Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Both are linked

• Without life there is no liberty, and a life without liberty is not a life of dignity. Courts read the two together.
• Article 21 is available to every person: citizens and foreigners alike. It is a negative command to the State ("shall not deprive"), but courts have also drawn positive duties from it, such as providing legal aid and emergency medical care.
• It is enforceable against the State. Some parts, such as the right against bonded labour or a clean environment, are also enforced against private persons through laws and court orders.

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), narrow view: a communist leader challenged his preventive detention. The Court read each Fundamental Right as a separate box. "Life" meant mere physical existence, and "procedure established by law" meant any procedure in a law made by the legislature, however unfair.
• Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962): night-time police visits to a person's home were struck down as a breach of personal liberty; the minority opinion spoke of privacy.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (25 January 1978, 7 judges), broad view: Articles 14, 19 and 21 form a "golden triangle" and must be read together. The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. Life means a life with dignity, and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad (already recognised in Satwant Singh Sawhney, 1967).

After Maneka: the flood of new rights

• Your notes link clean water, food and free movement to Maneka. More precisely, these came in later cases built on Maneka: Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) on dignity, Subhash Kumar (1991) on pollution-free water and air, and the PUCL right to food orders from 2001.
• Hussainara Khatoon (1979) was not just about arbitrary detention: it made speedy trial part of Article 21, led to the release of thousands of undertrials in Bihar, and stressed free legal aid (Article 39A).
• Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993) found a right to education; this led to the 86th Amendment 2002 and Article 21A (free education for ages 6 to 14).
• K.S. Puttaswamy: the privacy judgment came on 24 August 2017 (9 judges, unanimous); the separate Aadhaar judgment came on 26 September 2018 (5 judges, 4:1).

Internet and education

• Courts have linked internet access with education and expression: the Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin (2019), and the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin (2020) under Article 19. Questions on access for schoolchildren keep coming up; see our explainer linked below.

Why India chose "procedure established by law"

• The draft first said "due process of law". The Constituent Assembly changed it to "procedure established by law", the words of Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution (1946), so that courts would not strike down social and land-reform laws as in the US. B.N. Rau had discussed this with US Justice Felix Frankfurter.
• Britain has parliamentary sovereignty: courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. India has parliamentary supremacy limited by a written Constitution and judicial review (Articles 13, 32 and 226), so even the Indian model was never pure British.

What changed after Maneka Gandhi

• Since 1978 the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, and the law must pass the tests of Articles 14 and 19 as well. In practice Indian courts now apply a due-process-like test while keeping the original words.
• Example: in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) the Court struck down the mandatory death sentence in section 303 IPC, because a law that leaves the judge no choice is unfair.
• Points often made in exam answers: this gives citizens strong protection; critics say it gives judges too much room. Both views are part of the debate on judicial activism.

• Euthanasia comes from the Greek eu (good) and thanatos (death): a "good death". It means ending the life of a person with an incurable illness to end suffering.

Types of euthanasia

How the law developed in India

• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996, 5 judges): Article 21 does not include a right to die by suicide; it overruled P. Rathinam (1994). But the Court noted that dignity in the process of dying is a different matter.
• Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (7 March 2011): Aruna, a nurse in Mumbai, had been in a vegetative state since 1973. The Court refused euthanasia for her but allowed passive euthanasia in general, with the approval of the High Court.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (9 March 2018, 5 judges): the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21. Passive euthanasia and the living will (advance medical directive) were recognised, with medical boards to decide.
• 24 January 2023: the Court simplified the guidelines: a living will can be signed before a notary or gazetted officer with two witnesses (no magistrate countersignature); a primary board at the hospital and a secondary board must decide within 48 hours; experts need 5 years' experience instead of 20.
• September 2024: the Union Health Ministry released draft guidelines on withdrawal of life support for terminally ill patients for public comments.
• The Court asked Parliament to make a law. There is still no Act of Parliament on euthanasia; the court guidelines hold the field.

• Arguments for passive euthanasia and living wills: respect for a patient's own choice (autonomy), ending prolonged suffering, avoiding futile treatment that drains family savings, and dignity at the end of life.
• Arguments for caution: life is valued in most faiths and in medical ethics; palliative care can reduce suffering; a vulnerable person may feel like a burden; and decisions are hard to reverse.

Challenges noted in your class notes

• Poverty and hunger may push families or patients towards it for economic reasons.
• Risk of misuse, for example to hide a crime or for property.
• Low literacy and awareness make living wills hard for most people to write.
• It is not always clear when and how to withdraw life support.
• How to check that consent is truly voluntary is not spelt out in detail.
• It is a sensitive subject touching religion, family and medical ethics.

Way forward (exam view)

• A clear law by Parliament, as the Court suggested, with safeguards against misuse.
• Better palliative care so that no one chooses death for lack of pain relief.
• Simple, local-language living will forms, a record system in hospitals, and training of doctors and medical boards.
• Public awareness, keeping the debate respectful of all views.