A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF

ARTICLE 21: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL

LIBERTY

SUBMITTED TO
THE TAMILNADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In Fulfilment of the Requirements for Internal Component in

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-1
By
Alexander. I
2nd Year, 3rd Semester

(Regd. No. BA0130006)

DECLARATION

I, hereby declare that the research project entitled Article 21: Protection of Life and
Personal Liberty submitted to the Tamil Nadu National Law School; Tiruchirappalli, is a
record of bonafide work done by me under the supervision and guidance of Faculty of
Constitutional Law, Tamil Nadu National Law School; Tiruchirappalli.

All information furnished in the project is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
devoid of plagiarism. If under the circumstances plagiarism is truly established, then the
Law School may be pleased to proceed with any action against me according to the
Universitys rules and regulations.

Alexander.I
Section- A
.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Research Project entitled Article 21: Protection of Life and
Personal Liberty submitted to the Tamil Nadu National Law School; Tiruchirappalli, in
fulfilment of the requirements for internal component for B.A; LL.B (HONS.), Third
Semester is an original and bonafide research work carried out by Alexander under my
supervision and guidance. No part of this study has been submitted to any University for
the award of any Degree or Diploma whatsoever.

Faculty in charge of Constitutional Law

Place: Tiruchirappalli.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At the outset, I take this opportunity to thank my Professor of Constitutional Law from
the bottom of my heart who has been of immense help during moments of anxiety and
torpidity when the project was taking its crucial shape.
Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the administrative staff of TNNLS who held the
project in high esteem by providing reliable information in the form of library
infrastructure and database connections in times of need.
Thirdly, the contribution made by my parents and friends by foregoing their precious time
is unforgettable and highly solicited. Their valuable advice and timely supervision paved
the way for the successful completion of this project. Hence as a student, I am extremely
grateful and forever deeply indebted to him.
Finally, I thank the Almighty who gave me the courage and stamina to confront all
hurdles during the making of this project. Words arent sufficient to acknowledge the
tremendous contributions of various people involved in this project--- as I know Words
are Poor Comforters. I once again wholeheartedly and earnestly thank all the people
who were involved directly or indirectly during this project making which helped me to
come out with flying colours.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Abbreviations
List of Cases
Preface
Introduction

Meaning and Scope of Article 21

Procedure under Constitution for Enforcement of Art. 21

Rights of Prisoners and Article 21

Reviews and Opinion
Bibliography

TABLE OF CASES

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
Associated
Management
of
(Government

Recognised

Unaided English Medium)

Primary and Secondary Schools in Karnataka v. State of

Karnataka
Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R.

Nandkarni
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. v. By. EA Group
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Consumer Education and Research Center v. Union of India
D.B.M. Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh
D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Distt. Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi
Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
Hussainara Khatoon (2) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
In re: Noise Pollution
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre
Malak Singh v. State of Punjab
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. R.S Naik
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Poonam Sharma v. Union of India
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay

Pvt. Ltd.
Rajneesh Kapoor v. Union of India
Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand
Rudal Sha v. State of Bihar
Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab

Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry
Sodhan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Sukh Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society

Limited
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

ABBREVIATIONS

J.- Justice
&- and
v. -versus
SC- Supreme Court of India
AIR- All India Reporter
Vol.- Volume
Ed-. Edition
p.- Page Number
Del.- Delhi High Court
SCC- Supreme Court Cases
AP- Andhra Pradesh
UP- Uttar Pradesh
Bom.- Bombay High Court
Ltd.- Limited
Supp.- Supplementary

CrLJ- Criminal Law Journal

IPC- Indian Penal Code
Mad.- Madras High Court
Pat.- Patna High Court

PREFACE

Article 21 as the basic right to life and protection of personal liberty holds very high esteem
not only in the Constitutions of the world but anywhere in the legal community due to intense
and deep regard to the valuable human gift called LIFE that the Almighty bestowed upon us.
In connection with the Indian Constitution, Article 21 comparatively stands second to none
due to its protection conferred on life and protection of liberty which stands out as paramount
importance. It is rendezvous that the very object with which the Indian Constitution was
drafted keeping in mind the needs and necessities of the people is a futile effort. As a matter
of fact, certain Constitutions of the world hold the Right to Life as a basic doctrine much
above than any other provision. This justifies the significance behind this Article. Never in
the history of the Supreme Court of India, has no other Article after 32 been wide open to
interpretations and criticisms as much as Article 21 received. It has been revived many times
and the SC has itself eaten its own pie on many occasions and rendered many landmark
judgments in misunderstanding the merits and gravity of the case.
Hence, this small piece of research attempts to bring into limelight the various interpretative
aspects of Art. 21, its scope and other related parameters associated with it. Since Article 21

