According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. If a law made by Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra virus. This check notwithstanding, the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for governance. The judicial interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court of India. It examines the reasons for judicial creativity and justifies the role played by the Supreme Court of the India in protection the fundamental rights of the citizens, when the legislative and executive failed in performing their duties. To some extent, judicial activism on the part of judiciary derives from underlying weakness and failure on the part of the other machineries of the state to perform their duties. Right to life and personal liberty is the most cherished and pivotal fundamental human rights around which other rights of the individual revolve and, therefore, the study assumes great significance. The study of right to life is indeed a study of the Supreme Court as a guardian of fundamental human rights. The Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III, which are guaranteed by the constitution.

One of these rights is provided under Article 21 which reads as follows:
Article 21, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word No has been used in relation to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal liberty or deprivation of life of other person, such violation would not fall under the parameters set for the Article 21. In such a case the remedy for aggrieved person would be either [1][2]under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law. But, where an act of private individual supported by the state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the act will certainly come under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of life of a 'person'. The term person does include citizens as well as non-citizens.

1.1 Historical Background: The true test of a democracy is how its laws stand with regard to the life and liberty of its people. In England, charters of liberties are set out in the Magna Carta of 1215. In the same vein.
The development of the Fundamental Rights in India was inspired by England's Bill of rights (1689), the United States Bill of Rights (1791), France's Declaration of Rights of Man (1789). Under Rowlett Act, 1919 extensive powers were given to the British Government and the police which resulted in arrest and detention of the individuals, warrant less searches and seizures and also restriction on public gatherings. Eventually this resulted in mass campaigns of non- violent civil disobedience throughout the country. The people of the country demanded civil freedoms and limitations on government powers. These were influenced by the Independence of Ireland. The Constitution of Ireland and the Directive Principles of the State Policy were an inspiration for the people of India for the demand of independent government. The Nehru Commission in 1928 composing of representatives of Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India. The Constituent Assembly of India composing of elected representatives was given up the task of developing a Constitution for the nation. The Constituent Assembly first met on 1946, who were in large majority appointed persons from diverse political backgrounds for developing the Constitution of India, chairpersons of committees and sub-committees responsible for different subjects. A notable development during that period having significant effect on the Indian constitution took place on 10 December 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The framers of Indian constitution were deeply influenced by the international document i.e. Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) 1948 which had a great impact on the drafting of Indian constitution. The Article 9 of UDHR provides for 'protection of life and personal liberty' of every person. As India was signatory to the declaration, the constituent Assembly adopted the similar provision as a fundamental right therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the UDHR may not be a legally binding instrument but it show how Indian understood the nature of Human Rights at the time when Constitution was adopted. Article 21 is the celebrity provision of the Indian Constitution and occupies a unique place as a fundamental right2.

1.2 Constituent Assembly Debate Summary: Draft Article 15 was introduced and debated in the Constituent Assembly on the 6th and 13th of December 1948. There was conflict in the Assembly regarding the term 'procedure established by law'. Members argued that this term was insufficient[3] as the legislature of the day could potentially pass a law establishing a procedure which might significantly erode civil liberties. In such a situation, the judiciary can only check if an established procedure has been followed and cannot review the law itself for adherence to fundamental rights. The inclusion of the 'due process' term into the provision, would allow the judiciary to investigate if the law itself is consistent with provisions of fundamental rights and would be in a position to protect civil liberties. Members defending 'procedure established by law' argued that allowing for judges, who are not immune to prejudices and biases , to sit in judgment of laws passed by the legislature would be undermining the authority of the legislature and hence, un-democratic. When the Article was put to vote, the assembly passed the Draft article with the term 'procedure established by law' intact. When the draft Committee finally completed and submitted to Constituent Assembly. Clause 9 or Draft Art.15 read as the present Art.21.3

1.3 MEANING OF 'RIGHT TO LIFE'
'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.' The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. The notion that certain rights are inalienable was embodied in the American
Declaration of Independence (1776) in the following terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the case of Munn v. State of Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) the US Court referred to the observation of Justice Field, wherein he stated that by the term 'life' as here used something more is meant than a mere animal existence. Thus, it embraces within itself not only the physical existence but also the quality of life. It was the first case on the definition of word 'LIFE'.

