This article is written by Namrata Jana, a 2nd-year B.A. LL.B. student

Abstract

Personal liberty, interpreted under Article 21 of the Indian constitution , forms a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty, granting individuals the freedom to move, choose their residence,and pursue Lawful occupation, while also encompassing broader socio- economic Rights like livelihood, health and privacy. This broader judicial interpretation ensures individuals can “live with dignity,” and any deprivation of Liberty must conform to just , fair , and reasonable procedure established by law ,not just any state made law.

 Introduction

The Indian constitution is a visionary document that guarantees Fundamental rights to every individual ensuring justice, liberty and dignity . Among these rights, Article 21 holds a pivotal place.

It states : No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

At the heart of Article 21 lies the phrase “personal liberty”- a term that goes beyond mere physical freedom. It is multifaceted concept encompassing various aspects of individual autonomy, dignity and privacy.this Article explores the role, meaning, judicial interpretation , contemporary relevance and challenges associated with personal liberty under Article 21.

Understanding Personal liberty –

The term Personal liberty has not been explicitly defined in the constitution However, it’s meaning has evolved through judicial interpretation . In its broadest sense, Personal liberty refers to the freedom of an individual to live life on their own term.

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

• Article 21 is the bedrock of the Indian constitution.It represents the democratic principle of Liberty and life.
• John Lock’s Defination of Libert : Western Philosopher john Locke, the father of liberalism, defined liberty as ‘ the freedom to act according to one’s own will within the bounds of the law.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Article 21: However,the Supreme court of india through its judgement has interpreted life as not just living but living with dignity

• Thus ,makes the scope of Article 21 broader than any other Article

A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)- Narrow interpretation of Article 21

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India ( 1978)- Broadening the scope of Article 21.

• By Introducing of Due process of law

Dimensions of Article 21

• Right to LIFE
• Right to Personal LIBERTY
• Procedure Established

Right to Life –

• Right to Life interpreted as living with dignity
• It Includes essential needs: adequate food, clothing, shelter
• It ensures access to health care.
• It encompasses educational facilities and literacy.
• It protects freedom of expression in various forms.
• Guarantees Freedom of movement

Right to Personal LIBERTY

• Right to Personal LIBERTY provides protection against arbitrary and undue restrictions.
• It Includes various spectrum of rights:

• Right to privacy
  • Right to travel
  • Right to livelihood
  • Access to education
  • Entitlement to healthcare

Procedure Established –

• This sets conditions for legal limitations on rights.
• It is not an absolute right but subject to legislative restrictions.
• Laws Limiting rights must be fair and equitable.
• Arbitrary or unjust laws are not permissible for restrictions rights

Historical background

Article 21’s historical roots lie in the global human rights movement and India’s own struggle for independence,with the principle enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( UDHR). In the Indian constitution of 1950 ,it safeguards the “ right to life and personal liberty” from being deprived except by a “ procedure established by law” replaced the broader “ due process of law” to avoid issues seen in the American legal system, while the inclusion of “ Personal” before “Liberty” was a specific improvement by the drafting Committee.

• Indian Independence Movement:

The fight for Independence against colonial rule led to the creation of the Indian constitution with the aim of establishing a democratic state that upholds individual rights.

• Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) :

Adopted in 1948 ,the UDHR affirmed the inherent dignity and unalienable rights of all people, including the right to life and liberty,a principle that directly influenced India’s Constitutional framework.

• Constitutional Drafting Process : the drafting process involved debates on including “due process” as in the US Constitution,but the framers ultimately settled on “ procedure established by law” ,a decision that faced some criticism for potentially allowing unjust procedures.

So, In 1950 , Article 21 was understood in a more literal sense, focused on the basic protection of human life and freedom from arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

Evolution of Article 21 through Judicial Cases:

The Supreme court has played a vital role in expanding the scope of Article 21, which is now considered the “heart” of the constitution.

