Upload
sahil-sethi
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
1/58
Application of Concept of Damages to Article 21
The Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under chapter III .These
rights are guaranteed by one of these rights is provided under article 21 which reads as
follows: Article 21, Protection of life and Personal liberty: No person shall be deprived
of his life and personal liberty according to procedure established by law.
Though the phraseology of article 21 starts with negative word but the word No
has been used in relation to the deprived. The object of fundamental right under article 21
is to present encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according
to procedure established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right provided
against state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon personal
liberty and deprivation of other person. Such violation would not fall under the
parameters set for article 21, in such remedy for aggrieved person would be either under
article 226 of constitution or under general law. But with private individual supported by
the state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, act will certainly under
the ambit of article 21. Article 21 of constitution deals with prevention of encroachment
upon persons deprivation of life of person. The fundamental right guarantees article 21
relates only to the acts state or acts under the authority of state which are not according to
procedure establishes by law. The main object of article 21 is that before a person is
deprived of his life or personal liberty and procedure established by law must strictly
follow. Right to life means the right to lead meaning and dignified life. It does not have
restricted meaning. It is something more than surviving or animal existence. The word
life cannot be narrowed down and it will be available to citizen of the country. As far as
liberty is concerned, it means freedom from physical restraint of person by personal
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
2/58
incarceration or other 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. The fundamental right under article 21 is one of the most important articles under
the constitution which has been described as heart of fundamental right by the Apex
Court.1
A new judicial trend has emerged. Damages have been awarded against
government by Supreme Court and High Court through writ petitions under articles 32
and 226, for the infringement of fundamental Rights, especially of article 21.
Supreme Court has observed inRudal Shah
2
, Bhim Singh
3
andD.K Basu
4
that
However it can not be understood as laying law that in every case of tortious
liability recovers must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and
infringement of article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed
article 226 of constitution. Right to life is one the basic human rights guaranteed under
article 21 of constitution.
Damages have also been awarded for medical negligence in government
hospitals. In Instant caseJacob George v. State of Kerala5,the Supreme Court has ruled
that article 21 imposes on state obligation to safeguard life employed therein are duty
bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life . Violation of this duty
amounts to violation of article 21.
Adequate damages can be awarded by court for such violation under articles 32 and 226.
HIV infected blood was transfused in woman patient in hospital maintained by
1. www. legalserviceindia.com
2.
3.
4.5. (1994) 3 SCC 430.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
3/58
government corporation. In a case, the court referred to article 21 which guarantees
dignified human existence to Indian and not a mere animal existence. Article 21 confers
right to enjoy all facilities of life .Accordingly, High Court directed payment of Rs.1 lakh
to petitioner by way of damages as public law remedy .This was in addition to whatever
compensation may be granted to her in civil suit.
When the violation of fundamental right are not involved, courts are very
selective in avoiding damages in writ. Calcutta University delayed inordinately
declaration of candidate. The writ petition in High Court under article 226 for damages
for negligence of University. Holding that matter ought to be agitated in civil court and
not through writ petition, Supreme Court observed that in its writ jurisdiction, Supreme
Court or High Court would not award damages against public authorities merely because
they have made some order which turns out to be ultra virus, or there has been some
inaction in performance of duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before
exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under
article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of public
functionaries and that suffer was helpless victim of that act.
If the damages were not to be granted, article 21 would be reduced to nullity, a
mere rope of sand.6 But since the matter as to the responsibility of police officers was
still under investigation, the court did not decide the issue. Belatedly though, justice has
finally caught up with the perpetrators of the blinding in Bhagalpur. The three Police
officers who were involved in shocking incident were finally convicted for taking the law
into their own hands.7
6.Khatri v. state of Bihar, (1981) 2 SCC 493 at P. 504.
7. Justice of Last Editorial, The Hindustan Times, 3-9-1987.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
4/58
It was pointed out that article 21 would be denuded of its significant content if the
power of court was limited to passing of orders of release from illegal detention. The
Supreme Court reasoned:
One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance with the mandate of article 21 secured, is to mulct its
violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to
flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method
open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for unlawful
acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for
their protection the powers of state as a shield Therefore, the state must repair the
damage done by its officers to the petitioners rights. It may have recourse against those
officers.8
The Supreme Court has given the new meaning to right to life. Constitutional
expert K.K. Venugopal aptly summarized in one of his articles. A whole new catena of
rights was read into article 21, which embodies the right to life and liberty. These, in
various decisions, have been held to include the right to legal did, right to privacy, right
against sexual harassment of women, right to education and right to clean and healthy
environment.
The recent decision by justices Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, in a case,
saw a reiteration of earlier ruling of apex court that reputation of a person was part and
parcel of his right to life.9
8. (1983) 4 SCC 141 at page 147-48, Para 10.
9.Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
5/58
If in 1978, in Maneka Gandhi case, it ruled that the expression life did not mean
mere animal existence but with dignity, it added another legal leaf in 2008 in Deepak
Bajaj case, when it said right to life encompassed a persons reputation as well.
The new meaning of article 21 helped the court in subsequent years to give relief
to prisoners. It asked the government to clean up Ganga and Yamuna as it read right to
clean drinking water a part of right to life. It banned the child labour, for it found that this
stunted right to life. It ordered closure of polluting industries as it saw the noxious fumes
stifling citizens right to clean air and environment, which again included within the
ambit of right to life.
10
The Supreme Courts directive to union government to expediously dispose of
action on petitions filed by 26 convicts on death row for the Presidents pardon is
indicative of its serious concern over their right to life and personal liberty.
A Bench consisting of justice Harjit Singh Bedi and justice J.M. Panchal has ruled
that if the executive authorities, as a rigorous self-imposed rule, are not inclined to take
action mercy petition within three months from the date of its submission to the
President, the condemned convict would be free to apply for commutation of his death
sentence to life imprisonment as otherwise it will be volatile of his right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution.11
Over the years, the Supreme Court has always sought to protect the prisoners
rights while taking care of the constitutional niceties. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration12, the question before the court was:
10. 17th Nov, 2008, The Times of India.
11. 30th Sep, 2009, The Tribune.
12.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
6/58
Whether putting a person behind bars will end the judicial process if not, what
segment is open for judicial intervention commendably, it held that there is no total
deprivation? of prisoners right to life and liberty. The safe keeping in jail custody is
jailors limited jurisdiction.
The apex court has given a new dimension to the writ ofhabeascorpus which is
fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and
whimsical state action. While in Sunil Batra I, the constitution Bench had crystallized a
prisoners legally enforceable rights, in Sunil Batra II, it had radicalized the procedure for
the enforcement of his rights.
The declaration of fundamental rights in the Constitution is meaningless unless
there is effective machinery for the enforcement of the rights. It is the remedy, which
makes the right real. If there is no remedy there is no right at all. The founding fathers of
constitution, therefore, provided for an effective remedy for the enforcement of these
rights under article 32 of constitution, which itself is a fundamental right.
In the last few years through judicial activism the scope and ambit of these rights
has been widened. The Supreme Court has re-enunciated the state liability in case of
violation of these rights and thus the age-old British concept of sovereign immunity 13
has been eroded. One of the impacts of this new approach of Supreme Court through
judicial activism has been that in case of violation of fundamental rights of individual it
has granted monetary relief to one who might have suffered unduly or illegally and
developed the concept ofpublic accountability. A study of the following cases will
demonstrate this trend of the Supreme Court.
13. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
7/58
Khatri v. State of Bihar14 popularly known as Bhagalpur Blinding case was the
first case where the question of granting monetary relief was considered by the Supreme
Court. In this case, it was alleged that the police had blinded certain prisoners depriving
them of their right to life and liberty. The question posed before the court was whether a
person who has been deprived of right to life or personal liberty by the state, could be
compensated by granting monetary relief. Bhagwati, justice answered it in the affirmative
by raising a counter thus:
Why should the court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new
remedies for the purpose of indicating the most precious of the precious fundamental
right to life and personal liberty?15
The Supreme Courts reticence in granting monetary relief despite its formulation
of justification for adopting such a tool was got over by it in Rudal Shah v. State of
Bihar16 wherein it granted monetary relief of Rs. 35000/- to the petitioner against the
lawless act of Bihar government which kept him in illegal detention for over 14 years
after acquittal.
It was pointed out that article 21 would be denuded of its significant content if the
power of the court was limited to passing of orders of release from illegal detention. The
Supreme Court reasoned:
One of the telling ways in which violation of that right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance with the mandate of article 21 secured, is to mulct its
violators in the payment of monetary relief. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant
14. (1981) 1 SCC 627.
15. Ibid., at P. 630, Para 4.
16. (1983) 4 SCC 141.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
8/58
infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the
judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for unlawful acts of
instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their
protection the powers of the state as a shield Therefore, the state must repair the
damage done by its officers to the petitioners right. It may have recourse against those
officers.17
In the decision from Rudal Shah18 to Bhim Singh19, the court laid down no basis
for quantification of the amount of exemplary costs. And perhaps this was the reason that
the amount monetary compensation varied in these cases. The discretion to award
monetary relief for the gross violation of article 21 was left to the individual judge who
decided the case.
The Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democrat Rights v. State of Bihar 20
laid down the working principle for the payment of damages to the victims of ruthless
and unwarranted police firing. In the case, about 21 persons including children died and
many more injured due to the unwarranted firing of police. The Supreme Court observed:
Ordinarily in the case of death, the monetary relief of rupees 20000/- is paid.
We may not be taken to taken to suggest that in case of death the liability of the
wrongdoer is absolved when monetary relief of rupees 20000/- is paid. But as a working
principle and for convenience and with a view to rehabilitating the depends of deceased
17. (1983) 4 SCC 141 at PP. 147-48, Para-10.
18. Ibid.
19. (1985) 4 SCC 677.
20. (1987) 1 SCC 265.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
9/58
such monetary relief is being paid.21
The court further added that without prejudice to any just claim for compensation
that may be advanced by the relations of the victims who died be advanced by the
relations of the victims who had died or by the injured persons themselves, for every case
of death, compensation of rupees 20000/- for every injured persons, compensation of
rupees 5000/- shall be paid.22
The working principle was not appropriate. Where life of person was lost, his
dependents were to be paid only the, eager sum of rupees 20000/-. The Supreme Court,
while evolving the working principles of granting monetary relief, has also failed to
differentiate between the major and minor injury to the limb or body of person
concerned. It appears the court evolved the working principle of awarding monetary
relief with primary object of rehabitating the victims or their dependents. However it
might happen that person might not die but due to police authority he might lose his eyes,
limb and might become unable to earn his livelihood. Can we say that the suggested
amount of rupees 5000/- to such a person would be sufficient to rehabilitate him? The
obvious answer would be no. Therefore, it is suggested that if life and liberty is to have
some meaning for the millions of Indians, then for rehabilitating persons, who are often
victims of police atrocities, some larger amount should be paid as damages.
The legality or illegality of the detention was irrelevant when it was proved that a
person suffered as a result of police atrocities. This was held so inRajasthan Kisan
21. (1987) 1 SCC 265 at P. 268, Para 6.
22. Ibid.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
10/58
Sangthan v. State, 23 it was asserted in this case that right to be treated even during lawful
detention in a manner commensurate with human dignity is a well-recognized right under
article 21 of constitution and if it is found that the police has maltreated any person in
police custody which is not commensurate with human dignity he is at least entitled to
monetary relief for the torturous act by police.
In C. Ramkonda Reddy v. State,24 it was held that suit for damages against state,
when an under trial prisoner in jail lost his life due to failure or neglect of its officers to
perform their duties, will be maintainable. The court pointed out that this is the only
mode in which right to life guaranteed by article 21 can be enforced.
25
In State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil26, as the under trial prisoner was
handcuffed and, taken through the streets in a procession by police during investigation,
the court held that article 21 was violated. However, the court further held that the police
officer responsible for the act, acted only as an official and cannot be made personally
liable. The court directed that damages of Rs 10000/- be paid by the state and authorities
may, if consider necessary, hold an enquiry against police officer and then decide
whether any further action is to be taken against him or not.
Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa27 is yet another case of custodial death where the
deceased was taken into police custody and next day his body was found on the railway
tracks with multiple injuries. The Supreme Court once again reiterated that in case of
23. AIR 1989 Ray 10 at P. 16.
24. AIR 1989 AP 235.
25. Ibid at P. 235.
26. (1991) 2 SCC 373.
27. (1993) 2 SCC P. 767.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
11/58
violation of fundamental rights by states instrumentalities or servants, the court can
direct the state to pay damages to the victim or his heir by way of monetary amends and
redressal. The principle of sovereign immunity shall be inapplicable in such cases.
Having regard to the age and income of deceased, the state was directed in this case to
pay Rs. 1,50000/- as damages to the deceaseds mother. The court further held that other
liabilities of respondents or any other person for custodial death remain unaffected. In
other words, damages in civil law or criminal law could still be claimed in addition to
this. The court clarified that public law proceedings are different from private law
proceedings and the award of compensation in proceedings for the enforcement of
fundamental right under articles 32 and 226 of the constitution is a remedy available in
public law.
Justice Dr. A. S. Anand while delivering a separate but concurrent judgment in
this case pointed out in sonorous terms that convicts, prisoners and under trials also have
the right under article 21 of the constitution and the state has strict duty to ensure that a
person in custody of police is not deprived of his right except in accordance with law. 28
Wherever any case of human rights violations as a result of police atrocities has been
brought before supreme court, its has always taken a serious note of it and directed to
make either judicial inquiry into allegations of police atrocities or directed CBI to
conduct an inquiry independently so as to fix the responsibility for the violation of human
rights.29
InD. G. & I. G. of Police v. Prem Sagar30 on the direction of the High Court, the
Session Judge conducted an inquiry in which it was found that the detenue was illegally
28. Ibid, at P. 767.
29.Atzal v. State of Hry., (1994) 1 SCC 425.30. (1999) 5 SCC 700.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
12/58
detained by the police for the period of one month. Accepting the findings of the Session
Judge, the High Court awarded Rs. 20000/- as damages for the violations of his basic
human right to life. This was approved by the Supreme Court.
In D. K. Basu v. State of W. B.31, the Supreme Court while disposing of a public
interest litigation considered the important issue of police atrocities and custodial
violence in detail. A. S. Anand, J. while speaking for the court observed:
Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within
the inhibition of article 21 of constitution; whether, it occurs during investigation,
interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the government become law breakers, it
is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man
would have the tendency to become law into him thereby leading to anarchism. No
civilized nation can permit that to happen.32
The court suggested two possible safeguards to check the abuse of police power.
firstly, transparency of action and secondly, accountability. In addition to this, the court
also stressed the need to pay attention to properly developed work culture, training and
orientation of police force consistent with basic human values.33
It is submitted that this important decision of the supreme court will certainly help
in curbing, if not in eliminating, police atrocities, Now it is in the hands of administration
to ensure that the requirements as well as the punitive measures suggested by the
Apex Court should be implemented in true spirit. Relying on this case, the Supreme
31. (1997) 1 SCC 416.
