EXPANSION OF ARTICLE 21 IN 21st CENTURY

(Project report)

Project submitted to
Professor Ms. Madhureema De Sarkar

(Faculty Contitutional Governance)

Project submitted by
Puneet Sameeksha Xalxo

Sec c

Roll no.118

Semester 3

18/10/16

Hidayatullah National Law University

Raipur,chattisgarh
 DECLARATION

I , Puneet Sameeksha Xalxo , hereby declare that , the project work entitled , Expansion on
Article 21 in 21st century submitted to H.N.L.U ., Raipur is record of an original work
done by me under the able guidance if Professor Mrs. Anita Samal , Faculty Member of
Political Science, H.N.L.U., Raipur.

PUNEET
SAMEEKSHA XALXO
ROLL NO
118
18/10/16
 Acknowledgements

I feel highly elated to work on the topic Expansion of article 21 in 21st century. I would like
to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my course teacher, Ms.
Madhureema De Sarkar for giving me constant guidance and encouragement throughout the
course of the project. I would also like to thank the University for providing me the internet and
library facilities which were indispensable for getting relevant content on the subject, as well as
subscriptions to online databases and journals, which were instrumental in writing relevant text.

PUNEET SAMEEKSHA XALXO

Contents

Declaration2

Acknowledgements..3

Introduction..5

Classical elite theory7

Power Elites..10

Democratic elites..11

Condition of Elites in Modern World.12

Limitations of Elite Theory.15

Conclusion17

References.17
 INTRODUCTION

Article 21 reads as:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in

a democratic society. Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as the procedural magna carta
protective of life and liberty.

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive
provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed
when a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State as defined in Article
12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life

2) Right to personal liberty

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure
established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to
the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of the Constitution of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI
of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien.
Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to
reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).
Objectives
Study classical theory and theorist

Its effect on modern democracy

Its merits and demerits

Scope of Study
Scope of my research study is to describe the elite theory and its essence, also its effect and
relevance in modern democracy, also evaluate its pros and cons.

Research Methodology
This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Accumulation of the information on the
topic include wide use of secondary sources like books, e-articles etc. The matter from these
sources have been compiled and analysed to understand the concept from the grass root level.
The structure of the project, as instructed by the Faculty of Political Science has been adhered to
and the same has been helpful in giving the project a fine finish off.

Sources of Data
Online Journals

Articles available on net

Research papers

Books
MEANING AND CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO LIFE

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Life in Article 21 of
the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal
existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right
to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc.
Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as human being
and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a mans life meaningful, complete, and
worth living. It is the only article in the Constitution that has received the widest possible
interpretation. Under the canopy of Article 21 so many rights have found shelter, growth and
nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements that is essential and
unavoidable for a person is the core concept of right to life.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, the Supreme Court quoted and held
that:

By the term life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.
The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armour leg or the
pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul
communicates with the outer world.

Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21 and
held that the right to live the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its

1 Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1295, 1964
SCR (1) 332
ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the same view, the Court in Francis
Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi3, observed that:

The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head
and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about
and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic
necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Art. 21 guarantees right to life right to life with dignity. The court in this context has observed
that:

The meaning and content of fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution of India are of
sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual
harassment or abuse.

Sexual Harassment of women has been held by the Supreme Court to be violative of the most
cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Art. 21. The victims
of sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of perpetrator or their own transfer.

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan4, the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a
working woman at her work as amounting to violation of rights of gender equality and rights to
life and liberty which is clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the

2 Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

3 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516

4 Vishaka and others V. State of Rajasthan and others. (AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011)
landmark judgment, Supreme Court in the absence of enacted law to provide for effective
enforcement of basic human rights of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment
laid down the following guidelines:

1. All employers or persons in charge of work place whether in the public or private sector
should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. Without prejudice to the
generality of this obligation they should take the following steps:
i) Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the work place
should be notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways.
ii) The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to
conduct and discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual
harassment and provide for appropriate penalties in such rules against the
offender.
iii) As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid
prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946.
iv) Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure,
health and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards
women at work places and no employee woman should have reasonable grounds
to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.
2. Where such conduct amounts to specific offences under I,P,C, or under any other law, the
employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint
with appropriate authority.

Right Against Rape

Rape has been held to a violation of a persons fundamental life guaranteed under Art. 21. Right
to life, would, therefore, include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful,
complete and worth living.

In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty5, the Supreme Court held that

5 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490
Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the
entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional
crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on
coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore,
the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victims
most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained
in Art 21.

Right to Reputation

Reputation is an important part of ones life. It is one of the finer graces of human civilization
that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie
Davis6 in Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry7 held that good reputation was an
element of personal security and was protective by the Constitution, equally with the right to the
enjoyment of life, liberty and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life,
liberty and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of
ancient origin and was necessary to human society.