Meaning of Personal Liberty: Liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As long as 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that, No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned  but  by the law of the land.

The right to personal liberty as understood means in substance a person's right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. €” Dicey
This Constitution guarantees to every citizen of India full freedom and liberty from any sort of harassment, repression or exploitation from any government or any authority of the government and hence this constitution assures to every citizen of India free, fearless and happy life with dignity of every person.4

Even our preamble of the constitution has a special significance for Liberty which assures every citizen of India the freedom of speech and expression, religious independence and choice of going by one's own belief. The fundamental rights of life and personal liberty have many attributes and some of them are found in Art. 19. In other words, 'personal liberty' means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not authorized by law.

The smallest Article of eighteen words has the greatest significance for those who cherish the ideals of liberty. What can be more important than liberty? In India the concept of 'liberty' has received a far more expansive interpretation.

Article 21, - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Concept of Right to Life And Personal Liberty & Its Changing Dimensions: The Traditional Approach of the Supreme Court, It is hard to appreciate fully the extent of development of right to life without an overview of the traditional approach. Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. It was this procedure established by law that was first questioned and interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[4] the validity of the Preventive Detection Act. 1950 was challenged. The main question was whether Art. 21 envisaged any procedure laid down by a law enacted by the legislature, or the procedure should be fair and reasonable. On behalf of the Appellant, an attempt was made to persuade the Supreme Court to hold that the courts can adjudicate upon the reasonableness of the Preventive Detection Act, 1950, or for that matter any law depriving a person his personal liberty.

Three arguments were presented from the Appellant side and the arguments were:
(1) The word law in Art. 21 does not mean merely enacted law but incorporates principle of natural justice so that a law to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty cannot be valid unless it incorporates these principles laid down by it.
(2) The reasonableness of the law of preventive detention ought to be judged under Art. 19.
(3) The expression procedure established by law introduces into India the American concept of procedural due process which enables the Courts to see whether the law fulfils the requisite elements of a reasonable procedure.

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras held the field for almost three decades, i.e., 1950 to 1977. This case settled two major in points in relation to Art. 21. One, Arts. 19, 21 and 22 are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. Two, a law affecting life or personal liberty of a person could not be declared unconstitutional merely because it lacked natural justice or due process. The legislature was free to lay down any procedure for this purpose. As interpreted in A.K. Gopalan, Art. 21 provided no protection or immunity against competent legislative action. Art. 21 gave a carte blanche to a legislature to enact a law or to provide for arrest of a person without much procedural safeguards. It gave final say to the legislature to determine what was going to be procedure to curtail the personal liberty of a person in a given situation and what procedural safeguards he would enjoy. The Supreme Court de linked Art. 19 from Art. 21 and 22. This view led to bizarre decision at that time. It was because of this view that in the case of Ram Singh v. Delhi[5]. A person was detained under Preventive detention Act for making speeches prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the court refused to assess the validity of detection order with reference to Art.19(1)(a) read with Arti.19(2) stating that even if right under Art. 19(1)(a) was abridged, the validity of preventive detention order could not be considered with reference to Art.19(2) because of the Gopalan ruling that legislation authorizing deprivation of personal liberty and did not fall under Art.19 and its validity was not to be judged by the criteria in Art.19.Though, in course of time this rigid view came to be softened and the beginning of the new trend was to be found in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India[6], also popularly known as Bank Nationalization case, the Supreme Court applied Art.19(1) (f) to a law enacted under Art.31(2), to view the validity of the law. Before this case these two articles where considered mutually exclusive of each other. This case had such an impact on the view of the Supreme Court regarding the mutually exclusiveness of fundamental rights. That in the case of Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal[7] Supreme Court recognized the force of this logic that the bench said that the approach of the court in the Bank Nationalization[8] case had held majority of A.K. Gopalan[9] case was incorrect, this completely knocked out the Court's earlier argument in Gopalan.