32. Ibid, at P. 429, Para 22.
33.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
13/58
Court has awarded damages in many cases34 of established violation of fundamental right
to life and personal liberty under 21 of the constitution.35
R. C. Upadhyay v. State of A. P.36 is a case which points out the sad state of affairs
concerning the human right of prisoners. In this case, it was brought to the notice of the
court that a lunatic undertrial prisoner was languishing in jail for over 30 years and no
action was taken by the court of ACMM and jail authorities. Even the Medical treatment
was provided only after the High Court intervened. Thus there had been the total
violation of article 21 of the constitution. The Supreme Court expressing its anguish
pointed out that the authorities are required to act according to law. In this case the
officials broke the law.
Considering the under trials mental and physical health and the fact that he had
known relatives either, the Supreme Court, as an interim measure, directed that a sum of
Rs. 2 Lakh shall be paid by the state by way of donation to Missionaries of charity, where
he was accommodated for the time being. The Supreme Court rightly expressed the
inadequacy of the remedy thus:
Money award cannot, however, renew a physical frame that has been battered
and shattered due to the callous attitude of others. All that the courts can do in such cases
is to award such sums of money, which may appear to be giving of some reasonable
compensation, assessed with moderation, to express the courts condemnation of the
tortious act committed by the state,.37
34. (1997) 1 SCC 429.
35. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, (1997) 3 SCC 433.
36. (2001) 1 SCC 437.
37. (2001) 1 SCC 439 at Para 5.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
14/58
From the perusal of the above cases it is evident that the Indian Judiciary has been
very sensitive and alive to the protection of the human rights of the people. It has,
through judicial activism forged new tools and devised new remedies for the purpose of
vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal
liberty.
The scope of article 21 was a bit narrow till 50s as it was held by the Apex Court
in Gopalans Case38 that the subject matter of articles 21 and 19 (1) (d) are not identical
and they proceed on total principles. In this case the deprivation was construed in a
narrow sense and it was held that the deprivation does not restrict upon the right 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 been expanded or modified gradually
through different decisions of the Apex court and it was held that interference in the
freedom of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in jail would
require authority of law. When the reasonableness of a penal law can be examined with
reference to article 19, was the point in issue after Gopalan case, the case ofManeka
Gandhi v. UOI39, the Apex court opened up a new dimension and laid down that can not
be arbitrary unfair or unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state
where it prescribes that procedure for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty.
This view has been further relied upon in case ofFrancis Coralie Mullin v. The
Administrator, UT of Delhi40 & otheras follows:
Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
38.
39.40.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
15/58
except by procedure established under this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just not
not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention therefore now to
pass the test not only for article 22 but also of article 21 and if the constitutional validity
is challenged, the court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such
law for depriving a person from personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just. In another
case ofOlga Tellis & other v. Bombay Municipal corp.41, it was further observed: just as
a malafide act has no existence in the eyes of law, even so, unreasonable vitiates law and
procedure a like. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for
depriving a person from fundamental right must confirm the norms of justice and fair
play. Procedure, which is just or unfair in the circumstance of a case, attracts the vice of
reasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure. As stated
earlier, the protection of article 21 is wide enough and it was further widened in case of
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI42 in respect of bonded labour and weaker section of as
follows:
Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The
state is under a constitutional to see that there is no violation of fundamental right of any
person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of community and is unable to
wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting the Central
government and State government are therefore bound to ensure observance of the
various labour laws enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen
a life of basis human dignity mentioned in directive principles of state policy.
41.
42.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
16/58
The meaning of word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable
conditions, right to rehabilitation and right to livelihood by legal means and decent
environment. The expanded scope of article 21 has been explained by Apex Court in case
ofUnnikrishan v. State of A.P.43and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of it
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 handcuffing.
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 Krishan case that article 21 is the heart of fundamental
rights and it has extended the scope of article 21 by observing that life includes the
education as well.
As a result of expansion of the scope of article 21, the public interest litigation in
respect of children in jail but under special protection, health hazards due to pollution and
harmful drugs, housing for beggars, immediate medical facility, starvation deaths, the
right to know, the right to open trial, inhuman conditions in aftercare home having under
43.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
17/58
it. Through various judgments the Apex Court also included many of the non-justifiable
Directive Principles under Part IV of the Constitution and some of these examples are as
under:
(a) Right to pollution free water.
(b) Protection of under-trial.
(c) Right of every child to a full development.
(d) Protection of cultural heritage.
(e) Maintenance and improvement of Public Health.
(f) Improvement of means of Communication.
(g) Maintaining hygienic condition in slaughter houses.
These have also been included in the expanded scope of 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 Ahluwalia v. UOI44, it was held that in the
expanded scope attributed to article 21 of the constitution, it is the duty of the state to
create a climate where the members of the belongings to different faiths, castes and creed
live together and therefore the state has a duty to protect their dignity and worth of an
individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. If in any circumstance, the
scope to do so, then it cannot escape the liability to pay monetary relief to the family of
the person killed during riots and has been extinguished in the clear violation of article 21
of constitution.
The Apex Court led a great importance on reasonableness and rationality of the
provision and it is pointed out in the name of undue stress on fundamental rights and
44.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
18/58
individual liberty, the ideals of social and economic justice has given a go-by. Thus it is
clear that the provision article 21 was construed narrowly at the initial stage but the life
and liberty of a person was developed gradually and a liberal interpretation was given to
these dimensions have been added to the scope of article 21 from time to time. It imposed
a limitation upon a proceedings prescribed for depriving a person of life and personal
liberty by saying that the procedure which prescribed for the person of life and personal
liberty by saying that the procedure must be reasonable, fair and such law should be
arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful. The interpretation which has been given to the words
life and personal liberty decisions of the Apex Court, it can be said that protection of life
and personal liberty has got multi dimensions and any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful
act of the state which deprived the life and personal liberty of a person against the
provisions of article 21 of constitution.
In the shockingRuchika Girhotras case the effect of such misuse of power by all
concerned has resulted in the flagrant violation of fundamental rights of Ruchika. After
all, the constitution mandated in article 21 that No person shall be deprived of his life
and liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
The right to life in article 21 includes the inner grace of human civilization the
right to live with human dignity, the protection against cruel punishment or torture as also
the right to speedy justice. These rights are guaranteed under our constitution.
The enforcement of these rights is also a guaranteed fundamental right. The
constitution imposes a constitutional duty on the Supreme Court and the High Court to
ensure that these rights are protected.45
45. 17th Jan, 2010, The Tribune.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
19/58
Right to live with human dignity vis--vis rape victims: constitutional paradigm and
judicial perspective
The preamble to the constitutional of India assures, among other things, dignity
of the individual. And article 21 of constitution guarantees the right to life and personal
liberty to individuals and mandates the state not to, except according to procedure
established by law, deprive a person of his right. It reads; No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court of India, through its inimitable judicial activism, added to
fundamental right to life and personal liberty a variety of positive dimensions and
significant humanitarian contours basically to enhance the dignity and quality of
guaranteed right to life and make life more than mere animal existence .It, as early as in
1981, speaking through Bhagwati, J, delivering into proper meaning and content of
fundamental right to life and stressing the need to interpret it in a broad and expansive
spirit with a view to enhance the dignity of individual observed;
The right to life enshrined in article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence .It
means something much more than just physical survival. Every limb or faulty through
which life is enjoyed is thus protected by article 21Any act which damages or injures
or interferes with the use of any limb or faulty of person, either permanently or
temporarily, would be within the inhibition of article 21. The right to life includes right to
live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,.Every act which offends
against or impress human dignity would constitute deprivation protanto of this right to
live46
On more occasions than one it, believing that human dignity is the basic factor amongst
46.Francis Coralie Mullin v. Admn., UT of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 at P. 752-53.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
20/58
the human rights jurisprudence reflected in constitution of India and without it all human
rights are meaningless, has also echoes and reasserted that right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under article 21 not only assures everyone the right to live with human
dignity but also those aspects of life that makes life meaningful, complete and worth
living. 47 According to it, right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of
every citizen and state is under the constitutional duty to provide at least minimum
condition ensuring human dignity.48
It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court of India ,exercise its powers under article
32 of constitution of India ,who enables a person, as a matter of right ,to move the
Supreme Court for enforcement of his fundamental rights and mandates the Supreme
Court to issue an appropriate direction, order or writ, for the enforcement of fundamental
rights guaranteed in part III of constitutional significance to article 21, has forged a new
tool and has devised a strategy unknown prior to 1983 to public law in India, by awarding
compensation for violation of right to life and personal liberty. 49 It by liberalizing the
doctrine oflocus standi also allows a public spirit individual or organization to move it
for enforcement of fundamental rights of a person or class of persons who on account of
his /their poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position is/are
unable to seek relief from the Supreme Court .
