Institute of Legal Education

RIGHT TO LIFE AND IT’S VARIOUS FACETS

Author – MANVI PRIYA, STUDENT AT BHARATI VIDYAPEETH, NEW LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

ABSTRACT.

The right to life and personal liberty is one of the most fundamental rights of humans. To develop human needs an opportunity to follow their conscience. The position of Right to life and personal liberty is not same as it was when instituted in the constitution, it evolved through various judicial pronouncement and now it enjoys a wider scope. Recently, in Puttaswamy judgement it was held, right to life also covers right to privacy. The boundary of Article 21 has not been ascertained and open for interpretation to the judiciary as time and situation demands. Article 21A talks about Right to education, undoubtedly education is a tool to construct a productive society, so its inclusion was necessary in the constitution as most basic right, after this elementary education right was inserted compulsory education to children from age group (6 to 14 years) was granted. It is believed mere survival is not the purpose behind the right to life but to live with dignity. When we talk about the right to life it is applicable to everybody without the condition to which strata of society he belongs. No human should be deprived of his life. Under Article 359, During emergency President is empowered to, by notification make enforcement of any fundamental right dormant but not Article 20 and 21. If without any reasonable ground our personal liberty is curtailed, we must have protection against such whimsical acts by the government. So, over the period the right to life is broadened to support human existence with integrity and meet the vary purpose of its insertion into the constitution. In this Article we shall be seeing how Article 21 has been shaped and brought to the position it enjoys now.

INTRODUCTION.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution. It gives citizens as well as no citizen a ‘’ Right to life and personal liberty’’ which means, No person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law. Procedure established by law means due process of law of America. Human life should not merely mean to survive or live but to live with dignity, it must not be mere animal existence. Dignity is an intrinsic value of human survival without which he cannot survive. This value is promoted by the constitution under this article. There should be a basic living condition that must be made available to every individual so that his life and personal liberty don’t come into danger. The existence of humans should not be merely living without purpose or goals, and goals can be achieved only if we get certain basic amenities where we can work and grow.

As it is under Part III of the constitution, it can be enforced against the state in the court of law. If any such provision or law is made by the state that impacts the basic living condition, then that can be challenged. Right and remedy go hand in hand, the core value of right is hidden in existence of remedy. Same has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 32 of the constitution, which says, ‘’ right to legal remedies ‘’ where an individual can directly reach to Supreme Court to enforce his fundamental right. Power has been conferred to the Supreme Court to enforce the fundamental rights by issuing appropriate directions, orders or writs. The writs which Supreme Court can issue include the writs in the nature of the five writs mentioned in Article 32 namely;
Habeas corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Quo-warranto
Certiorari. Supreme court can also issue other writs besides these five. The words ‘’in the nature of’’ give more liberty to the court to issue writs for doing justice. A similar power is possessed by the High court, but the High courts have power to issue writs apart from the enforcement of the fundamental rights under Article 226.

‘’Life and personal liberty’’

Life is a very broad term; it can include everything that is imagined but to catch its essence a wise interpretation of law in the matter of life is desirable, that touches the shell of all existing groups in the society and balanced enough to strike the rudimentary elements of life. Law and society must be parallel to each other to maintain harmony in society. ‘’Law made must cover the need of the changing society, and society must abide by the legal reforms’’. Apparently, we see how the norms that were not so prevalent at the time of independence have become the need of the hour. We shall be discussing all this through landmark judgements as we proceed. It is believed that if a human is not given the liberty and made to live in a conservative framework, he is not able to grow properly, so concept of personal liberty is must for overall development of human personality. Suppression without the back of the law causes depression. No right is absolute and is subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and society at large. Liberty is the inherent right of the individual.

The concept of Right to life and personal liberty, is dynamic in nature. It has evolved to cover various facets of life and personal liberty. Over the years the Supreme court, through various judicial pronouncements, has ascertained the meaning of this article and its scope. All those basic requisites of human for survival are under the ambit of this article. To understand the essence of this article we must look at the landmark judgements that made this article inseparable from human life.

Let’s see to the various case laws that nurture the concept of life and personal liberty;

AK Gopalan v. State of Madras[1] – Petitioner challenged the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 on the ground that it violates his freedom of movement, hence curbing personal liberty. Court held; Freedom guaranteed can be enjoy by a citizen only when he is a freeman and not if his personal liberty is denied under a valid law or his detention has the back of law.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2] – In this case the Supreme Court gave the widest possible interpretation of the word personal liberty. Petitioner passport was impounded by the central government under section 10(3) of the passport act, 1967. The court asked the government to present the supportive argument for the said action. The government of India refuse to furnish the reason in the interest of the general public. Court held; the government is not justified in withholding the passport of the petitioner without providing any ground for the same, this also harms the principle of natural justice as it doesn’t allow the other party to be heard. With this case, the concept of ‘’Golden Triangle’’ evolved I.e., triangle of Article 14, 19, 21., must be seen together in such matter.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.[3] – In this case, petitioner was charged in a dacoity case but there was no evidence against him to prove his guilt. Under the U.P. police regulation, the police have opened a history sheet against him, and he was kept under police surveillance, where police will pay a domiciliary visit to his home. Court held; the meaning of personal liberty is not mere animal existence but beyond that. Paying domiciliary visits is an evasion of petitioner personal liberty.

