surveillance visits to people's homes were unlawful. The Indian Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to freedom from arbitrary government intrusion via the guarantee of "personal liberty."

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Sunil Batra Etc. vs Delhi Administration"[14] that inmates retain all of their constitutional protections, including "the right to equality," "the right to life," and "the right to personal freedom," with the exception of those rights that are necessarily restricted by their confinement. In this case, the petitioner was a convicted Naxalite who was being detained in solitary confinement while his appeal was processed. A death row convict should not be held in solitary confinement, the Court said, since everyone, including inmates, has the right to be treated in line with the prison's standards. Yet prison rules couldn't violate people's "right to equality," "right to life," or "right to personal freedom."

One would be unable to subject a prisoner to barbaric torture while they were behind bars. Inmates have the right to practise their religion of choice, among other privileges. Inmates are restricted in their ability to exercise their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court cited this article in its decision "In Charles Sobhraj v. Supdt., Prison, Tihar,"[15] which said that the Court has the authority to intervene when the prison administration violated constitutional rights and did acts that damaged the prisoner.[16]

The Supreme Court cited "Article 5 of the 1984 Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in the case of "Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration," which states, "No one should be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." This was done to counteract the degrading practise of handcuffing inmates.[17] To ensure that no major injustices occurred, the judicial system safeguarded the rights and dignity of those in custody and on trial. The judge ruled that handcuffing someone is "inhuman and, thus, irrational, too severe, and, at first sight, arbitrary." The court determined that a defendant facing trial for a crime that carries a maximum sentence of more than three years in prison need not be shackled during transport between the jail and the courthouse.[18]

It was reported before the Supreme Court by "renowned journalist and Citizens for Democracy president KuldipNayar" in the case "Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam"[19] that seven TADA inmates were handcuffed and strapped to a hospital bed in Guwahati. He said this occurred despite the fact that they were surrounded by armed cops and isolated in a room with iron bars and a barred door. As the Assam Government continued to mistreat its citizens after being ordered not to by the court, Nayar remarked that he just could not comprehend how this could be happening. The government defended their actions by claiming that the prisoners were dedicated terrorists from the "United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA)" and that several of the most dangerous inmates from this organisation had already escaped.[20]

The Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision that restraint by handcuffs amounted to harsh, unreasonable, and arbitrary treatment. The Supreme Court recently ruled that law enforcement and correctional facilities have a constitutional duty to keep prisoners from escaping. The rights of inmates, however, are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be violated. Nonetheless, authorities are not permitted to deploy fetters or shackles at their whim or their subjective judgement, even if doing so would make it less likely that inmates would escape. Handcuffs or fetters should not be used on a defendant or convicted prisoner in jail or on the route to court without the approval of a judge. Prison officials and law enforcement may request this privilege when they have reason to believe a certain inmate will attempt to escape.

"The HussainaraKhatoon case proved the right to a prompt trial under Article 21." As a consequence, reforms were implemented to guarantee that no defendant was held in jail for more than the statute of limitations allowed for their offence. The court found in "Sher Singh v. State of Punjab" that a swift trial of the accused was required to ensure justice. It determined whether a death sentence should be overturned because of an excessive delay in carrying it out. The judge agreed that the delay in carrying out the punishment was excessive.[21] Fast-track courts provide an expedited trial process, but not everyone supports this idea. While it is true that "justice delayed is justice denied," the opposite is also true: a trial that advances too fast might result in the wrong people being placed in jail or the guilty being let out.[22]

Nevertheless, the court declared in "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" that it could not impose boundaries of limitation beyond which the trial would not proceed since doing so would be contrary to the laws and legislation. Thus, "NilabatiBehra v. State of Orissa"[23]investigated prisoner rights, custodial abuse, and police violence, and found that monetary compensation was appropriate.[24]

Khatri v. State of Bihar, in which a jail official blinded a prisoner while torturing him, was cited by the Supreme Court as an example of why it is important to provide legal aid to the poor. It applied in cases when the parties involved were from rural areas, low-income, and often illiterate, making it difficult for them to understand their legal options and retain counsel. It is the responsibility of the court or magistrate to decide whether or not the accused person need legal representation.