2.3 Aspect of Personal Liberty:
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI[10] is a landmark case of the post- emergency period. This case shows how liberal tendencies have influenced the Supreme Court in the matter of interpreting Fundamental Rights, Particularly Art. 21, A great Transformation has came about in the judicial attitude towards the protection of personal liberty after the traumatic experiences of the emergency during 1975-77 when personal liberty had reached its lowest[11]. The period characterized as the darkest period in the Indian Constitutional history As become clear from the Supreme Court pronouncement in A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shiva Kant Shukla[12]. Popularly known as Habeas Corpus Case and has been severely criticized by scholars in India. This case showed that 21 as interpreted in Gopalan could not play any role in proving any protection against any harsh law seeking to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty, after emergency it was realized that power to order preventive detention was misused by the official machinery during the emergency and something should be done so that such a situation might not be repeated in future. Accordingly Art.359 of the constitution was amended by 44th Amendment to nullify some amendment made in the 42nd ,(Indira Constitution) thus by 44th amendmentArt.20 & 21 never be be suspended even during emergency and other fundamental rights won't suspend automatically. It needs separate order by president. Infact this case has acted as a accelerating agent for the transformation of the judicial view on Art.21[13].

The court has reinterpreted Art.21 and practically overruled Gopalan case which can be regarded highly creative judicial pronouncement on the part of Supreme Court. Since Maneka Gandhi case the Supreme Court has given Art. 21, broader and broader interpretation so as to imply many more fundamental rights. In course of time, Art.21 has proved to be very fruitful source of rights of the people.

In Maneka Gandhi case, order under S. 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act which authorizes the passport authority to impound passport if it deems it necessary to do so in the interest of the sovereignty and integrityof India, security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interest of general public was challenged. Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the Central Government under Passport Act in the interest of general public. a writ petition challenging the order on the ground of violation of her fundamental rights under Art.21.One of the major grounds of challenge was that the order impounding the passport was null and void as it had been made without afford in gher an opportunity of being heard in her defence. The leading opinion in Maneka Gandhi case was pronounced by Justice Bhagwati. The Court reiterated the proposition that Art. 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive. This means that a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of 'personal liberty' has to meet the requirement of Art. 19. Also, the procedure established by law in Art. 21 must answer the requirement of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

The expression personal liberty in Art. 21 were given an expansive interpretation. The court emphasized that the expression personal liberty is of wide stamplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man. The expression ought not to be read in a narrow and restricted sense so as to exclude those attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in Art. 19. The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights rather than attenuate their meaning and content by the process of judicial construction, and hence right to travel abroad falls under Art. 21. The most significant aspect of the case is the reinterpretation of the expression procedure established by law used in Art. 21. Art. 21 would no longer mean that law could prescribe some semblance of procedure, however arbitrary or fanciful, to deprive a person of his personal liberty. It now means that a procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being just, fair and reasonable. The process cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. Thus, the procedure in Art.21 must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. The Court reached it decision by holding that Arts. 21, 19 and 14 are mutually inclusive.

The reincarnation of Art.21 which Maneka Gandhi case[14] brought has been exerting a deep impact on contemporary constitutional jurisprudence. Maneka Gandhi case completely overrides the Gopalan'sview[15] which had held the field for nearly three decades. Since Maneka Gandhi case[16], the Supreme Court has again underlined the theme that Arts. 14, 19 and 21are not mutually exclusive, but they sustain, strengthen and nourish each other. It has brought the Fundamental right of life and personal liberty into prominence which is now regarded as the heart Fundamental Rights. In quite a few cases in the post-Maneka era, the Supreme Court has given content to the concept of procedural fairness in relation to personal liberty. By establishing a nexus between Arts. 14, 19 and 21, it is now clearly established that the procedure contemplated by the Art. 21 must answer the test of reasonableness. Thus, Art. 21 emerged as the Indian version of the American concept of due process of law and has come to the source of many substantive rights and procedural safeguards to the people. The Court has observed that Art.21, though couched in negative language, confers the Fundamental Rights to life and personal liberty and has also deeply influenced the administration of criminal justice and prison administration.

of Art. 21 would not be satisfied. Accordingly the Court suggested certain modifications in the Special Court Bill 1978. The Court suggested that there should be provision for transferring case from one Special Court to another which is necessary to avoid trail of an accused by a judge who may be biased against him. The Court further emphasised that there is a duty of the State to preserve law and order. It is the duty of the state to see that the rule of law enunciated by the Art.21 is available to the greatest number. In Olga Tellis case,[17] the Supreme Court has again emphasised that the procedure prescribed by the law for the deprivation of rights conferred by Art.21 must be fair, just and reasonable. It must conform to the norms of justice and fair play. Procedure which is unfair or unjust or attracts the vice of unreasonableness, there by vitiating the law which prescribe that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it.

