In Article 21 Right to Life Indian Constitution : Examine the Fundamental Rights as a given? :- Article 21 of The Constitution gives that “No individual will be deprived/denied of his life or individual freedom besides as indicated by the methodology set up by law.
The word State has not been utilized in Article 21
The ramifications is that Art.21 is pertinent upon the State just as private Individual. Nonetheless, the Article is basically tended to upon the State and the State has the accompanying obligations:-
It will not curtail the life and individual freedom of the people besides as per the procedure established by law. By making laws the State shall not guarantee that the private individual additionally doesn’t violate the individual of others.
There are certain conditions existing which fundamentally abuses life and individual freedom. It is the obligation of the State to make an expert dynamic move to eliminate those conditions. It’s here that the obligation lies upon the State to achieve Social equity to secure and preserve the respect of life and individual freedom of an individual or group and its therefore, there is a overlapping between the Social equity under Article 14 and Article 21. According to the perspective of ensuring the dignity of life and liberty of an individual and group.
The idea of defensive discrimination and upliftment is implicit likewise in Art.21 however it isn’t uncovered concerning to Art. 21 as it previously discussed in the context of equity and social equity U/A 14. The idea of due process(fair treatment) concerning the American Constitution implies that The Indian, Constitution has been specified between the three organs of the State and there is no legal incomparability. Hence the word due process(fair treatment) was not utilized in the Indian Constitution however after the K.N. Bharti Judgment of the basic structure.
Doctrine of the realization that the principles of equity, justice, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness are the essential fundamental principles of the Constitution. It has likewise been understood that the deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be any and every procedure rather.
Case laws related to Article 21 Upto what extent Art. 21 apply
A.K. Gopalan versus U.O.I (A.I.R-1950)
The Apex court by the majority held that the individual freedom and liberty in Art.21 means nothing more than the freedom of the actual body, that’s freedom from detention and arrest without the authority of law. In this case, S.C interpreted/explained the law as “State made law” Application of the word “Procedure established by law” or due process of law:-
A.K. Gopalan versus U.O.I(A.I.R-1950)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the word utilized under Art.21 is a procedure set up by law. If any procedure has been established by any law and by utilizing that procedure an individual has been deprived of the right to life and personal liberty. subsequently it cannot be challenged on the base whether it is justified or not.
Maneka Gandhi versus U.O.I (A.I.R 1978)
In this case, if the methodology embraced doesn’t follow the rule of natural justice. It can’t be said that the procedure “established by law” is constitutional Right to live with Human Dignity:-
Maneka Gandhi versus U.O.I(A.I.R 1978)
The apex court held that the right to live isn’t only bound to actual physical existence but, Includes inside its ambit/extent the right to live with human dignity.
RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
Vello citizen forum versus U.I.O (A.I.R 1996) It was held that the State is the public trust of all assets in the nation and individuals are the beneficiaries of that public trust. It’s the obligation of the State to deal with the resources in such a way that it best serves the interest of individuals. The state is responsible to individuals in the issue of the executives of these resources. It’s the obligation of the State to make efforts to conserve the climate environment in the Interest of individuals (that is the beneficiary).
Chameli Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R-1996)
It was held that every person under Art.21 has the right to the basic fundamental and conveniences humanity right to food, water, education, medical care, a fair climate of the foundation. It’s the obligation of the State to give these essential amenities/conveniences and the necessary infrastructure to all the individuals.
RIGHT TO HEALTH AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
Parmanand Katara (P.K) versus Union of India (U.O.I)1989 S.C. It was held that the right to wellbeing and clinical treatment is a fundamental right of each person. On account of a mishap or any crucial injury, it is the obligation to the doctors to provide medical aid to the victim.
RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID
State of Maharashtra versus Manu Bhai Praggi Vashi 1995 S.C. It was held that the right to free lawful guide is a part of the Fundamental right and its obligation of the State to creates conditions for giving better facilities for free legal aid.
RIGHT TO POLLUTION-FREE ENVIRONMENT
Consumer education and research centre vs. Union Of India (A.I.R 1995 S.C.)
It was held that the option to dignified life includes the right to great wellbeing which in itself incorporates the right to the pollution-free/non-polluting environment. Murali s. deoria versus Union Of India (A.I.R 2002 S.C.) It was held that smoking in public places adversely affect the health of others and therefore it should be banned.
RIGHT TO DIGNITY
Vishaka versus State of Rajasthan and other (A.I.R 1997 S.C.)
The right to dignity especially sexual pride is a basic right of every woman. The court in this case set out the rules with respect to the assurance of ladies at workplaces. The right to women’s safety and dignity is also implicit under Art.21.
Budhdev Karmskar versus State of West Bengal (A.I.R 2011 S.C.)
Indeed, even the sex workers reserve the privilege to an honourable life and the right to the essential amenities of life. They have the right to live their professional and get into the standard of society. The court, in this case, shaped the committee for the restoration and rehabilitation of the sex workers and suggested that the State should come out with legitimate enactment to give fundamental basic education and vocational training to enable them to earn a livelihood for themselves.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Amar Singh versus Union of India A.I.R 2011 S.C.
It was held that Art. 21 has suggested within itself the right to privacy of every person. Any telephonic tracking without the appropriate procedures under the telegraph act would be illicit and the influenced individual can bring a judicial action against the service provider who had permitted that specific tapping. (Except the procedure by-law is not included)
RIGHT AGAINST HANDCUFFING
Prem Shankar versus Delhi authoritative (A.I.R. 1980)
The court held that it’s a fundamental rights of detainees that he shall not be bound except if it’s extremely necessary.