In Delhi Domestic Working Womans Form v.UOI50 (herein referred to as
DDWWF), a PIL espousing the pathetic plight of four domestic servants who were raped
in a moving train, the Apex court, on 19 th Oct, 1994, highlighting ordeals of victims of
rape & defects in the present criminal law system vis--vis victims of rape, outlined a set
47.PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1982 SV 1473.
48. Vikram Deo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1782.49.Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086.
50. (1995) 1 SCC 14 (18).
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
21/58
of broad parameters to assist them51 Relying heavily upon article 38 (1) of constitution,52
which directs the state, inter alia, to strive to promote social order assuring socio-
political justice, and drawing inspiration from Criminal justice Act, 1991 of the UK,
dealing with an institutionalized payment of compensation to the victims of crime
including rape , stressed the need to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to
compensate victims or rape. It also directed the National Commission for Women to
formulate such a scheme with 6 month from the date of judgment, i.e.; 19 th Oct, 1994 and
examine it and to take necessary steps for its implementation. The Apex Court also
emphasized that court should award compensation to rape victims on conviction of the
offender and also by proposed Criminal Injuries Compensation Board even if the
offender is acquitted.
On 15th Dec, 1995, the Supreme Court of India, in Boddhisattwa Gautam v.
Subhra Chakroborty53 (BOGA), understandably, in the absence of comprehensive
compensation scheme, relying on DDWWF and exercising its inherent powers to do
complete justice, suo moto grave effect to the right of rape victim to claim compensation
from the offender for the violation of her constitution right to live with human dignity. It
directed Bodhisatwa Gautam to pay to Subhra Chakraborty a sum of Rs. 1000 every
month as interim compensation during the tendency of the criminal trial and also to pay
arrears of compensation at the same rate from the inception of complaint filed by the
victim.
51.Ibid, P. 19-20.
52. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of people by securing and protecting aseffectively as it may a social order in which justice, social economic political, shall
inform all institutions of national life.
53. (1996) 1 SCC 490 (503).
It is equally pertinent to note that Gujarat High Court inMakeshbhai Nanubhai v.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
22/58
State of Gujrat54 (MUNA), a 1997 case identical to BOGA, refused to rely upon BOGA
case as a precedent even though article 141 of constitution mandate it to follow the law
declared by Supreme Court of India. On 5th March, 1997, quashed the order of one of the
subordinate courts directing the accused of rape to pay Rs. 700/- P.M. to prosecutrix as
interim compensation.
A careful reading of the judicial opinions and deliberations on right to live with
dignity of victims of rape and their right to be compensated reflected in DDWWF,BOGA
andMUNA does not reveal any articulated judicial law making.
Surprisingly, in August 1997, the Apex Court missed a unique opportunity to
clarify and refine the judicial dignity articulation of right of rape victim to live with
dignity and to be compensated. In Vishka v. State of Rajasthan55, the court, inter alia, was
called upon by certain social activists and NGOs to enforce the fundamental right to life
and personal liberty of working women, who was an alleged victim of brutal gang rape
and of willful delay in investigation and prosecution of suspected rapists. The petitioners,
among others, urged the Supreme Court, by exercising its jurisdiction under article 32 of
the constitution, to direct the Union of India to appoint, in consultation with womens
groups and individuals as well as lawyers, a committee headed by National Commission
for Women to prepare and submit guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment and
abuse of women to the Union of India. The petitioners also prayed for an appropriate
writ, order or direction against the state of Rajasthan directing it to pay Rs. 10 lakh to
alleged victim of gang rape.56
54. 1998 CrLJ 194.
55. AIR 1997 SC 3011.
56. Kalis Yug, Aug 1998, PP. 10-15.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
23/58
The immediate cause for filing writ petition was an incident of alleged brutal gang
rape of social worker in a village of Rajasthan and reiterating that right to life means life
with dignity brushed aside the issue of the payment of compensation to the alleged
victim of gang rape. It simply observed that that incident is the subject matter of separate
criminal action and no further mention of it, by us is necessary. 57 It has not paid any
attention to eitherDDWWFandBOGA or to the therein judicially recognized the right of
rape victim to be compensated for the violation of her fundamental right to live with
dignity.
The Supreme Court of India in the DDWWF, probably realizing the legislative
and judicial apathy to the victims of rape, not only read in article 21 of constitution the
right of rape victim to live with human dignity and seek compensation for the deprivation
of her dignity but also directed the National Commission for Women, in consultation
with central government, to formulate compensatory scheme for victims of rape on the
lines of British Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to enable victims of rape in India
to seek compensation from offender and the state. The DDWWFand the Vishaka case
therefore did either ameliorate the immeasurable plight of the victims of sexual violence
or upheld their right to live with human dignity in true sense of hitherto judicial
articulation and spirit of article 21. They also hardly create any inroads in the legislative
and judicial apathy and insensitivity to the right of victims of rape to live with human
dignity.
While safeguarding the interest of citizens of India in such matters, the Honble
court has even brazenly gone to protect even the aliens. In Chairman, Railway Board &
others v. Mrs. Chandrima Das & Others,58 Article 21 violative of fundamental Rights-
57. AIR 1997 SC 3012.
58. AIR 2000 SC 988.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
24/58
Bangladeshi Women by Railway employees in Railway Building-order allowing
compensation-foreign nationals can be granted relief under public law for violation of
fundamental rights on the ground of domestic jurisprudence, a yeoman judicial step in
compensation justice.
InBodhi Sawatla Gautam v. Sabri Chakrabarti59 the Honble Supreme Court held
that rape is crime against basic human rights and violated the right to life enshrined in
article 21 of constitution and provided certain guidelines for awarding compensation to
prosecutrix in such a case. There are many instances where compensation was granted to
the rape victims. Madras High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and a piece of
farmland at confessional rate to a dalitwomen who was raped in custody by the sub-
inspector.60
The Tamil Nadu government has granted a compensation of 5 lakh to Ms. Rita
Mary, an alleged victim of gang rape by jail staff at Gingee Prison. 61
Acting on the directions of the Supreme Court, the National Commission for
Women has recommended compensation of Rs. 2 lakh in installments to a rape victim,
starting from the time, when FIR is lodged. The first installment of Rs. 20000 has to be
given to the victim when she registers FIR. The second installment of Rs. 50000 is
recommended after police investigation confirms the rape.62
The Delhi government announced an ex-gratia of compensation of Rs. 50000/-
and a government job to
59. AIR 1996 SC 922.
60. 9th Dec, 2005, The Hindu, Newspaper.