# sterile approach of Gopalan's[19] case, the Supreme Court has found a potent tool to seek improve matters, and to fill the vacuum arising from governmental inaction and apathy to undertake reform, in the area of criminal justice. The key to this judicial activism is the phrase procedure established by law in Art.21 which does not mean any procedure laid down in the statute but just, fair and reasonable procedure and that the term law in Art.21 envisages not any law but a law which is right, just, fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of criminal offences is cornerstone of democracy. It is beneficial for both to the accused and as well as to the society. A conviction resulting from an unfair trail is contrary to our concept of Justice[20]

# rights. The law in its eternal youth grows to meet the demand of the society.[21] Since Maneka Gandhi[22] case, Art. 21 has proved to be multi-dimensional. The aspect of Art.21 is brought out by the following judicial pronouncements.This extension in the dimensions of Art. 21 has been made possible by giving an extended meaning to the word life and liberty in Art.21.These two words in Art.21 are not to be read narrowly. These are organic terms which are be construed meaningfully. After Maneka Gandhi, we can witness a period by term 'Constitutional Renaissance' in the Indian judiciary that recognized & upheld the various aspects of the right to personal liberty are discussed in the diverse facets of personal liberty that follow:

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[23] the Supreme Court expanded the horizon of Art. 21 and held that right to life includes right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation and to have equal opportunity. The judicial approach with time thus has led to two very important results, viz:
1. Many Directive Principles which, as such, are not enforceable have been activated and has become enforceable.
2. The Supreme Court has implied a number of fundamental rights from Art. 21.

In course of time, Art. 21 have come to be regarded as the heart of Fundamental Right.[24] Art. 21 has enough of positive content in it and it is not merely negative in its reach.[25] Over time, since Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court has been able to imply several Fundamental Rights out ofArt.21. This has been possible by reading Art.21 along with some Directive Principles. Art. 21 has thus emerged into a multi-dimensional Fundamental Right.

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD: In the beginning the Supreme Court was of the view that the right to life in rt. 21 would not include livelihood. In re Sant Ram,[26] a case in pre-Maneka era, the Supreme Court ruled that right to livelihood would not fall within the expression life in Art. 21. The Supreme Court reiterated this proposition in several cases even in post- Maneka era. But then the view of the Supreme Court underwent a change. With the defining of the word life in Art. 21 in a broad and expansive manner, the Court came to hold that the right o life guaranteed by Art. 21 include the right to livelihood.[27] The Supreme Court has argued in the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp.[28] that the right to livelihood is born out of the right to life, as no person can live without the means of living, i.e., the means of livelihood.

SLUM DWELLERS: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp.[29], the Supreme Court has made a significant pronouncement on the impact of Art. 21 on urbanization. In this case the Supreme Court accepted the plea that the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 include the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court ruled that the eviction of persons from pavement or a slum not only results in deprivation of shelter but would also inevitably lead to deprivation of their means of livelihood which means deprivation of their life.

RIGHT TO SHELTER: In Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame[30] the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its scope the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For an animal, it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow his to grow in all aspect physical, mental and intellectual. This concept was further expounded in the case of Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[31]. In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad[32] case the Supreme Court stated that the right to shelter is a Fundamental Right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Art. 19(1) (e) and right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution.

RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT: Apart from several personal rights, the Supreme Court has made a significant contribution to the welfare of the people by using Art.21 for the improvement of the environment. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar,[33] the Apex Court held that enjoyment of pollution free environment is included in the right to life under Art.21. Also in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu,[34] the Supreme Court has made very valuable suggestions for the improvement of adjudicatory machinery under the various environmental laws. The Supreme Court has accepted the doctrine of public trust which rests on the premise that certain natural resources like air, sea, water are means for general use and cannot be restricted to private ownership. The state is a trustee, and general public is a beneficiary to such resources. These resources are gift of nature and State as a trustee is duty bound to protect them.[35]

The right to life enshrined in Art.21hasbeenliberallyinterpretedsoastomean something more than survival and mere animal existence or animal existence. It therefore includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worthliving.Art.21istobereadnotonlywithdirectiveprinciplesbutalsofundamental duties.[36]
RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE: In Parmananda Katara v. Union of India[37] the Supreme Court pronounced that preservation of life is of paramount importance. Once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be restored. It is the duty of the doctors to preserve the life without any discrimination.

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal[38] the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution envisages establishment of a welfare state, and in a welfare state, the primary duty of the government is to provide to provide adequate medical facilities for the people. The Supreme Court has insisted that government hospitals and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure, by a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a needy person violates his right to life guaranteed by Art. 21. But in recent case even there were several legal provisions exist through which prisoners can secure medical care but none seem to have been used to ease the suffering of the 90% disabled professor.

RIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT: The Supreme Court ensured that the female workers are not sexually harassed by their male co-workers at their work places. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[39] the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman at her place of work as amounting to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Rape has been held to be a violation of a person's fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 21. The Supreme Court held that rape is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim's right to life contained in Art. 21.[40]

RIGHT OF MEDICAL CONFIDENTIALITY: In X. v. Hospital Z[41] the Supreme Court argued that a lady proposing to marry a person is entitled to all the human rights which are available to humans. The right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 would positively include the right to be told that a person, with whom she was proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable. Moreover, when two fundamental rights clash, viz., right to privacy and right to live a healthy life, the right which would advance the public morality or public interests, would alone is enforced through the process.

RIGHT OF LEGAL AID: In Madhav Hayawandan rao Haskot v. State of Maharashtra[42] the Supreme Court held that an accused who cannot afford legal action is entitled for legal aid at the cost of the State. Also, held in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[43] the Supreme Court held that a prisoner shall not be imprisoned for a period longer than the sentence pronounced by the court else it will led to deprivation of the prisoner's right to life to life and liberty under Art. 21.

Right to Education: The right to education has also been held to be a part of Article 21. A series of decisions, including Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka[44], Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of A.P.[45] etc. culminated in an amendment to the Constitution being moved in 1997, leading to the incorporation of Article 21-A, which reads as under:
The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, may by law determine
Following this, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted.

Right to speedy trial: Speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and any accused who is denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to approach the Court for the purpose of enforcing such right. The Supreme Court held in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution and any accused who is denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to approach Supreme Court under Art. 32 for the purpose of enforcing such right and the Supreme Court in discharge of its constitutional obligation have the power to give necessary directions to the State.

Right To Free Legal Aid: In state of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & ors[46]. That will in turn enable the State and other authorities to provide free legal aid and ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen on account of any disability. These aspects necessarily flowing from Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution. In M.H Hoskot v. State Of Maharashtra, Justice Krishna Iyer observed that providing free legal aid is the State's duty and not Government's charity. Held that a prisoner was entitled to a copy of the judgement and free legal aid if he was unable to secure legal assistant.

Right to life under Article 21 does not include right to die:
Human life is precious one. The Supreme Court has shown radical change in its view. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[47] while deciding the validity of Sec.309 of I.P.C, the Court overruled the earlier view which was taken in P. Rathinam's case[48] and held that right to life does not include right to die and the extinction of life is not included in protection of life thus provision penalizing attempt to commit suicide is not violative to Art. 21 of the Constitution. But in landmark judgement Supreme Court reverse the arlier view and approves passive euthanasia, and upholds right to die with dignity, Supreme Court permits creation of a living will that will allow individuals to decide against artificial life support[49].