Emergence of New Rights:

Landmark judgement have established various rights under Article 21, Including:

• Right to live with human dignity
• Right to education:( initially implied , later made a separate Article 21A)
• Right to a clean environment
• Right to privacy
• Right to livelihood
• Right to legal aid
• Right to a speedy trial

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Article 21: However The Supreme court of india through its judgement has interpreted life as not just living but living with dignity.

Thus, makes the scope of Article 21 broader than any other Article. A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950):

• Narrow interpretation of Article 21: The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty could be deprived based on the “Procedure established by law” without questioning the fairness of justness of the law.

–The court held that protection under Article 21 is                                                                                                   available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This case marked a turning point in interpreting Article 21

• Broadening the scope of Article 21: The Supreme court declared that the “ procedure established by law” must be fair, just amd not arbitrary, effectively reading Article 14 ( right to equality) and Article 19( protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,etc.) into Article 21
• Introduction,,of due process of law: it introduced the American concept of “due proc, which collss of law” extending the Article 21 against arbitrary legislative action.

-Due Process of Law derives its essense from the principle of Natural just,

Dynamic and Evolving Provision: this article makes the constitution a living documents as time,it allows open arms for new changes that are demanded in society.

Golden triangle of the constitution of India:

The golden Triangle of the constitution of India refers to Article 14 ,19 and 21 of the Indian constitution which collectively form the foundation for individuals liberties and the rule of law , ensuring equality, Freedom and the protection of life and personal liberty.Article 14 guarantees equality before law , Article 19 protects freedom such as speech and expression, and Article 21 safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. These Articles are interpreted in conjunction with each other, most notably through the landmark Supreme court case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), to provide comprehensive protection for citizens from arbitrary state action and ensure their fundamental rights are upheld.

Evolution of Personal Liberty under Article 21 over the past 75 years

Over the year, The Supreme Court has interpreted personal liberty to include a wide range of rights necessary for a dignified human existence. These Include:

• Initial Interpretation – In 1950 Article 21 was interpreted narrowly , emphasis was laid primarily on the Physical aspect of personal liberty
• A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras ( 1950) – The landmark Case established that personal liberty was limited to the physical body, without wider rights such as freedom of movement
• Maneka Gandhi case( 1978) – it expanded the scope of Article 21, the right to life Includes the right to live with dignity and lead a meaningful life. The Supreme Court held that personal liberty encompasses various rights, including the right to travel abroad and right to livelihood.

Expansion of Rights ( Article 21)

Over the period, Article 21 has been interpreted to include wider rights such as Privacy, health, clean environment etc., which reflects a more inclusive understanding of personal liberty. The Supreme Court has emphasized that these are essential for ensuring individual dignity and a meaningful existence.

• Right against illegal Detention: In the case of D.K Basu vs State of West Bengal India, The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the central and the state investigating authorities in all cases and detention.
• Right to Speedy Trial: Indian Judiciary in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs the State of Bihar, has made it settled decision that the right to Speedy Trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
• Right to Privacy – In R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu., the supreme court has expressly held , that “Right to privacy” or the right to be let alone is coming under the purview of Article 21

Kharak Singh vs State of UP – the Supreme Court said that the right to life does not merely mean animal existence . If there is any unauthorised disturbance then it is violation of privacy.

• Telephone Tapping: is a violation of the right to privacy, The People’s Union for Civil Liabilities ( PUCL) vs Union of India is also known as the phone tapping case. The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and unless there is a public emergency or a case of public safety then you cannot infringe on anyone’s right to privacy.
• Personal liberty includes the right of women to produce a child or not to produce a child or refuse to participate in sexual act is coming under the purview of Article 21 – Suchitra Srivastava vs Chandigarh Administration
• Right to sleep – Sayeed Maqsood Ali vs State of MP – MP High court held that every citizen is entitled under Article 21 of the constitution to live in a decent environment and has the right to sleep peacefully at night.
• Right to die – Not a fundamental right under Article 21 . The question arises whether the right to die is included in Article 21.

