Table of Contents
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Judicial Evolution of Article 21
Before Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Article 21 came before supreme court for the first time in AK Gopalan vs state of madras. Following things were held in the case of AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)
- In this case supreme court interpreted the word ‘law’ present in this article only include the laws made by state and not the laws made by executive.
- In this case supreme court followed a narrow interpretation regarding Article 21.
- In this case supreme court held that “Procedure established by law” need not be fair, just or reasonable
- In this case it was held that the word “Personal liberty” only includes mere physical existence and not other things related to it.
After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
- In this case Broader interpretation was adopted by the supreme court.
- In this case, it was held that the word law as present in this article include both the laws made by state and the laws made by the executive but the laws should be based `on the principle of natural justice.
- In this case it was held that procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable
- The word “Personal liberty” mentioned under Article 21 includes a physical existence with dignified life.
Landmark Cases on Article 21
 Case Name |  Key Holding |
|---|---|
| Francis Coralie v. UT of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746) | Right to life is more than animal existence |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(2017) | Right to privacy is part of Article 21 |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy [(2019) 1 SCC 1] | Aadhaar upheld as constitutional |
| Joseph Shine v. UOI(AIR 2018 SC 4898) | Offence of Adultery struck down |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI(AIR 2018 SC 4321) | Sec 377 of IPC struck down (LGBTQ+ rights) |
| Olga Tellis v. BMC(AIR 1986 SC 180) | Right to livelihood is part of life |
| Chameli Singh v. State of UP | This article includes right to food, shelter, health, education |
| Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin(AIR 2010 SC 235) | This article protects reproductive choice |
| Aruna Shanbaug v. UOI(AIR 2011 SC 1290) | In this case it was held that Passive euthanasia is allowed as per Article 21 |
| Murli S. Deora v. UOI(AIR 2002 SC 40) | Smoking in public places banned |
| Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar(AIR 1983 SC 1086) | Compensation for illegal detention |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011) | Sexual harassment at workplace is violation of Article 21 |
Right to Die – Not Included
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 946): In this case it was held that right to life does not include right to die
- This case Overruled Rathinam v. UOI (AIR 1994 SC 1844) in which it was held right to life include right to die
Article 21A – Right to Education
- Added by 86th Constitutional Amendment, 2002
- This article was added after the judgement of Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka and Unni krishnan vs State of A.P.
Related Act:
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Key Judgments
| Case Name | Key Holding |
|---|---|
| Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858) | Education is integral to Article 21 |
| Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2178) | Free education guaranteed till age 14 only |
Article 22 – Protection Against Arrest and Detention
Article 22(1): Rights of Arrested Persons
“No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
This clause is related to punitive detention. It guarantees two key rights:
- To be informed of the grounds of arrest
- To consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice
Article 22(2): Magistrate Production
“Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest…”
- Relates to punitive detention
- Arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours
- Cannot be detained further without magistrate’s authority
Article 22(3): Exceptions
“Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.”
- Clause (3) is an exception to clauses (1) and (2)
- Not applicable to:
- Enemy aliens (e.g. foreign spies)
- Persons under preventive detention laws
Article 22(4): Preventive Detention Limits
- No person shall be detained under preventive detention law for more than 3 months without the approval of an Advisory Board (composed of High Court judges or ex-judges)
- There must be sufficient cause for such detention
- Parliament can prescribe:
- Maximum period of detention
- Detention procedures
Article 22(5): Grounds of Detention & Representation
“The authority making the order shall… communicate to such person the grounds… and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation…”
This article ensures that detained persons are informed of the reasons for their detention and have a chance to defend themselves.
Article 22(6): Exception to Disclosure
“Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority… to disclose facts… against the public interest…”
This article allows withholding of detention reasons in the interest of national security or public order.
Article 22(7): Parliamentary Powers
- Parliament can:
- Extend detention beyond 3 months without Advisory Board in certain circumstances
- Prescribe maximum detention period
- Set procedure for Advisory Board inquiries
Landmark Case Laws on Article 22
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| AK Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710) | In this case National Security Act was upheld as constitutionally valid |
| Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. UOI (AIR 1981 SC 728) | In this case the detenue did not know English and grounds of detention were drawn in English to him. There was no explanation of grounds to him in the language which he knows. So, it was held that there was no sufficient compliance of Article 22(5) and the detention order is invalid. |
| Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1988 SC 684) | In this case it was held that an unexplained delay of 5 days in considering and disposing detenu `s representation is invalid. Merely stating that minister was on tour so he could not pass order was not a justifiable explanation. |