 

Article 21 includes Right to claim Compensation

The Supreme Court of India has also shown its dynamic and activist role in compensatory jurisprudence. For the first time in Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa[50], The Supreme Court directed the respondent-State of Orissa to pay the sum of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a further sum of Rs.10,000 as to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. the Supreme Court held right to compensation as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Earlier in Katri V. State of Bihar 1981, it was the discretion of the Court wherein it has awarded compensation to the victim. In Rudal Shah v State of Bihar[51] the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 35000/- to the petitioner who was kept in jail for 14 years despite of his acquittal order. In Chairman, Railway Board v Chandrima Das[52] the employees of the Railway Board had gang raped a Bangladeshi Women for which the Central Government was directed to award compensation under Article 21 of the constitution Smt. Hanuffa Khatoon, who was not the citizen of this country but came here as a citizen of Bangladesh was, nevertheless, entitled to all the constitutional rights available to a citizen so far as right to life was concerned. She was entitled to be treated with dignity and was also entitled to the protection of her person as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Right to Privacy: For the first time, the issue was raised in Kharak Singh v State of Tamil Nadu 1993. Justice Subba Rao in his minority judgment said that the right to privacy flows from the expression personal liberty. This minority judgment paved path for the further development. In R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995. the Supreme Court observed that right to privacy is nothing but 'right to be let alone and it is implicit in right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of Indian Constitution. And also in Lillu @ Rajesh and Anr v. State of Haryana,[53] the Supreme Court held that Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence. The State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence. Proper measures should be taken to ensure their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. two finger test on rape victims violates her Right to Privacy. Last Year unanimous judgment by the Supreme Court of India (SCI) in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India is a resounding victory for privacy. The ruling is the outcome of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian biometric identity scheme Aadhaar. The judgment's ringing endorsement of the right to privacy as a fundamental right marks a watershed moment in the constitutional history of India.
 

2.4 Concept of Due Process & Procedure Established By Law:

According to Article 21, there are two core points to be discussed about:-
(1) Procedure established by law; and
(2) Due process of law.

Procedure Established by law: (This Doctrine is originated under British Constitution and India follows it.)
As per this concept, any right of any person can be taken away by law, but, only one situation to take rights from the people and that condition lies in the name itself which is the system established by law which means proper procedure shall be followed. This principle has a main flaw. It does not asses if the laws made by Parliament are fair, just, and not arbitrary.
Procedure established by law states a law duly enacted is valid even if it's different to principles of justice and equity. Procedures that are followed strictly are established by law that may increase the risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to unjust laws made by the law making authorities. Thus Procedure established by law protects the individual against the arbitrary action of only the executive.
 

Due Process of Law: (This Doctrine is originated under the US Constitution).

This doctrine not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life of personal liberty of a person, but also see whether the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary. If the Supreme Court comes to know that any law as unfair, it will declare it as null and void. This doctrine leads to more fair treatment of individual rights. It gives the judiciary to judge the fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty of any legislation. Thus, Due process protects the individual against the arbitrary action of both executive and legislature. In India, there is no mention of the word 'Due Process.

This concept is based on three main things: Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
But in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court has overruled the A.K.Gopalan's case and held that procedure established by law meant procedure that eventually was reasonable, fair and just. The decision rendered avoid the plain and simple meaning of procedure established by law' and introduced for the first time the grand canon of 'due process of law'

In Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, Justice Krishna Iyer has observed: 'Truly our Constitution has no 'due process clause' as the VIIIth Amendment (of the American Constitution) but in this branch of law, after Cooper and Maneka Gandhi's case the consequence is the same.

In the case of Ramleela Maidan Incident[54] Justice B.S. Chauhan in his opinion wrote that when police disturbed the crowd at night at 1:00 a.m., their right to sleep was violated. He held that right to sleep forms an essential part of Article 21 which guarantees personal liberty and life to all. Sleep forms an essential part of living a peaceful life, hence it is a fundamental right. And In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (the landmark judgment inasmuch as it deals with the evidence given by narco-analysis, FMRI and polygraphs to be inadmissible & Violates personal liberty and privacy)., the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that substantive due process and due process generally are a part of Indian Constitutional law under Article 21 of the Constitution. But in the year of 2015, in the case of Rajbala vs. Haryana[55], the constitutional validity of the Haryana Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act 2015 was in question and the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court India strongly rejected the doctrine of substantive due process in India.