is a never ending and ever expanding arena, there are no boundaries to its limitations and
hence if at all if there are any developments in connection with the above, it shouldnt be
misconstrued that those developments havent been included in the purview of this research.

INTRODUCTION
Right to life is an inalienable and inherent right of every human being.
-Thomas Jefferson
Indian democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only to protect fundamental rights of its
citizens but also to establish an egalitarian order. Law being an instrument of social
engineering obliges the judiciary to carry out the process established by it. Lord Chancellor
Sankey once said amidst the cross currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a
great ark upon which a man may set his foot and be safe. In this remark, he has emphasized
on the importance of law. It is needless to say that life of an individual in a society would
become a continuing disaster if not regulated
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word No has been
used in relation to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is
to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to
procedure established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided
against state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal
liberty or deprivation of life of other person. Such violation would not fall under the

parameters set for the Article 21. In such a case the remedy for aggrieved person would be
either under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law. But, where an act of private
individual supported by the state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the
act will certainly come under the ambit of Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution deals with
prevention of encroachment upon personal liberty or deprivation of life of a person.
The state cannot be defined in a restricted sense. It includes Government Departments,
Legislature, Administration, Local Authorities exercising statutory powers and so on so forth,
but it does not include non-statutory or private bodies having no statutory powers. For
example: company, autonomous body and others. Therefore, the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 relates only to the acts of State or acts under the authority of the
State which is not according to procedure established by law. The main object of Article 21 is
that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State, the procedure
established by law must be strictly followed. Right to Life means the right to lead
meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted meaning. It is something
more than surviving or animal existence. The meaning of the word life cannot be narrowed
down and it will be available not only to every citizen of the country. As far as Personal
Liberty is concerned, it means freedom from physical restraint of the person by personal
incarceration or otherwise and it includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided
under Article 19 of the Constitution. Procedure established by Law means the law enacted by
the State. Deprived has also wide range of meaning under the Constitution.

EXTENDED MEANING AND SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21

The scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow till 50s as it was held by the Apex Court
in A.K.Gopalan vs State of Madras1 that the contents and subject matter of Article 21 and 19
(1) (d) are not identical and they proceed on total principles. In this case the word deprivation
was construed in a narrow sense and it was held that the deprivation does not restrict upon the
right to move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d). at that time Gopalans case was the
leading case in respect of Article 21 along with some other Articles of the Constitution, but
post Gopalan case the scenario in respect of scope of Article 21 has been expanded or
modified gradually through different decisions of the Apex Court and it was held that
interference with the freedom of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in
jail would require authority of law. Whether the reasonableness of a penal law can be
examined with reference to Article 19, was the point in issue after Gopalans case in the case
of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2 , the Apex Court opened up a new dimension and laid
down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a
1

AIR 1950 SC 27

2 AIR 1978 SC 594

restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a person of his life or
personal liberty. This view has been further relied upon in a case of Francis Coralie Mullin
v.

The

Administrator,

Union

Territory

of

Delhi

and

others 3as

follows:

Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by
procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not
arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has therefore now to pass the
test not only for Article 22, but also of Article 21 and if the constitutional validity of any such
law is challenged, the court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such
law for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just. In another case
of Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others 4 , it was further
observed: Just as a mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so,
unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure
prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right must conform the norms of
justice and fair play. Procedure, which is just or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attracts
the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and
consequently, the action taken under it. As stated earlier, the protection of Article 21 is wide
enough and it was further widened in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
and others5 in respect

of bonded labor

and weaker section of the

society.