Right To Livelihood

To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art. 21 would not include
right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram8, a case which arose before Maneka Gandhi case9, where

6 DF Marione v

7 Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 20

8 AIR 1960 SC 932, 1960 3 SCR 499

9 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression life in
Article 21.The court said curtly:

The right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19, or even in
Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of argument that
the word life in Art. 21 includes livelihood also.

Art. 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and for
that matter on right to livelihood. Therefore anyone who is deprived of right to livelihood
without a just and fair procedure established by law can challenge such deprivation as being
against Art. 21 and get it declared void.

Right to Shelter
In U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited 10, the right to shelter
has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured in
article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed by article 21.

The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to
decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need
of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare
protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would
allow him to grow in every aspect physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at
ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper
home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable
house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched
house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.

10 U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited AIR 1996 SC 114
Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

In L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre 11, it was further held that
right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it
must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured.

Right Against Honour Killing

A division bench of Allahabad High Court, In Surjit Kumar v. State of U.P12, took serious note
on harassment, in ill treatment and killing of a person who was a major, for wanting to get
married to a person of another caste or community, for bringing dishonor to family since inter
caste or inter community marriage was not prohibited in law, the court said that such practice of
honour killing was a blot on society. The court, therefore, directed the police to take strong
measures, against those who committed such honour killing.

Right to Health

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India 13, The Supreme Court laid
down that:

Social justice which is device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity
requires the State to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum
standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The health and strength of worker, the
court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer
facets of life violating Art. 21.

11 1995 AIR 1811, 1995 SCC (5) 482

12 Sujit Kumar And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 May, 2002

13 Consumer Education & Research ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 January, 1995
Right to Medical Care

Art. 21 of the Constitution cast the obligation on the State to preserve life. The patient whether
he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is
the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that
the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate
death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. Every doctor whether at a
Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due
expertise for protecting life.

It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing
emergency medical care. In Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Others, it
was held that a hospital is duty bound to accept accident victims and patients who are in critical
condition and that it cannot refuse treatment on the ground that the victim is not in a position to
pay the fee or meet the expenses or on the ground that there is no close relation of the victim
available who can give consent for medical treatment.

The court has laid stress on a very crucial point, viz., state cannot plead lack of financial
resources to carry out these directions meant to provide adequate medical services to the people.

Right to die

For first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati
Dubal14 right to die was brought. In this case the Bombay High Court held that the right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 includes right to die, and the honble High Court struck down
Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as
unconstitutional.

14 1987 (1) BomCR 499, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India 15, a two judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court, took
cognizance of the relationship/contradiction between Sec. 309, I.P.C., and Art. 21. The Court
supporting the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Maruti Sripati Dubals Case held that
the court argued that the word life in Art. 21 means right to live with human dignity and the same
does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the court concluded that the right to live of
which Art. 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live a forced life.

The Rathinam ruling came to be reviewed by a full Bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of
Punjab. 16The question before the court was that if the principal offence of attempting to commit
suicide is void as being unconstitutional vis--vis Art.21, then how abetment can thereof be
punishable under Sec. 306, I.P.C., 1860. It was argued that the right to die having been included
in Art.21 (Rathinam ruling), and Sec. 309 having been declared unconstitutional, any person
abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in the enforcement of his
fundamental right under Art. 21.The court observed:

Right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural

termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of
right to life

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab17, the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia
and attempt to commit suicide. The court held that death due to termination of natural life is
certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of
extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death that has
already commenced. The court further held that, this may fall within the ambit of Right to live
with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to
also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.

15 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

16 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

17 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

Sentence of death Rarest of rare cases

The issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment was dealt with by the law commission
of India. After collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views
expressed by western scholars, the commission recommended the retention of the capital
punishment in the present state of the country. The commission held the opinion that having
regard to the conditions of India, to the variety of the social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the
disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the
diversity of its population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the
country, India could not risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.

In Jagmohan v. State of U.P18, the Supreme Court had held that death penalty was not violative
of articles 14, 19 and 21.it was said that the judge was to make the choice between death penalty
and imprisonment for life on the basis of circumstances, facts and nature of crime brought on
record during trail. Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance
with the procedure established by law as required under article 21

But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of U.P.19, Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the majority, held that
capital punishment would not be justified unless it was shown that the criminal was dangerous to
the society. The learned judge plead for the abolition of death penalty and said that it should
retained only for white collar crimes

However, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 20, the leading case of on the question, a
constitution bench of the supreme court explained that article 21 recognized the right of the state
to deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established
by a valid law .It was further held that death penalty for the offence of murder awarded under
section 302 of I.P.C did not violate the basic feature of the constitution.