61. Dec 8, 2001, The Hindu, Newspaper.
62. May 5, 2008, The Hindu, Newspaper.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
25/58
a 19 year old nurse, rape victim, at the Shanti Mukund Hospital in East Delhi.63
Criminal liability and Violation of Right to life
Right to life is the most important human fundamental natural inalienable
transcendental right. Naturally logically, this right requires the highest protection. Under
the India Constitution, article 21 guarantees right to life and the Supreme Court after
initial narrow technical interpretation became conscious of its own importance and
importance of right has given substance to this right by its interpretation after quarter
century of passing the constitution in a series of government of Rajasthan to pay the
compensation of one lakh to the widow of youth who was tortured to death in police
custody.64 In another case, High Court of Andhra Pradesh exercising its jurisdiction under
article 226 awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the dependent of person, who
while in jail, died of injuries caused by bomb hurled at him in presence of jail
authorities.65 Similarly, the Madras High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs. 33,19,033 to the victims of violent incidents in Coimbatore in the wake of
assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
On the basis of these progressive decisions of court a legislation may be passed by
the parliament providing payment of compensation of government criminal liability in all
cases of loss of life in which the state officials are involved directly or indirectly
following the rule of strict liability without going into the merits and with the onus on the
part of the police in all cases of encounter death with proof of guilt and in all cases of
firing for maintaining law and order where innocent people are killed, the state has to pay
compensation. The compensation may be computed as hundred times to the per capita
63. 15th Oct, 2003,Healthcare Management, Newspaper.
64. Annual Survey of Indian Law, 1987, I.L.I., P.21.65.R.Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1989 Mad 205.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
26/58
income or probable future earnings of victim whichever is higher. The compensation has
to be paid to the nearest kith and kin of deceased victim. When the socialist welfare state
makes excreta accidents without any liability in disasters like flood, fire accidents etc, it
is all the more reasonable and necessary to make pecuniary reparations in case of victims
of abuse, misuse or careless use or even use of its power in some cases, resulting in the
loss of life. This is in addition to the legal remedies available against the erring state
officials. In recent case in SAHELI, a Womens Resource Centre v. Commissioner of
Police,Delhi,66 the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 75000/- to be paid by
the Delhi administration to the mother of the deceased child who died due to torture by
the police.
Criminal Liability and violation of Personal Liberty
Article 21 of Indian Constitution guarantees personal liberty, the content of which
is enriched by the progressive interpretation by the Supreme Court in the last 15 years.
After life, true liberty is very important for any individual. In all cases of wrongful
deprivation of liberty by the state officials, the government and the criminal liability in
this matter is not recognized for a long time, the recent decisions of the court are
encouraging. Usually the loss of liberty takes place in case of persons suffering from
poverty because they can not purchase liberty illegally or legally from the state officials.
A rich man can get bail by providing pecuniary security; a poor man suffers loss of
liberty. As George Bernard Shaw said Truth is stronger than fiction. One may add that
truth is also shocking. InRudal Shah v. State of Bihar,67 the petitioner who was acquitted
by court of Sessions in June 1968 but was kept in prison for more than 14 years till Oct
1988 and was released only after a habeas corpus petition was successfully filed in
Supreme Court under article
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
27/58
66. AIR 1990 Sc 513.
67. AIR 1983 SC 1086.
32, the Supreme Court granted monetary relief of Rs. 30000/- against Bihar government
in addition to a sum of Rs. 50000/- already paid and observed that; its order was of a
palliative nature. In Sebastian M, Hongray v. UOI68, Supreme Court awarded
exemplary costs against Union of India and state of Manipur to be paid to the wives of
the untraceable persons who are allegedly arrested by Army Jawans in Manipur in March,
1982. In Bhim Singh v. State of J & K
69
, which is one of many cases of government
lawlessness and violation of criminal law, the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of
Rs. 50000/- against state for the illegal detention of Bhim Singh, who was the member of
Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court rightly held that the ends of justice cannot be
met by setting the victims free and hence a suitable monetary compensation has to be
awarded.
From the trend of positive judicial activism, we can postulate that in all cases of
loss of liberty wrongfully at the hands of state officials both the state and the officials are
jointly and severally criminal liable. Compensation has to be paid for the loss of liberty
not only in cases of wrongful detention but also in every case where court arrives to the
conclusion that state officers negligently or even casually exercise their power of
detention and accusation resulting in acquittal. Reparation has to be made for loss of the
liberty, mental harassment suffered, reputation damaged and livelihood lost and the court
has to award exemplary compensation depending upon each case.
Criminal Liability for Violation of Personality and Dignity
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
28/58
Apart from loss of liberty a citizen may be subjected to torture, physical and
mental, which is not unusual feature of abusive exercise of the State Institutional
68. AIR 1984 SC 1026.
69. (1985) 4 SCC 677.
Monopolistic Coercive Machinery. In this process, a person may lose his limb or suffer
physical and mental injuries at the hands of state officials. In all cases of loss of limbs,
compensation quantified at the rate of 4 times to that provided for similar cases in
Workmens Compensation Act has to be paid. In the case of mental suffering and other
cases of torture and violation of human dignity suitable solatium has to be awarded by the
courts. In case of rape and molestation by state officials exemplary compensation has to
be granted liberally against government. Even in non-government atrocities
democratically elected governments have already started granting some monetary relief
in such cases as a humanitarian and welfare measure. But it has to be institutionalized and
made a legal right.
Prisoners right to life and liberty
Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law. Article 22 guarantees protection
against arrest and detention in certain cases. It says that no person who is arrested shall be
detained in the custody without being informed, as soon as, may not be of the ground for
such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice. It requires that every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of
such arrest excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the court
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
29/58
of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a magistrate.
In case ofSunil Batra v. Delhi Admn is a landmark judgment by a constitution
bench in the area of fundamental rights of prisoners. Under section 30(2) of Prisoners
Act, 1894, every prisoner under the sentence of death shall be confined to a cell apart
from all other prisoners and shall be placed by day and by night under the charge of
guard. Sunil Batra was sentenced to death having been found guilty of a gruesome
murder compounded with robbery. He challenged the same invoking articles 14, 19, 21.
The plight of prisoners kept in solitary confinement is pathetic.
The Supreme Court upheld the contention ofBatra and declared:
Part III of the constitution does not part company with the prisoner at the gates
and judicial oversight protects the prisoners shrunken fundamental rights, if flouted, it
owned upon or frozen by prison authority. Is a person under death sentence or undertrial
unilaterally dubbed dangerous liable to suffer extra torment too deep for tears?
Empathically no The convict is not sentenced to the imprisonment. He is not sentenced
to solitary confinement. He is a guest in custody, in the sage keeping of host-jailor until
the terminal hour of terrestrial farewell whisks him away to the halter. This is trusteeship
in the hands of superintendent, not imprisonment in the true sense.
In the other part of the same judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with the case of
Charles Sobraj. His grievance was against the disablement, the bar fetters of under trials
and for unlimited duration. The judge visited the Tihar jail and saw Sobraj attending in
chains in the yard, with iron on wrists, iron on the ankles, iron on waist and iron to link
up firmly riveted at appropriated places. There were a number of under trial prisoners
with bar fetters in the jail and many of them were minors.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
30/58
Reacting sharply to the plea of prison authorities based on security aspect, the
court observed:
Assuming a few are likely to escape, would you shoot a hundred prisoners or
whip everyone everyday or fetter all suspect to prevent one jumping jail? These wild
apprehensions have no value in our human order; if articles 14, 19 and 21 are prime
actors in the constitutional play life and liberty are precious values. Arbitrary action
which tortiously tears into the flesh of a living man is too serious to be reconciled with
articles 14 or 19 or even by way of abundant caution.