It lays down as follows: Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free from
exploitation. The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of
the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of
the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent
who is exploiting him. Both the Central Government and the State Government are therefore
bound to ensure observance of the various social welfare and labor laws enacted by
Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in
compliance with the DPSP. The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and
reasonable conditions, right to rehabilitation after release, right to live hood by legal means
and decent environment. The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex

3 AIR 1978 SC 597

4 AIR 1986 SC 180
5 AIR 1984 SC 802

Court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P6 and the Apex Court itself provided the
list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and
some of them are listed below: (1)The right to go abroad. (2) The right to privacy. (3) The
right against solitary confinement. (4) The right against hand cuffing. (5) The right against
delayed execution. (6) The right to shelter. (7) The right against custodial death. (8) The right
against public hanging. (9) Doctors assistance.
It was observed in Unni Krishnans 7case that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental
Rights and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the
education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life. As a result of
expansion of the scope of Article 21, the Public Interest Litigations in respect of children in
jail being entitled to special protection, health hazards due to pollution and harmful drugs,
housing for beggars, immediate medical aid to injured persons, starvation deaths, the right to
know, the right to open trial, inhuman conditions in aftercare home have found place under
it. Through various judgments the Apex Court also included many of the non-justifiable
Directive Principles embodied under part IV of the Constitution and some of the examples
are as under: (a) Right to pollution free water and air. (b) Protection of under-trial. (c) Right
of every child to a full development. (d) Protection of cultural heritage. Maintenance and
improvement of public health, improvement of means of communication, providing human
conditions in prisons, maintaining hygienic condition in slaughter houses have also been
included in the expanded scope of Article 21. This scope further has been extended even to
innocent hostages detained by militants in shrine who are beyond the control of the state. The
Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India8 and others it was held that in the
expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State to
create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed
live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth
of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstance the
state is not able to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay compensation to the family
of the person killed during riots as his or her life has been extinguished in clear violation of
6 (1993) 1 SCC 645
7 (1993) 1 SCC 645
8 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/128808601/

Article 21 of the Constitution. While dealing with the provision of Article 21 in respect of
personal liberty, Hon'ble Supreme Court put some restrictions in a case of Javed and others
v. State of Haryana9, AIR 2003 SC 3057 as follows: at the very outset we are constrained to
observe that the law laid down by this court in the decisions relied on either being misread or
read divorced of the context. The test of reasonableness is not a wholly subjective test and its
contours are fairly indicated by the Constitution. The requirement of reasonableness runs like
a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights. The lofty ideals of social and
economic justice, the advancement of the nation as a whole and the philosophy of distributive
justice- economic, social and political- cannot be given a go-by in the name of undue stress
on fundamental rights and individual liberty. Reasonableness and rationality, legally as well
as philosophically, provide color to the meaning of fundamental rights and these principles
are deducible from those very decisions which have been relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. The Apex Court led a great importance on reasonableness and rationality of
the provision and it is pointed out that in the name of undue stress on Fundamental Rights
and Individual Liberty, the ideals of social and economic justice cannot be given a go-by.
Thus it is clear that the provision Article 21 was constructed narrowly at the initial stage but
the law in respect of life and personal liberty of a person was developed gradually and a
liberal interpretation was given to these words. New dimensions have been added to the
scope of Article21 from time to time. It imposed a limitation upon a procedure which
prescribed for depriving a person of life and personal liberty by saying that the procedure
which prescribed for depriving a person of life and personal liberty by saying that the
procedure must be reasonable, fair and such law should not be arbitrary, whimsical and
fanciful. The interpretation which has been given to the words life and personal liberty in
various decisions of the Apex Court, it can be said that the protection of life and personal
liberty has got multi dimensional meaning and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the
State which deprived the life or personal liberty of a person would be against the provision of
Article 21 of the Constitution.

9 AIR 2003 SC 3057

PROCEDURE UNDER CONSTITUTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF

ARTICLE 21
The expression procedure established by law has been subject matter of interpretation in a
catena of cases. A survey of these cases reveals that courts in the process of judicial
interpretation have enlarged the scope of the expression. The Supreme Court took the view
that procedure established by law in Article 21 means procedure prescribed by law was
enacted by the state and rejected to equate it with the American due process of law. But, in
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the procedure
prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be right, just
and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive, otherwise it would be no procedure at