Cases of custodial cruelty and death have long plagued our legal system; the court case "D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal" looked at incidents in which arrests were done in secrecy and inmates were tortured to death. It's impossible to make an arrest without following the regulations that have already been carved in stone.[25]

As society develops and men and women compete in the same professional settings, incidents of sexual aggressiveness and misbehaviour against women have become more widespread. The judicial system has shown itself to be quite sensitive to this matter; for instance, in State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh[26], the justices determined that rape constituted a major violation of the "right to life" and so deserved rapid, immediate, and harsh punishment. This newfound awareness of women's rights is shown by the case "Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan,"[27] in which a female Anaganwadi worker was brutally raped and later died. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff that she was a victim of "sexual harassment of a woman at her employment in violation of her right to life," and it issued temporary rules until more permanent laws could be enacted.[28]

1. CONCLUSION

The judiciary cannot take on the powers of the Executive. The Courts themselves, as a cornerstone of responsible government, must act with restraint and moderation and be aware of the need for interagency collaboration. There must be a mental and verbal assimilation of the consequences of judicial activity. An active Court is undeniably more effective than a legal positivist, the conservative court in protecting society against legislative adventurism and presidential tyranny. If our representatives in government are unable to construct a welfare state for us, then the court system should.

There is a long and compelling history behind Article 21, and it is abundantly evident that it is a statute with the intention of assisting its citizens. Its confines are always being expanded and reshaped. Article 21 is the most astute and lucid defence of fundamental freedom ever written. The fair application of the law and judicial activism is vital to the success of any endeavour that seeks to serve the public interest. Let's use the "Article 21" saga as an example. All of the law may be summed up in the Latin phrase "Saluspopuliest suprema lex," which means "the welfare of the people comes first."

[1] Bansal, V.K., 1987, “ Right to Life and Personal Liberty in India”, (New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications

[2] Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[3] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexixNexix, New Delhi,2010, pp- 167

[4]Dawn Oliver and JorgFedtke (eds.), Human Rights and the Private Sphere: A Comparative Study, New York: Routledge, 2007, pp 162-163

[5] Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[6] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexixNexix, New Delhi,2010, pp- 167

[7] Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[8] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexixNexix, New Delhi,2010, pp- 167

[9]DurgadasBasu in his book “Introduction to the Constitution of India”, Lexis Nexis,New Delhi, pp- 35

[10]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[11] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexixNexix, New Delhi,2010, pp- 167

[12]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[13]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[14]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[15]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[16] Ibid

[17]Bhure Lal, “Judicial Activism and Accountability”, Siddharth Publications, New Delhi, 2012, pp 22-23

[18] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexixNexix, New Delhi,2010, pp- 167

[19]DurgadasBasu in his book “Introduction to the Constitution of India”, Lexis Nexis,New Delhi, pp- 35

[20]B.P. Pandya in his book “Indian Constitution and Judicial Review”, New Royal Book Company, New Delhi, pp,

[21]Bhure Lal, “Judicial Activism and Accountability”, Siddharth Publications, New Delhi, 2012, pp 22-23

[22]S P Sathe ; Judicial Activism in India- Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits; OUP India, 2nd Edition; Page 55

[23]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[24]S P Sathe ; Judicial Activism in India- Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits; OUP India, 2nd Edition; Page 55

[25]DurgadasBasu in his book “Introduction to the Constitution of India”, Lexis Nexis,New Delhi, pp- 35

[26]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[27]Zia Mody; “10 Judgments that changed India”; Penguins Group India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 2014, pp 58

[28]S P Sathe ; Judicial Activism in India- Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits; OUP India, 2nd Edition; Page 55