18 1973 AIR 947, 1973 SCR (2) 541

19 1979 AIR 916, 1979 SCR (3) 78

20 AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980 CriLJ 636, 1982 (1) SCALE 713, (1980) 2 SCC 684, 1983 1 SCR 145
Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air

In Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar21, it has held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable
for insuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included in right to live under
Art.21 of the constitution. The court observed:

Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.32
of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the
quality of life.

PERSONAL LIBERTY

Liberty of the person is one of the oldest concepts to be protected by national courts. As long as
1215, the English Magna Carta provided that,

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the law of the land.

In India the concept of liberty has received a far more expansive interpretation. The Supreme
Court of India has rejected the view that liberty denotes merely freedom from bodily restraint;
and has held that it encompasses those rights and privileges that have long been recognized as
being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The meaning of the term personal liberty was considered by the Supreme Court in the Kharak
Singhs case, which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity of the U. P. Police
Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits and secret picketing.

21 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

Oddly enough both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to the
term personal liberty by an American judgment in Munn v Illinois22, which held the term life
meant something more than mere animal existence. This provision equally prohibited the
mutilation of the body or the amputation of an arm or leg or the putting of an eye or the
destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicated with the outer
world. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations authorizing domiciliary visits
unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that even lawful imprisonment does not spell farewell to all
fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen except only those
necessarily lost as an incident of imprisonment.

Right to Privacy

As per Blacks Law Dictionary, privacy means right to be let alone; the right of a person to be
free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the
public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned

Although not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the right to privacy is considered a
penumbral right under the Constitution, i.e. a right that has been declared by the Supreme Court
as integral to the fundamental right to life and liberty. Right to privacy has been culled by
Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the constitution read with the
Directive Principles of State Policy.

For the first time in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.23 question whether the right to privacy could
be implied from the existing fundamental rights such as Art. 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21, came
before the court. Surveillance under Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations constituted an
infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

22 94 U.S. 113 (1877)

23 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

Regulation 236(b), which permitted surveillance by domiciliary visits at night, was held to be
in violation of Article 21.

Right to Privacy-Womans Right to Make Reproductive Choices

A womans right to make reproductive choices includes the womans right to refuse participation
in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods such as
undergoing sterilization procedures womans entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to
give birth and subsequently raise children.

Right to go abroad

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India24, validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967,
which empowered government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of general
public was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. It was contended
that, right to travel abroad being a part of right to personal liberty the impugned section didnt
prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was violative of Art. 21.

The court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order to
conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as
well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article
14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article
21 would not be satisfied.

24 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Right against Illegal Detention

In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh25, the petitioner was detained by the police
officers and his whereabouts were not told to his family members for a period of five days.
Taking the serous note of the police high headedness and illegal detention of a free citizen, the
Supreme Court laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person during investigation:

An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have a friend, relative or
other person told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this
right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest.

In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down detailed
guidelines to be followed by the central and state investigating agencies in all cases of arrest and
detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures and held that any
form of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, whether it occurs during interrogation,
investigation or otherwise, falls within the ambit of Article 21.

Article 21 & Prisoners Rights

The protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jail. The convicts are not by mere
reason of their conviction deprived of all their fundamental rights that they otherwise possess.
Following the conviction of a convict is put into a jail he may be deprived of fundamental
freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But a convict is entitled
to the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 and he shall not be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except by a procedure established by law.

Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal

25 1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260

In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra26, the Supreme Court said while holding free legal aid
as an integral part of fair procedure the Court explained that the two important ingredients of the
right of appeal are; firstly, service of a copy of a judgement to the prisoner in time to enable him
to file an appeal and secondly, provision of free legal service to the prisoner who is indigent or
otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance. This right to free legal aid is the duty of the
government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness;
this cannot be termed as government charity.

In other words, an accused person at lease where the charge is of an offence punishable with
imprisonment is entitled to be offered legal aid, if he is too poor to afford counsel. Counsel for
the accused must be given sufficient time and facility for preparing his defense.

Right to Speedy Trial

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar27, it was brought to the notice of the
Supreme Court that an alarming number of men, women and children were kept in prisons for
years awaiting trial in courts of law. The Court took a serious note of the situation and observed
that it was carrying a shame on the judicial system that permitted incarceration of men and
women for such long periods of time without trials. The Court held that detention of under-trial
prisoners, in jail for period longer than what they would have been sentenced if convicted, was
illegal as being in violation of Article of 21. The Court, thus, ordered the release from jail of all
those under-trial prisoners, who had been in jail for longer period than what they could have been
sentenced had they been convicted.

26 1978 AIR 1548, 1979 SCR (1) 192

27 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532

Right to Fair Trial

Free and fair trial has been said to be the sine qua non of Article 21. The Supreme Court
in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 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.