all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the procedure established
by law has acquired the same significance in India as the due process of law clause in
America. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, speaking in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration10, has
said that though our Constitution has no due process clause but after Maneka Gandhis case
the consequence is the same and as much as such Article 21 may be treated as counterpart of
the due process clause in American Constitution.
Recently the Supreme Court has dealt with an increasing number of people sentenced to
death for bride-burning. In December 1985 the Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man,
Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death for two separate cases of killing two
young women by setting them on fire. In an unprecedented move the court ordered both
prisoners to be publicly executed. In a response to a review petition by the Attorney-General
against this judgment the Supreme Court in December 1985 stayed the public hangings,
observing that a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty. The Court
observed that the execution of death sentence by public hanging is violation of article 21,
which mandates the observance of a just, fair and reasonable procedure. Thus, an order
passed by the High Court of Rajasthan for public hanging was set aside by the Supreme Court
on the ground inter alia, that it was violative of article 21. In Sher Singh v State of Punjab11,
the Supreme Court held that unjustifiable delay in execution of death sentence violates art 21.
The Supreme Court has taken the view that this article read as a whole is concerned with the
fullest development of an individual and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Every
procedure must seem to be reasonable, fair and just. The right to life and personal liberty
has been interpreted widely to include the right to livelihood, health, education, environment
and all those matters which contributed to life with dignity. The test of procedural fairness
has been deemed to be one which is commensurate to protecting such rights. Thus, where
workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and its concomitant right
to livelihood, a hire-fire clause in favor of the State is not reasonable, fair and just even
though the State cannot affirmatively provide livelihood for all. Under this doctrine the Court
will not just examine whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair and just, but also
whether it has been operated in a fair, just and reasonable manner. This has meant, for
example the right to speedy trial and legal aid is part of any reasonable, fair and just
10 AIR 1980 SC 1579
11 (1983) 2 SCC 344

procedure. The process clause is comprehensive and applicable in all areas of State action
covering civil, criminal and administrative action.
The Supreme Court of India in one of the landmark decision in the case of Murli S. Deora v
Union of India

12

observed that, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of
law. The Court observed that smoking in public places is an indirect deprivation of life of
non-smokers without any process of law. Taking into consideration the adverse effect of
smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed prohibition of
smoking in public places. It issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments and
the Union Territories to take effective steps to ensure prohibition of smoking in public places
such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions etc. In this manner the Supreme
Court gave a liberal interpretation to Article 21 of the Constitution and expanded its horizon
to include the rights of non-smokers.
Further, when there is inordinate delay in the investigation it affects the right of the
accused, as he is kept in tenterhooks and suspense about the outcome of the case. If the
investigating authority pursues the investigation as per the provisions of the Code, there can
be no cause of action. But, if the case is kept alive without any progress in any investigation,
then the provisions of Article 21 are attracted and the right is not only against actual
proceedings in court but also against police investigation. The Supreme Court has widen the
scope of procedure established by law and held that merely a procedure has been
established by law a person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is
just, fair and reasonable. It is thus now well established that the procedure established by
law to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty, must be just, fair and reasonable and
that it must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, that the procedure to be valid must
comply with the principles of natural justice.
It is hard to appreciate fully the extent of development of right to life without an overview of
the traditional approach. In A. K. Gopalan v Union of India, the traditional interpretation of
Article 21 of the Constitution was that a procedure established by law can deprive a person of
his right to life. Thus, the earliest understanding of this provision was a narrow and
procedural one. The state had to demonstrate the interference with the individuals right to
life is accorded with the procedure laid down by properly enacted law. It didnt matter
12 AIR 2002 SC 40

whether the law was just & fair. Moreover, in Gopalan case the Court declined to infuse the
guarantee of due process of law, contained in article 21, with substantive content, holding that
as long as the preventive detention statutes had been duly enacted in accordance with the
procedures of article 22, the requirements of due process were satisfied. The interpretation as
made by the Court was nothing more than the freedom from arrest and detention, from false
imprisonment or wrongful confinement of the physical body. Thus, personal liberty said to
mean only liberty relating to person or body of individual and in this sense it was the
antithesis of physical restraint or coercion.

