Fundamental rights are the rights having a noble pedigree. They are the natural rights which are in the nature of external conditions necessary for the greatest possible unfolding of the capacities of a human being. These secured and guaranteed conditions are called fundamental rights. It is generally agreed that these natural rights are inherent in man and cannot be taken away by the State
Fundamental rights were deemed to be essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their government. They are the limitations upon all the powers of the Government, legislative as well as executive.
Part III of the Constitution contains a long list of fundamental rights. This Chapter of the Constitution of India has very well been described as the Magna Carta of India The inclusion of a Chapter of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India is in accordance with the trend of modern democratic thought, the idea being to preserve that which is an indispensable condition of a free society.
The Fundamental Rights were included in the constitution because they were considered essential for the development of the personality of every individual and to preserve human dignity. If the civil liberties like freedom of speech and religion were not recognized and protected by the State, democracy of no avail. For this purpose, the constitution guaranteed to all the citizens of India the freedom of speech and expression and various other freedoms in the form of the Fundamental Rights.
The Rights have their origins in many sources, including England’s Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man.
The six fundamental rights are
Right to equality
Right to freedom
Right against exploitation
Right to freedom of religion
Cultural and educational rights
Right to constitutional remedies
In M. Nagraj v. Union of India,the Supreme Court speaking about the importance of the fundamental rights-
“The fundamental rights are not the gifts from the State to citizens. Part III does not confers fundamental rights but confirm their existence and give them protection. Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of basic fact that they are human race.”
All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have been given the right to move the Supreme Court and the High Courts for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights.
It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. Poverty stricken people may not have the means to do so and therefore, in the public interest, anyone can commence litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as ” Public interest litigation”. In some cases, High Court judges have acted on their own on the basis of newspaper reports.
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.”
- This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
- Article 21 provides two rights:
- Right to life
- Right to personal liberty
- The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that the Constitution guarantees.
- The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’.
- The right specifically mentions that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only. State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.
- Any private individual encroaching on these rights of another individual does not amount to a violation of Article 21. The remedy for the victim, in this case, would be under Article 226 or under general law.
- The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.
- The chief goal of Article 21 is that when the right to life or liberty of a person is taken away by the State, it should only be according to the prescribed procedure of law.
Interpretation of Article 21
Judicial intervention has ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widening by several landmark judgements.
A.K Gopalan vs. the State of Madras, 1951
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available only against the executive action. But legislative may deprive a person by making a law.
Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 1978
In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection of Article 21 is available not only against executive action but also against legislative.
In simple words, the legislature cannot deprive a person of the right to life and personal liberty even by making a law.
A person can only be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty by the procedure, which is established by law. For example, death sentence while satisfying rarest of the rare case theory.
No person can be deprived of life and liberty
Scope Of Article 21
Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life. The Court gave a list of rights that Article 21 covers based on earlier judgements. Some of them are:
- Right to privacy – Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP and Others,”The right to privacy is included in the right to life.”
- Right to go abroad – Satwant Singh vs. APO Delhi In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that right to go abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Right to shelter
- Right against solitary confinement
- Right to social justice and economic empowerment
- Right against handcuffing – Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, “Protection to the convicted and accused person. In this case, the Supreme Court held that fatal cuffs are unconstitutional for a convicted person because it is an inhuman behaviour with the prisoners, and it is a violation of Article 21.”
- Right against custodial death
- Right against delayed execution
- Doctors’ assistance
- Right against public hanging – Lachma Devi vs. Attorney General of India. Supreme Court held that the execution of a death sentence at a public place is unconstitutional, and it is violative of Article 21.
- Protection of cultural heritage
- Right to pollution-free water and air – Subhash Kumar vs. the State of Bihar The right to get the pollution-free air is also a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Right of every child to a full development
- Right to health and medical aid
- Right to education – Mohini Jain vs. the State of Karnataka, 1992 SC, Supreme Court held that “the right to life includes the right to education also.” Unni Krishnan vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 SC. Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed “the age that it is a fundamental right to the children for the age of 6-14 years.” In the light of two above judgements, the parliament enacted the Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
- Protection of under-trials – Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat[lxxxviii] said that right to free and fair trial not only to the accused but also to the victims, their family members and relatives, and society at large
- Many Others
Right to Life and Suicide
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes attempted suicide a criminal offence which is punishable with imprisonment and fine.
- There were many debates on whether this should continue since mental health experts have argued that people who attempt suicide need adequate counselling and not punishment.
- The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was passed by the Parliament and the law came into force in 2018. This Act is meant to provide “for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfill the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare and services.”
This law decriminalises suicide in India.
The law states,
“Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code”.
Arguments against decriminalising suicide:
- No person has a complete autonomy with respect to his/her life. He/she has a duty with respect to his family. In many cases, a person’s suicide could lead to a family being destitute.
- Decriminalising suicide might lead to decriminalising the abetment to suicide. The counterargument to this point is that suicide alone can be decriminalised by having the necessary amendments or legal provisions to cover abetment to suicide.
Arguments in favour of decriminalising suicide:
- This is the only case where an attempt to a crime is punishable and not the crime itself (because a person becomes beyond the reach of law if suicide is complete).
- Suicide is committed/attempted by people who are depressed and under severe stress. People who attempt suicide need counselling and medical help, not a jail warden’s severe authority.
- Decriminalising an attempt to suicide is different from conferring the ‘right to die’.
Euthanasia in India
As there is no law regulating euthanasia in the country, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law.
In 2018, the SC legalized passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state.
The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection.
Active euthanasia is illegal in India.
Passive euthanasia is legal under strict guidelines.
For this, patients must give consent through a living will, and should either be in a vegetative state or terminally ill.
ARTICLE 21 AND THE EMERGENCY
In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla[xcviii], Popularly known as habeas corpus case, the supreme court held that article 21 was the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty and therefore, if the right to move any court for the enforcement of that right was suspended by the presidential order under Article 359, the detune would have no locus standi to a writ petition for challenging the legality of his detention.
In view of the 44th amendment, 1978, the observation made in the above-cited judgments are left merely of academic importance.
Conclusion
To sum up the discussion on Article 21, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court with regard to Article 21 over the years, right from A.K. Gopalan’s case would go to show that our Supreme Court through several landmark judgments, has, in a remarkable and extraordinary manner, brought within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution several other rights including directive principles of the Constitution and the people of this country owe a great debt to the Apex Court for coming to rescue of every person in so far as protection of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ is concerned.
Thank You