In a similar case, Govind v. State of M.P.[4] – The petitioner challenged the validity of M.P. Police regulations 855 and 856, that empower the police to pay domiciliary visit to the petitioner’s house. The court held; Since such visit has the force of law so it is valid. The right to privacy will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development.

It is to be noted that in Kharak Singh’s case, the validity of a similar Police Regulation was challenged. In that case the Regulation were declared invalid because they didn’t have the force of law. On the other hand, in Govind’s case the validity of a similar Police Regulation was upheld as they had the force of law.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[5] – The petitioners had challenged the validity of certain sections of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 which empowers the municipal authorities to remove their huts from pavement of public places on the ground that their removal amounting them to the loss of their right to livelihood hence it was violative of Article 21. The court directed the Municipal Authorities to remove them only after the end of the current monsoon season and to frame a scheme where an area aside should be allotted to them where they can carry out their livelihood.
Right to education – Education is the bedrock of a fair society, without which there can be no substantial growth and progress. Education is an important aspect of life that takes us to liberty. So, it must be brought under the ambit of this section.

In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka[6] – This case is popularly known as the ‘’capitation fee case’’. The petitioner challenged the validity of the hefty capitation fee by the Karnataka education institutions. The court held; The right to education at all levels is a fundamental right of citizen under Article 21 of the constitution and charging capitation fee for admission to educational institution is illegal and amounts to denial of citizen’s right to education.

In Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.[7] – The Supreme Court overruled the Mohini Jain decision and held the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years but after that the obligation of the state to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[8] – The complete detachment of the prisoner from co-prisoner and confining them solitarily is the violation of Article 21, as it will make them suffer more.
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration[9] – Handcuffing is prime facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable. Absence of fair procedure and objective monitoring to inflict irons is to restore to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21.
Ramlila Maidan v. home secretary, UoI[10] – One night the men and women belonging to different age groups who had come to Ramlila Maidan to participate in the Yoga Training camp led by a yoga guru and for which permission had been given were sleeping. The permission to hold the camp was withdraw and sec 144 of CrPC was imposed and without any notice of it, the police to disperse gathering at about and after 1:00 AM on 5^th June 2011 midnight resorted to use of tear gas and lathi charge to disperse the peaceful sleeping crowd. Sleep is a necessity and not a luxury. It is desirable for optimal health and happiness as it directly affects the quality of the life of an individual when awake, inducing mental sharpness, emotional balance, creativity and vitality.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home secretary, State of Bihar[11] – Right to speedy trial should be made available to the convict at all stages of the trial. It is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so, till the time conviction is not proved a person must not face the prolonged procedure.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[12] – Court held; When emergency is imposed in the country by the presidential order under Article 359, the detenue has no locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the legality of the detention.
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.[13] – The right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution. The rights of human beings are not assured only by meeting animal existence. There must be some other basic facilities that are desirable for human existence, one such is shelter. The right to shelter includes adequate living place, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like road etc., to have access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter doesn’t mean to merely have a roof over the head but to enable them to live and develop as a human being.
Surjit Singh v. Kanwaljit Kaur[14] – The wife filed a writ petition for a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the marriage had never been consummated because the husband was impotent. To prove that the wife was not a virgin, the husband filed an application for her medical examination. The court held – Allowing the medical examination of woman’s virginity violates her right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.

The facet of life and personal liberty has wide interpretation. All basic needs that support life can fall within the ambit of Article 21.

Right to clean environment – A clean environment is desirable for humans to breathe and survive, without which existence is not possible.