RIGHTS OF PRISONERS AND ARTICLE 21

Right to Escape from Imprisonment: The Supreme Court in D.B.M. Patnaik v. State
of Andhra Pradesh13, held that the convicts have no right to escape from
imprisonment.
Right against Bar Fetters: In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court
gave Right against Bar Fetters and held that treatment that offended human dignity

13

AIR 1974 SC 2092

and reduced man to a level of beast would certainly be arbitrary and could be
questioned under Article 21, but the right is not absolute.
Right to Write a Book: In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, 14 the
petitioner while under detention in jail wrote a book on science and sought the
permission from the Government to send the manuscript of the book to his wife for
publication, to which the Government refused. The Court held that this was an
infringement of personal liberty and that Article 21 included the right to wright the
book and get it published.
In Rudal Singh v. State of Bihar15, the Supreme Court has held that the Court has the power
to award monetary compensation in appropriate cases where there has been a violation in the
constitutional right of the citizens. In the present case the Supreme Court directed Bihar
Government to pay Compensation of Rs. 30,000 to Rudal Singh who had to remain in jail
for 14 years because of irresponsible behaviour of the State Government Officers even after
acquittal.
The expression procedure established by law has been borrowed from Article 31 of the
Japanese Constitution. The expression came to be interpreted by the Supreme Court inA.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The petitioner, a Communist leader, detained under the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, contended that the term law in Article 21 should be
understood as signifying the universal principles of natural justice and not merely on the
sense of an enacted piece of legislation. He, therefore, argued that a law which did not
incorporate the principles of natural justice, could not be valid under Article 21. It was further
argued that the expression procedure established by law meant the same thing as then
American phrase due process of law. The Court rejected the above contention and referred
to the discussions of the Constituent Assembly and said that the framers deliberately adopted
the expression procedure established by law which was held to be more specific than the
American phrase due process of law. The majority of the Supreme Court thus held that the
expression meant procedure prescribed by the law of the State and not natural justice. The
decision highlighted that Article 21 was a protection against the Executive but not the
Legislature.

14

AIR 1966 SC 424

15

110 (1983) 4 SCC 141

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court overruled A.K. Gopalan Case and
held that in order to comply with the mandate of Article 21, the mere prescription of some
kind of procedure was not enough. But, the procedure must be just, fair, reasonable and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
Again in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court has again
emphasised that the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right conferred
by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. The procedure prescribed by law for
depriving a person of his right to life must conform to the norms of justice and fair play.
Procedure which is unjust or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attacks the vice of
unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and,
consequently, the action taken under it.
Natural Justice, the Court said, was a great humanising principle intended to invest law, with
fairness. In order that the procedure was just, fair and reasonable, it should conform to the
principles of natural justice16.

REVIEWS AND OPINION

In light of the above illustrated information, it can be inferred categorically that
Article 21 stands out to be exceptional and apart from the other remaining constitutional
provisions.

Article 21 has been subject to many interpretations and the scope of its

dimensions is wide spread. What was not included under Article 21 during its inception now
16

See Procedure: Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010, p. 1194

has a plethora of significant aspects covered under the ambit of Article 21 such as Right to
live with human dignity, Right to Shelter, Right to Safe drinking water etc. Article 21 also
covers the concept of Liberty and its varied connotations. The concept of Liberty has had
its roots from the ancient period. What was considered Liberty in those days is entirely
different from what we see today. Liberty has many other meanings in the literal context but
that shouldnt be confused with the provisos under Art. 21. Article 21, as we have already
seen, is an ever expanding and growing concept. The SC in its day to day interpretations and
analysis has laid down many judgments governing the criteria of Art. 21. Article 21 is not a
simple and static concept and is ever expanding in its understanding. Its not only significant
but inevitable in the provisions of any Constitution without which the very object of
protecting the people is defeated ultimately. Finally, the entire concept of Article 21 can be
summed up in the following words: The Constitution of Article 21 is the flesh and blood of
the Constitution without which it is nullified.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, 8th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co.,
Delhi, 2008.

Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, LexisNexis Buttorworths Wadhwa

Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2010.

Kashyap, Subhash C., Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, Universal Law Private

Limited, New Delhi, 2008.

Kumar, Narender; Introduction to the Constitutional Law of India, 1st Ed., Allahabad

Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009.

Majumdar, P.K. & Kataria, R.P, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 10th

Edition, Volume 1, Orient Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2009.

Pandey, J.N., The Constitution of India, 47th Edition, Central Law Agency, Allahabad,

2010.
The Constitution Of India, Bare Act, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi, 2010.