Detenues in Jail without trial
Detunes in jail without trial is a violation of fundamental right under article 21 of
Indian constitution. The prosecuting officers should be accountable for the illegal
detention of the accused. There are certain instances which indicate that if there were a
thorough investigation across the country in different jails, there would be many more
undertrial prisoners languishing in jails without being convicted.
Om Prakash was released on the intervention of the court from Manipuri Jail in
U.P. after 37 years of imprisonment without trial. He was arrested on the charge of
murder. Om Prakash was less than 20 at the time of his arrest. His father owned the crime
to save his son. Both were arrested and the father died in jail a few years later. In 37
years, trial could not even begin because the police failed to trace the papers of the case.
And for this serious lapse on the part of the police, no action was taken against any police
officer. Because of long confinement Om Prakash became insane. When he did finally
come out of jail, he did not know who he was.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
31/58
Raja Ram, aged 70, spent 35 years in Faizabad jail and Varanasi mental hospital
without being proved guilty. In yet another case 70 years old Jagjivan Ram languished in
prison for 36 years because his records were missing.
These few instances indicate that if there were a thorough investigation across the
country in different jails, there would be many more under-trial prisoners languishing in
jails without being convicted.
In different case pertaining to foreigners, 17 Pakistanis, who were found guilty of
various crimes of courts, including that of entering the country without valid documents,
were sentenced to imprisonment for various terms. They were in jail during trial period
because they could not be granted bail for obvious reasons.
The plea of the central government in such cases that these prisoners could be
released only in return for an equal number of Indian prisoners languishing in Pakistani
Jails was rejected by a bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of justices
Markandey Katju and R. M. Lodha on March 9, 2010 and they were ordered to be
deported within 2 months. 14 of the 17 Pakistanis detained in the camp were deported to
Pakistan on March 25, 2010. Nobody was punished for their illegal confinement. Of
course, there is no provision for compensation in such cases.
It is nobodys case that the police should abdicate its duty to catch and prosecute
law-breakers and criminals. It has been seen that even in cases of abduction and extra-
judicial killings the guilty police officers go scot free while even the most innocent
victims suffer for their omission and commission.
There should be a proper, accurate and scientific investigation and gathering of
real evidence, not the connected one, to sustain a case before the trial court. However,
what is essential to make the justice administration system transparent and corruption-
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
32/58
free is to devise a system of accountability where in the prosecuting officers are held
responsible for causing unnecessary and illegal detention of the accused.
The detainees should be quite adequately compensated for physical, emotional
and social loss caused to them and their families, including the cost of litigation, which is
exorbitant. Mere cosmic police and judicial reforms can not cure our decayed justice
administration system.70
70. The Tribune, April 7, 2010.
Honour Killing
Honour killing is the most grotesque and barbarous manifestation of gender
discrimination in the male-dominated society, Karnal Additional Session judges
judgment giving death sentence to five persons, life imprisonment to one and 7 year jail
to another in a case of honour killing in Haryanas Kaithal District will serve as a strong
deterrent on the depredatations of Khap Panchayats.
The constitution guarantees several fundamental rights to our citizens. These
rights also include the right to life and liberties. The government and its different organs
are duty bound to create conditions in which citizen can enjoy these rights.
The way Manoj and Babli were murdered in Haryana clearly exhibited that
Haryana government failed to create conditions in which Manoj and Babli could enjoy
their right to liberty and live peacefully. The judiciarys judgment to punish the
murderers has restored the faith of the people.
But the recent utterances by some of the Khap leaders at Kurukshetra have
disturbed right thinking members of civil society in Haryana. Its recent demand for
amendment in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to prohibit the solemnization of marriages
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
33/58
within the same gotra as well as between inhabitants of the same village is not only
ridiculous but against the constitutional and liberal values of modern age. It is clear
violation of fundamental rights.
The demand is against the spirit of the preamble of constitution that declares
liberty, equality, fraternity and justice as our national ideals. The demand goes against the
principles of the liberal education being imparted to our young boys and girls in schools
and colleges.
The strange situation is creating conflicts in the minds of young ones. The need of
hour is that the Haryana government must realize the seriousness of the problem and
guarantee to create conditions in which young couples are able to enjoy liberty and live
with peace.71
The National Human Rights Commission slammed Khap Panchayats, saying
honour killings violated an individuals right to life.
Narco Tests
The Supreme Court gives judgment on banning narco-analysis brain-mapping and
polygraph tests on the accused is a big blow to agencies like the CBI which have been
using such techniques as important tools in investigation. In a Landmark ruling, a three-
member Bench consisting of the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishan, Justice R.V. Raveendran
and Justice Dalveer Bhandari has said that if individuals are forced to undergo these tests,
it would amount to unwarranted intrusion of his personal liberty and flagrant violation
of his fundamental right under article 20(3) of constitution which prohibits self-
incrimination. The Bench made it clear that these tests will be admissible as evidence in
the courts as law prohibits an accused from giving evidence against himself. As for
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
34/58
polygraph tests, it observed that the investigating agencies will have to follow strictly the
guidelines of National Human Rights Commission.72
Now that the Supreme Court has banned these tests, the authorities will have to
evolve new methods of investigation. The police ought to change its colonial mindset and
to show greater respect for human rights. It is common knowledge how the accused are
tortured these days, sometimes resulting in custodial deaths. The apex court ruling may
help ensure a fair trial for any individual but agencies like the CBI ought to deploy more
humane methods of investigation to ferret out the
71. The Tribune, 26
th
April, 2010.
72.
truth and bring the guilty to book.
Article 21 and Human Rights
Over the years, the role of the Supreme Court of India has been commendable in
expanding the area of human rights preponderingly while interpreting the Indian
constitution in article 21, as the most fruitful article. While acceding to the covenants,
India expressed its reservation as to enforceable right of compensation for persons
claiming to be victims of unlawful arrest or detention against the state, but in several
cases, the Indian Supreme Court has held such right of compensation as part of article 21,
which safeguards the right to life and liberty. In comprehension of the Supreme Court the
right to life and liberty includes, the right to human dignity, right of privacy, right to
speedy trial, right to free legal aid, right of prisoner to be treated with dignity and
humanity, right to bail, right to compensation for custodial death, right to know, right to
livelihood, right to protection of health and medical care, right to protection of childhood,
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
35/58
right to equal pay for equal work, right to social security, right of workers to participate
in the management, right to shelter, right to education, right to healthy environment.
While safeguarding the interests of the citizens of India in such matters, the
honble court has even brazenly gone to protect even the aliens. In Chairman, Railway
Board & Others v. Ms. Chandrima Das,73- article 21 Violative of Fundamental Rights-
Gang rape on Bangladeshi Women by Railway employees in Railway Building-order
allowing compensation-foreign nationals can be granted relief under public law for
violation of fundamental rights on the ground of domestic Jurisprudence based on
constitutional provisions and Human Rights jurisprudence, a yeoman judicial step in
compensatory justice.
The right to life is that which is much more than mere animal existence.
73. AIR 2000 SC 988.
The right to life means to have intact all limbs and faculties through which life is enjoyed
and life have meaning. It would be deprivation of life if the body is mutilated and any
part of it is amputated or if any organ of body, such as taking out of an eye is destroyed.