Right to Bail

The Supreme Court has diagnosed the root cause for long pre-trial incarceration to bathe present-
day unsatisfactory and irrational rules for bail, which insists merely on financial security from
the accused and their sureties. Many of the under trials being poor and indigent are unable to
provide any financial security. Consequently they have to languish in prisons awaiting their
trials. But incarceration of persons charged with non-bailable offences during pendency of trial
cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law.

In the case of Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 28, the Court held that right to bail was
included in the personal liberty under Article 21 and its refusal would be deprivation of that
liberty which could be authorised in accordance with the procedure established by law.

No right to Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail is a statutory right and it does not arise out of Article 21. Anticipatory bail
cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be granted as a matter of right as it cannot be
considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.

Right against Handcuffing

Handcuffing has been held to be prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, over-harsh
and at first flush, arbitrary. It has been held to be unwarranted and violative of Article 21.

28 1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777

In Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration29, the Supreme Court struck down the Rules that
provided that every under-trial who was accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with more
than three years prison term would be routinely handcuffed. The Court ruled that handcuffing
should be resorted to only when there was clear and present danger of escape of the accused
under-trial, breaking out of police control.

Right against Solitary Confinement

It has been held that a convict is not wholly denuded of his fundamental rights and his conviction
does not reduce to him into a non person whose rights are subjected to the whims of the prison
administration. Therefore, the imposition of any major punishment within the prison system is
conditional upon the observance of procedural safeguard.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration30, the petitioner was sentenced to death by the Delhi
session court and his appeal against the decision was pending before the high court. He was
detained in Tihar Jail during the pendency of the appeal. He complained that since the date of
conviction by the session court, he was kept in solitary confinement. It was contended that
Section 30 of Prisoners Act does not authorize jail authorities to send him to solitary
confinement, which by itself was a substantive punishment under Sections 73 and 74 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and could be imposed by a court of law and it could not be left to the
whim and caprice of the prison authorities. The Supreme Court accepted the argument of the
petitioner and held that imposition of solitary confinement on the petitioner was violative of
Article 21.

Right against Custodial Violence

The incidents of brutal police behaviour towards persons detained on suspicion of having
committed crimes are a routine matter. There has been a lot of public outcry from time to time

29 1980 AIR 1535, 1980 SCR (3) 855

30 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557

against custodial deaths.The Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand against the atrocities,
intimidation, harassment and use of third-degree methods to extort confessions. The Court has
classified these as being against human dignity. The rights under Article 21 secure life with
human dignity and the same are available against torture.

Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21

In Deena v. Union of India 31, the constitutional validity of the death sentence by hanging was
challenged as being barbarous, inhuman, and degrading and therefore violative of Article 21.
Referring to the Report of the UK Royal Commission, 1949; the opinion of the Director General
of Health Services of India, the 35th Report of the Law Commission; and the opinion of the
Prison Advisers and Forensic Medicine Experts, the Court held that death by hanging was the
best and least painful method of carrying out the death penalty, and thus not violative of Article
21.

Right against Public Hanging

The Rajasthan High Court, by an order directed the execution of the death sentence of an
accused by hanging at the Stadium Ground of Jaipur. It was also directed that the execution
should be done after giving widespread publicity through the media.

On receipt of the above order, the Supreme Court in Attorney General of India v. Lachma
Devi32 held that the direction for execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and
violative of Article 21. It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a
barbaric practice. Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric it

31 1983 AIR 1155, 1984 SCR (1) 1

32 (SC)-1985-12-3
would be a shame on the civilised society to reciprocate the same. The Court said, a barbaric
crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.

Right against Delayed Execution

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu33, the Supreme Court held that delay in execution
of death sentence exceeding 2 years would be sufficient ground to invoke protection under
Article 21 and the death sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment. The cause of the
delay is immaterial, the accused himself may be the cause of the delay.

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab34, the Supreme Court said that prolonged wait for execution of
a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo that
is through Article 21. But the Court held that this cannot be taken as the rule of law and applied
to each case and each case should be decided upon its own faces.

Right to Write a Book

In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang35, the petitioner while under detention in

jail wrote a book on science and sought the permission from the Government to send the
manuscript of the book to his wife for publication, to which the Government refused. The Court
held that this was an infringement of personal liberty and that Article 21 included the right to
write the book and get it published.

Right against Bar Fetters

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court gave Right against Bar Fetters and
held that treatment that offended human dignity and reduced man to a level of beast would
certainly be arbitrary and could be questioned under Article 21, but the right is not absolute.

33 1983 AIR 361, 1983 SCR (2) 348

34 1983 AIR 465, 1983 SCR (2) 582

35 1966 AIR 424, 1966 SCR (1) 702