Recent Cases under Art.21:
SC allows women entry to Sabarimala temple, says exclusionary practices violate right to worship under Art.25, 14, and 21. Rules disallowing women in Sabarimala are unconstitutional and violative of Article 21, Supreme Court Struck down Victorian era Section 497 of IPC as Unconstitutional, Plea filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 497 of IPC, by an NRI from Kerala, Joseph Shine, who in his petition said Section 497 was "prima facie unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminates against men and violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution".

The Supreme Court on Sept,2018-pronounced that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional. The five-judge bench read out four judgments, all of which held that the law, which criminalises 'unnatural sex' between consenting adults, and has been used to target the LGBTQI+ community in India[56], has been struck down in so far as it criminalises same sex intercourse.LGBT rights[57]

Conclusion: Article 21 of the Constitution says, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Maneka Gandhi's case is not only a landmark case for the interpretation of Article 21 but it also gave an entirely new viewpoint to look at the Chapter III of the Constitution. Prior to Maneka Gandhi's decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from the legislative action. Broadly speaking, what this case did was extend this protection against legislative action too. In Maneka Gandhi's case, the meaning and content of the words 'personal liberty' again came up for the consideration of the Supreme Court. In this case the Supreme Court not only overruled A.K. Gopalan's case but also widened the scope of words 'personal liberty'. After that the meaning Art. 21 right to life & personal liberty has changed multidimensional approaches and reached the new horizon. But Judicial activism leads to some SUPREME ERROR and sometimes it also mirror that when judicial activism crosses its limits and starts becoming judicial adventurism and it takes the form of judicial overreach. Moreover Indian Court deliberately failed to recognise essence of LIFE in True Indian version. i.e Life in Hinduism embraces Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha- without which meaningless. Article 21, Right to Life without other Article just a alive human flesh.

End-Notes
[2]. International Journal of Law - ISSN: 2455-2194, RJIF 5.12 A Volume 3; Issue 3; May 2017; Page No. 98-100
[3]. Constituent Assembly Debates http://cadindia.clpr.org.in/
[4] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
[5] Ram Singh v. Delhi, AIR 1951 SC 270
[6] R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564
[7] Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 1425
[8] Supra note 11
[9] Supra note 1
[10] Supra note11
[11] M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law Vol-1, pp-1615
[12] (1976) 2 SCC 521; AIR 1976 SC 1207
[13] Prof.G.R.Jagadeesh, Conceptualization of personal liberty by KILPAR,2014 Pp-127-128
[14] Supra note-2
[15] Supra note-1
[16] Supra note-2
[17] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp., AIR 1986 SC 180
[18] Supra note-2
[19] Supra note-1
[20] State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378
[21] Professor M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, p. 1225 (Ruma Pal, J. & S. Pal, eds., ed. 6, Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 2012
[22]Supra note-2
[23] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
[24] Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178
[25] P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC SC 1844
[26] Re Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932
[27] Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109
[28] Id.
[29] Supra note-3
[30] (1990) 1 SCC 520.
[31] Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051
[32] U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 114
[33] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
[34] A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu,AIR 1999 SC 812
[35] M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
[36] Noise Plooution (V) In Re, AIR 2005 SC 316
[37] Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039
[38] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 2426
[39] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
[40] Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988
[41] Madhav Hayawandanrao Haskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
[42]
[43] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
[44] (1992) 3 SCC 666
[45] AIR 1993 SC 2178
[46] 1996 AIR 1 1995 SCC (5) 730
[47] (1996) 2 SCC 648
[48] (1994) 3 SCC 394
[49] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and others 5 (2011) 4 SCC 454
[50] SMT NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LALITA BEHERA V STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, AIR 1993 SC 1960
[51] Rudul Shah v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086
[52]. Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465
[53] Lillu @Rajesh & Anr v. state of Haryana,2013 SCC.643
[54]Ramlila Maidan incident case* (2012) 5 SCC 1
[55] Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015)1 SCC 463
[56] NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. (Petitioner(s)) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76 OF
[57] National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438

About The Author: Ravipraksh.M
Ll.M., Student, Specialisation In Constitutional Law & Administrative Law
C. Bhimasena Rao National College Of Law
Department Of Post Graduation Studies.
Shivamogga, Karnataka.-577201