InKharak Singh v. State of U.P.74, the Supreme Court observed that right to life does not
mean the right to the continuance of persons animal existence, but a right to the
possession of all organs-his arms, legs etc. The right to life means right to live with full
human dignity without humiliation and deprivation or denial of any part personal liberty
obviously means freedom from all physical restraint and coercion of any sort.75
InA.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras , 76 the Supreme Court propounded the thesis
that personal liberty in article 21 was used as a compendious term to include within
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
36/58
itself all the varieties of rights which tend to make up personal liberty a man minus the
right guaranteed under article 19 (1).
The interpretation that Personal Liberty means only liberty relating to or
concerning the person is obviously too narrow and the Supreme Court itself has
repudiated it. InKharak Singh v. State of U.P.,77 the domiciliary visits during the night by
the police house of bad characters and suspects were held to be an invasion of personal
liberty being violative of sanctity of mans home and an intrusion into his personal
security and his right to sleep undisturbed.
In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.,
78
the Supreme Court held that right to shelter is
74. AIR 1963 SC 1295.
75.Indian Bar Review, Vol. xxx (1) 2003.
76. AIR 1986 SC 180.
77. AIR 1963 SC 1295.
78. AIR 1987 SC 2117.
a fundamental right available to every citizen and it was laid into article 21 of the
Constitution as encompassing within the limit the right to shelter to make the right to life
more meaningful. The court observed as under.
In any organized society, right to live as human being is not entered by meeting
the only animals need of the man. All human rights are designed to achieve the freedom
from restriction which inhibits his growth right to life implies the right to food, water,
disentitled environment, education, medical care and shelter. All civil, political, social
and cultural rights enshrined in Universal Declaration of Human Rights can not be
exercised without these basic rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
37/58
protection of his life and limbs. It is the home where he has opportunity to grow
physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually.
In Shamir Solhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trading Pvt. Ltd.79 the Apex Court held that
dispossession of tenant without due process of law was violative of article 21 of
constitution.
Article 21 of the constitution of India, has been interpreted that every child under
age of 14 years has a right of basic education.80 In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka,81
the court held that that right to education is concomitant to fundamental rights enshrined
in Part III of the constitution. InBandhua Mukti Morcha v UOI, it has been held that it is
the solemn duty of the state to provide basic education to the children who are working in
different industries and the court has directed the government to take such steps and
evolve scheme assuring education to all children either by the industry itself or in
coordination with it .In
79. AIR 1996 SC 2102.
80. Unnikrishan v. state of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 2178.
81. AIR 1997 SC 3021.
Gaurav Jain v. UOI82, the Apex court has held that state has to provide education to
children born to prostitutes. The court further issued various directions to protect the said
children from exploitation and bring them into main stream of life by educating them.
In Neelabati Behra v. State of Orissa, 83 the Supreme Court held that for the
contravention of human rights and fundamental rights by the state and its agencies, the
court must award compulsory compensation and rejected the defense of sovereign
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
38/58
immunity. The court held that custodial death amounts to violation of fundamental right
to life.
Article 8(5) of international covenants on Civil and Political rights, 1966 indicates
that an enforceable right to compensation is not alien to the concept of guaranteed rights
as it provides for award for compensation to the victims who have been unlawfully
arrested or detained and to get such compensation is his enforceable right.
The Supreme Court has pointed out the obligation on the part of state to provide
free legal aid to those who cannot afford to engage counsel and bear the expensive
litigations in Sukhdas v. UT of Arunachal Pradesh.
84
In Ms. Neera Mathu v. LIC, 85 the Apex Court held that giving false declaration
regarding the last menstruation period with a view to suppress her pregnancy was not
found fatal and on that ground the services could not have been terminated as asking such
declaration was not only embarrassing and improper but was against the dignity of
womanhood.
82.
83. AIR 1993 SC 1960.
84. (1986) 2 SCC 401.
85. AIR 1992 SC 789.
InPaschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of W.B., 86 the court held that any
failure of government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person is need,
results in violation of his right to life.
In P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat, 87 the Supreme Court considered the human
right to shelter and rights enshrined in article 19 (1) (e) of the constitution of India and
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
39/58
article 21 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention on Civil Economic
and Cultural Rights and held that it is the duty of the state to construct houses at
reasonable cost and make them easily accessible to the poor. The said principle was
found embodied and in-built in the constitution of India to secure to life, liberty and
security of person. The court also emphasized on article 21 of Declaration of Human
Rights which envisaged that everyone has a right to social security and is entitled to its
realization as became the economic, social and cultured right are indispensable for his
dignity and free development of his personality.
InLegal Aid Committee v. UOI,
88
the court expressed its concern to detention of
large number of persons in jail in connection with various offences under the Narcotic
Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and issued directions to release under-trial
prisoners who has been in jail for a period amount to exceeding halt of punishment
provided for in the Act. The judgment was followed in Shabeem Welfare Associationv.
UOI,89 where in the court observed that a pragmatic and just approach was required to be
adopted in releasing TADA deteunes on bail because of delay in conclusion of trial. In
86. AIR 1996 SC 426.
87. 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 182.
88. AIR 1981 SC 939.
89. AIR 1994 (6) SCC 631.
Gurbux Singh v. State of Punjab, 90 the Court held that imposing of unjust and harsh
condition while granting bail are violative of article 21 of the constitutional of India.
In Watch Dogs International v. UOI, 91 the court examined the case where a
prisoner died due to injuries received during the beatings by the supervisor whose
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
40/58
appointment could not be found under any legal provision. The court issued directions to
prevent such events and not to appoint such supervisor.
In Madhab Hyawadanya Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court held
that the jail manual must be updated to include the mandate of article 21 of the
constitution for the reason that all the obligations are necessarily implied as article 21
guarantees and provides for commitment of procedural fairness.
In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee,92the right of street trading by
hawkers and squatters was considered and it was held that every citizen has a right to use
a public street vested in the state as a beneficiary but a public right is subject to such
reasonable restrictions as the state may choose to impose. The right to street trading does
not any confer a right on any person to occupy or squat at any specific place of his choice
on pavement regardless the right of others, including pedestrians to make use of
pavements.
In Abdual Rahman Anthulay v. R.S. Nayak, 93 the constitution bench of the
Supreme Court held that speedy trial is inherently enshrined in article 21. Same view has
90. AIR 1980 SC 1932.
91. AIR 1978 SC 1547.
92. AIR 1989 SC 1988.
93. AIR 1992 SC 1701
been taken in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 94 and Raghubir
Singh v. State of Bihar.95
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
41/58
Thus, it would be seen that the Supreme Court while interpreting the provision of
the Indian Bill of Rights has drawn deeply upon the universally agreed upon the human
rights and has also given widest possible detinition to human dignity.
Right to Privacy
In case ofKharak Singh, 96 the court was called upon to determine whether right
to privacy formed a part of personal liberty in article 21. The petitioner, who was tried
and discharged for dacoity, was subjected by the police to domiciliary visits and
surveillance. To determine the validity of domiciliary visits and surveillance the court
examined whether the right to privacy was a part of personal liberty. It held that personal
liberty was a compendium of rights that go to make up the personal liberty of man and
that the right to life in article 21 was similar to that in American 14th and 15th amendment.
Right to privacy is a part of right to life and that right includes telephone
conversation in privacy in home or office unless it comes within the grounds of
restriction under article 19(2) of the constitution of India. It directed observance of
certain procedures by way of safeguard before resorting to telephone tapping.