Right to die – One important question arises after covering up the various aspects of life and personal liberty, that whether it covers the Right to die with dignity within it or not? For many years, it was a matter of contention. Now, it has reached to a certain position through various case laws;
P.Rathinam v. Union of India[15] – The ‘’right to live’’ in Article 21 of the constitution includes the ‘’right not to live’’ I.e., right to die or terminate one’s life. Section 309 of the IPC is violative of Article 21 and hence it is void. A person cannot be forced to enjoy the right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or dislike. Section 309 of the IPC is a ‘’cruel and irrational provision’’. The right to life cannot include the right not to have forced life.
Gian Gaur v. State of Punjab[16] – The Court held; Right to life is a natural right, that is conferred to an individual for the very fact that he is human. On the other hand, the right to die is an unnatural termination of life, so, the right to die doesn’t comes under the right to life. If such a right I.e., right to die brought within the ambit of fundamental right, then, cases where a person will invoke or incite other person to die will increase on the ground that they are just enforcing his fundamental right. A thing must be viewed from several angles so that no angle of it promotes injustice.
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India and others[17] – Aruna Shanbaug was a staff Nurse who worked in a Hospital in Mumbai, when she was brutally treated and sustained grave injuries that left her in a permanent vegetative state. She was cared for by the hospital staff and nurses over a long period of thirty-six years, however there was no improvement in her condition. A writ petition was filed by the next friend of the petitioner seeking permission to stop feeding the petitioner and to allow her right to die peacefully.

Vegetative state – It is a condition of the body when a person may look like they are awake, but they don’t have an awareness of their surroundings.

Euthanasia and it’s legal position in India.

The term euthanasia simply means good death. But its interpretation is not as simple as its literal meaning. It is very difficult to determine the concept of good death; so, euthanasia is divided into categories;

Active Euthanasia – It means injecting a patient with a dose of a lethal drug which would end his/her life. In India active euthanasia is expressly prohibited. In case a doctor administers active euthanasia, he shall be convicted under section 304 (punishment of culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC.
Passive Euthanasia – It means withdrawal of life-saving support from the patient. Such a form of euthanasia has been permitted to be administered in case a patient is in a persistent vegetative state.

Common cause v. Union of India – Justice D Y Chandrachud, defines the relationship between life and death as: Life and death are inseparable. Every moment of our lives, our bodies are involved in a process of continuous change. Millions of our cells perish as nature regenerates new ones. Our minds are rarely, if ever, constant. Our thoughts are fleeting. In a physiological sense, our being is in a state of flux, change being the norm. Life is not disconnected from death. To be, is to die. From a philosophical perspective, there is no anti-thesis between life and death. Both constitute essential elements in the inexorable cycle of existence.

This judgement is an ode to individual autonomy as it has enabled people to draw living wills and attorney authorization that would enable a person to discontinue his treatment if he is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state.

Right to Privacy – Privacy of the person is an intrinsic value of his life. He must not be asked to reveal anything that enters his scope of privacy. Supreme Court K.S.Puttaswamy judgement made this stand very clear and ruled that, right to privacy is a seminal aspect of the right to life.

K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. Vs Union of India[18] – In this case, the constitutionality of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was challenged. The Aadhaar Act was held to be valid by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court stated that sufficient security measures have been taken by the Government to keep the data safe which the citizens have been asked to reveal for Aadhaar. Privacy is an inseparable aspect of human dignity. In contemporary era, where digitalization is most prevalent, personal data of an individual needs to be managed with security so that it is not being used against the desire of that individual. Data theft is like any other form of theft that impacts individual well-being. So, it is the need of the hour to protect the sensitive information of citizens from being used maliciously hence, right to privacy is an important facet of right to life under Article 21 of the constitution.

Conclusion.

The constitution is not a mere lawyer’s document. It is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the spirit of age. – DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR.

Article 21 has got a wider interpretation, everything that promotes and upholds human value falls under the ambit of this article. Over the years multiple dimensions have been added to it, as the norms changed. Supreme Court over the year through plethora of judicial pronouncements has made the concept of life and liberty very explicit. Life and personal liberty are merely not meant to have life but include all basic amenities that a human requires for survival. Recently, some landmark judgement by the SC, has given a new direction to those the society and a whole exclusive perspective of co-existence. Citizens, just not include male and female but also to them who don’t identify them as male or female, I.e., transgender community. Now, after NALSA v. Union of India[19], judgement they are recognized as the third gender. Article 21 covers several aspects of life and liberty and is an important tool to safeguard individual life.

REFERENCES;

https://www.scconline.com

https://www.manupatrafast.com

https://www.thehindu.com

[1] AIR 1950 SC 27

[2] AIR 1978 SC 597

[3] 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

[4] 1975 AIR 1378,1975 SCR (3) 946

[5] 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl.(2) 51

[6] 1992 AIR 1858,1992 SCR (3) 658

[7] 1993 AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594

[8] 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557

[9] 1980 AIR 1535,1980 SCR (3) 855

[10] AIR 1978 SC 597

[11] 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532

[12] 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172

[13] 12122 of 1995

[14] 1996 AIR 1388, 1996 SCC(2) 336

[15] 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC(3) 394

[16] 1996 113 PLR 366

[17] Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454

[18] (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161

[19] Writ Petition (civil) No. 604 of 2013