In Gian kaur vs State of Punjab, a five judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution does not include the “right to die” or the “ right to be killed”. The court made it clear that the right to life including the right to live with human dignity up to the end of the natural life.

• Right to environment

In Rural litigation and Entitlement kerla vs State of UP (RLEK) – Mussoorie and Dehradun belt were being extensively mined illegally and unauthorized. So RLEK wrote a letter to the supreme court stating all of

this. The Supreme Court treated this as a writ petitions and by the Environmental protection Act ordered all of the illegal mining and excavation to be stopped at once

After the RLEK case ,MC mehta case , Damodar case – Supreme Court finally said that the right to live in a healthy environment is a part of Article 21.

Role of judiciary in upholding Constitution justice and personal liberties.

• The judiciary has been instrumental in advancing constitutional justice and safeguarding personal liberties. Landmark rulings such as the Puttuswami Case , affirmed privacy as a fundamental rights under Article 21, setting a significant precedents for individuals rights
• Recently in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India (2024)

,  The Supreme Court struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, declaring it unconstitutional for infringing on voters right to information under Article 19(1) (a).

Emerging Threats to personal liberty

Despite judicial intervention, threats to personal liberty persist , which is exacerbated by legislative and executive action in form of:

Preventive Detention laws : Authorities frequently misuse preventive Detention laws to hold individuals without trial on vague pretexts.

Arbitrary Arrest: laws like The Prevention of Money laundering Act ( PMLA) and the unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)are often invoked without substantial evidence, leading to prolonged detention and undermining the principle of “ innocent until proven guilty “.

Recent case –

Crackdown on Activities and NGO , Civil society organisations and human rights activists face growing challenges such as raid ,assets freezes and cancellation of licences under stringent foreign funding laws.

Internet shutdown – Despite , Anuradha Bhasin Verdict, India continues to lead globally in the frequency of internet shutdown, which disproportionately affects marginalized communities by denying access to education, health care and essential services.

Data privacy – The increasing use of surveillance technology raises concern about Data privacy and state overreach . Without robust safeguards , individual risk unlawful intrusion into their personal lives ( Pegasus issue)

Judicial delays- Delayed hearings in sensitive cases , including habeas Corpus and bail application ( Bhim koregaon), weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a timely protector of rights

Steps to Address these Issues

• Reforming preventive Detention Laws- Tighten legal framework to limit the use of Detention without trial , ensuring strict judicial oversight and accountability.
• Ensuring accountability in Arrest – Courts must rigorously evaluate the grounds of arrest under stringent laws like PMLA and UAPA to prevent misuse and uphold due process
• Safeguarding free speech – Enact legislative protections against arbitrary censorship and ensure that media and digital independently.
• Empowering Civil Society – Creat a supportive regulatory environment that enables NGOs and activists to operate without fear of reprisal, forstering transparency and accountability.
• Ending unjustified Internet Shutdown – Introduce clear, enforceable guidelines to prevent arbitrary shutdowns, ensuring continuous access to digital infrastructure for all
• Strengthening Privacy Protection – Comprehensive data protection legislation to regulate surveillance practices and safeguard personal data from misuse.
• Improving judicial Efficiency – Improve judiciary’s capacity by appointing more judges, modernizing court infrastructure, and leveraging technology to expedite case resolution.
• Enhancing access to legal Aid – Increase funding and support for legal aid programs to ensure that marginalized communities can effectively defend their right.

Conclusion

The expansive interpretation of Article 21 underscores its significance in protecting a wide array of fundamental rights beyond mere existence

• While the judicial advancements highlight the progressive nature of the Constitution, challenges remain in translating these legal safeguard into tangible outcomes.

Bridging this gap is crucial for ensuring that the right to life, in all its dimensions, is effectively realized for ev