Ms. Y with whom the marriage of the appellant was settled, was saved in time
by the disclosure of the vital information that the appellant was HIV (+). The disease
which is communicable would have been positively communicated to her immediately on
the consummation of marriage. As a human being, Ms. Y must also enjoy, as she
94. AIR 1979 SC 1360.
95. AIR 1987 SC 149
96. AIR 1963 SC 1295.
obviously is entitled to, all the Human Rights available to any other human being. This is
apart from, and in addition to, the fundamental right available to her under article 21 of
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
42/58
constitution, which, as the apex court has seen, guarantees right to life to every citizen
of this country. This right would positively include the right to be told that a person, with
whom she was proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was
sexually communicable. Since right to life includes right to lead a healthy life as to
enjoy all the faculties of human body in their prime condition, the respondents, by their
disclosure that the appellant was HIV (+), can not be said to have, in any way either
violated the rule of confidentiality or right to privacy. Where there is a clash of two
fundamental rights ,as in the instant case, namely, the appellants right to privacy as part
of right to life and Ms. Ys right to lead a healthy life which is her fundamental right
under article 21, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest,
would alone be enforced through the process of court, for the reason that moral
considerations can not be kept at bay and judges are not expected to sit as mute structures
of clay in the hall known as court-room, but have to be sensitive, in the sense that they
must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day.
In his dissenting opinion Justice Subba Rao rejected the test of directness of
impact formulated in Gopalan, denied that each fundamental right was a separate island
entirely upon itself and held that personal liberty and freedom of movement overlapped
each other. It was the implication of his thesis that a valid infringement of one right can
not justify invalid encroachments on the other rights & that the fundamental rights,
though intrinsically independent, overlapped each other. He asserted that not only
physical but also psychological restraints on fundamental rights might be
unconstitutional. He held that for the petitioner, constantly shadowed by a policeman, the
whole country was a jail.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
43/58
About 12 years laterGovinda97 raised again before the court the question whether
domiciliary visit and surveillance were constitutionally valid. Unlike, in Kharak Singh, in
this case, domiciliary visit and surveillance were authorized by law. The petitioner
alleged that the police visited his house day and by night, picketed his house and the
approaches thereto, kept a watch on his movement and often called him to the police
station to harass him. The respondent state pleaded that surveillance was restricted to
persons like the petitioner addicted to a life of crime.
To determine the validity of surveillance and domiciliary visit the court had to
decide whether, as claimed by the petitioner, the right to privacy emanated from the right
to personal liberty and right to freedom of movement.
It is necessary that in an appropriate case the court may review and reconsider its
decisional law to hold that privacy is a part of personal liberty read with freedom of
movement and that the law trenching on privacy should be reasonable and should lay
down a fair procedure. The new constitutionalism that the court gave in recent years
justifies such a course of action. The Nordic Conference of jurists and legal experts
emphasized that the right to privacy is paramount to human happiness. In view of this
international trend, the claim that our constitution, be it said to its glory, has embodied
most the articles contained in Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds empty if
the constitution allows the police in India to hear the street whisper in the closet.
97. Govind v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1378.
Right to Travel Abroad
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
44/58
In the 1950s, 98 acting under the influence of Gopalan and Pre Kent American
cases, the Madras High Court had held that there was no right to travel abroad, issuance
of passport was a political function and a person was free to go abroad without passport
although even Indians were required by law to produce a passport at the time of their re-
entry into India. After Kent, 99 the Bombay High Court seized the Kharak Singh
construction of personal liberty as a compendium of rights and followed Kent to held that
the right to passport was a part of personal liberty. It held further that in the absence of a
law regulating issuance of passport the refusal to issue a passport to the petitioner
violated his right to personal liberty in article 21.
In 1978, the Supreme Court was again confronted with this question when Janta
government impounded the passport of Menaka Gandhi. In this case, 100 Justice Bhagwati
handed down one of the most remarkable judgments in the history of Supreme Court. He
overruled Gopalan to substitute the test of direct and immediate effect for the test of
direct impact and asserted that no fundamental right was a separate island entire upto
itself and valid infringement of one right could not validate an invalid infringement of
any other right. He reiterated that the right to travel abroad was a part of personal liberty
and pointed out that though that right was not an emanation from freedom of speech, the
state would violate freedom of speech if it allowed a person to go abroad subject to
condition that he should not make any speech while he was in abroad. He denied that
freedom of speech could be exercised by an Indian only in India and held that it was only
the restriction and not the right that could
98. Mohammad, The Vicissitudes of Freedom of Exit in India, 17 American Journal of
Comparative Law, 559.
99.Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 11 (1958).
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
45/58
100.Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 760.
operate in India. And as the restriction operated in India the court was competent to
review its validity.
Justice Bhagwati asserted that the right to travel abroad, though a part of personal
liberty overlapped with many a specific right. So if the state impounded the passport of
pilot with international flying license, an evangelist, a dancer, a musician, a journalist, a
professor or a scholar, it might directly or indirectly trench on his freedom of occupation
or freedom of speech.
Justice Bhagwati overruled Gopalan to hold that procedure established by law in
article 21 meant fair and reasonable procedure. He corrected the courts mistake in
Gopalan which treated deletion of due process from article 21 as denial of procedural
safeguards to the right to life and personal liberty.
But Justice Krishna Iyer held in his concurring difference between the two
opinion is that under the former only procedural reasonableness whereas under the latter
substantive reasonableness also was open to judicial review.
The welcome feature ofManeka is not just the removal ofGopalan from the lore
of law but the switch over from mechanical to political jurisprudence. This is manifest
from the courts retreat from shuttered gloom of authoritarianism of the emergency era to
the refreshing liberalism of the post-emergency period in response to the election results
of March 1977. It also freed article 21 from the shackles of frankfurters philosophy
though the constitution makers had accepted it. As a result of all this right to travel
abroad stands enriched, enlarged and fortified with impregnable procedural safeguards.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
46/58
Right to Compensation
The opinion of the then Chief Justice Chandrachud in Rudal Shah v. State of
Bihar101 confirm that Justice Bhagwatis concern for the poor and his readiness to assume
the role of the reformer to secure justice for the poor is deeply felt and widely shared by
the judges in the Supreme Court. In this case, involving the petitioners claim for
compensation for his incarceration for 14 years after his acquittal by a court, Chief
Justice Chandrachud found that the Indian constitution had no provision similar to article
9(5) of Covenant which entitles a victim of unconstitutional arrest or detention to claim
compensation from the state. The absence of this provision from the Indian constitution is
certainly not accidental. And yet the Chief Justice said that if in a case of gross violation
of liberty the court refuses to pass an order of compensation, it would only be paying lip-
service to liberty. So he held:
Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, will be denuded of its
significant content if the power of this court were limited to passing orders of release
from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can
reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of article 21 secured is to
mulct its violators in the payment of compensation.102
The Chief Justice thus nationalized the human right in article 9 of the covenant to
enrich the content of article 21 and to enlarge the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under
article 32 and of the High Court under article 226 to enforce fundamental rights. This
small step that the court has taken, after it has assumed the role of the poor mans court
hold out for the people of India a rich promise.
7/29/2019 Concept of Article 21
47/58
101. AIR 1983 SC 1086
102.Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
Environmental Law
The judiciary, in their quest for innovate solutions to the environmental matters
within the frame work of PIL, looked to constitutional provisions to provide the court
with the necessary jurisdiction to address specific issues. As the Supreme Court is the
final authority as far as matters of constitutional interpretation are concerned, it assumes a
sort of primary position in the Indian Environmental Legal system. For example, the
fundamental right contained in article 21 103 is often cited as the violated right, albeit in a
verity of ways.
In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT of Delhi, 104 Bhagwati J.,
speaking for the Supreme Court stated that:
We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and
all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing, shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow