SESSION: 2015-16.

SUBMITTED TO: - PROF. V.S. MISHRA SIR.

SUBMITTED BY: - AWADHESH KUMAR.
CLASS: - B.A. LL.B. (Hons.).
ROLL NO: - 14137LA051.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO.
Page 1

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.

1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3.

INTRODUCTION

4.

DESCRIPTION

5-19

5.

CONCLUSION

20

6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

21

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken lots to effort in completion of this project. However, it would not have been
possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend
my sincere thanks to all of them.
Secondly, I want to pay my sincere thank to my teacher (Prof. V.S. Mishra Sir.) for giving
his help and guidance.
2 | Page

I also want to avail this opportunity for expressing my deep and sincere gratitude to my
parents for their kind co-operation and encouragement which help me in completion of
this project.
And at last my thanks and appreciations go to my friends in developing the project and
people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

INTRODUCTION
The text of the Constitution provides for a fairly conventional right to life.
Article 21 provides that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty, except according to procedure established by law. Textually, there
are no hints of the all-encompassing right to life that it would become at
least constitutionally, in India. Indias Supreme Court has created an
extensive jurisprudence spanning all the fundamental rights. However, it is in
the right to life that the Court has been at its most creative and activist. The
3 | Page

Court has read in and provided for an array of subsidiary rights that it was
sure flowed from the right to life. Within this right the Court also found ways
to make DPSPs justiciable. The commentator R Sudarshan termed the
jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court in the context of the right to life
as creative whereby interpretation has been adopted that has enabled
social, economic, cultural and environmental rights into the realm of
justiciable issues. This mode of making Directive Principles justiciable was
done by reading into them the right to life and personal liberty. In essence,
the object of Article 21 was to prevent the encroachment upon personal
liberty by the executive save in accordance with the law, and in conformity
with the provisions thereof. In its sheer range and magnitude, the India
Constitutions right to life is unparalleled. The Supreme Court has observed
that the right means more than survival or animal existence. It went onto say
that this right would include the right to live with human dignity, and a life
meaningful, complete and worth living. Subsequently, the Court would find
that life includes the rights to food, water, a decent environment, education,
medical care and shelter. The right to life would also include culture and
protection of heritage, not to be subjected to unfair conditions of labour, 77
and the right to livelihood. Conversely, rape has been declared to violate the
right to life, since this right includes that of dignity. According to the Court,
chronic exposure to polluted air also violates this right. The all-encompassing
view of the right to life is illustrated in more recent times, by the orders
passed by the Supreme Court in what is now called the right to food cases.

DESCRIPTION
Art 21. PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.

4 | Page

Though Article 21 starts with a negative word but the word No has been
used in relation to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right
under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and
deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. It clearly
means that this fundamental right has been provided against state only.
According to Dicey, The right to personal liberty as understood in England
means in substance a persons right not to be subjected to imprisonment,
arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal
justification. In other words, personal liberty means freedom from physical
restraint and coercion which is not authorized by law.
The post-emergency period (1977-98) is known as the period of Judicial
Activism because it was during this period that the Courts jurisprudence
blossomed with doctrinal creativity as well as procession innovations.
Procedure Established by Law
It means that a law that is duly enacted by legislature or the concerned body
is valid if it has followed the correct procedure. In this the court would assess
that whether there is law or not, whether the Legislature is competent to
frame the law and whether it had followed the procedure laid down to
legislate and would not assess the intent of the said law.
Following this doctrine means that, a person can be deprived of his life or
personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. So, if
Parliament pass a law, then the life or personal liberty of a person can be
taken off according to the provisions and procedures of the that law.
This doctrine has a major flaw. It does not assess whether the laws made by
Parliament is fair, just and not arbitrary. Procedure established by law
means a law duly enacted is valid even if its contrary to principles of justice
and equity. Strictly following procedure established by law may raise the risk
of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to unjust laws
made by the law making authorities. Thus Procedure established by law
protects the individual against the arbitrary action of only the executive. It is
to avoid this situation; SC stressed the importance of due process of law.
Due Process of Law

5 | Page

Due process of law doctrine not only checks if there is a law to deprive the
life and personal liberty of a person, but also see if the law made is fair, just
and not arbitrary. If SC finds that any law as not fair, it will declare it as null
and void. This doctrine provides for more fair treatment of individual rights.
Under due process, it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all
of the legal rights that are owed to a person and laws that states enact must
confirm to the laws of the land like fairness, fundamental rights, liberty etc.
It also gives the judiciary to assess the fundamental fairness, justice, and
liberty of any legislation. Thus due process protects the individual against
the arbitrary action of both executive and legislature.
The difference in laymans terms is as below: Due Process of Law =
Procedure Established by Law + The procedure should be fair and just and
not arbitrary.
A great transformation in the judicial attitude towards the safeguard of
personal liberty has been noticed after the horrible experiences of the
infamous 1975 national emergency. A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India and
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, are the two landmark cases which decided
and expanded the horizon of rights under Art. 21. The judicial
pronouncement before the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978)
were not satisfactory in providing adequate protection to the right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India .
Prior to Maneka Gandhis decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and
personal liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not
from the legislative action.
History of Due Process of law
Due process developed from Clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England.
When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not
upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the
United States.
A.K. Gopalan Vs State of Madras, 19501
In A K Gopalan Vs State of Madras case Apex court took narrow view of
article 21 and held that Article 21 has no relationship with Article 14 and 19
and said that personal liberty has nothing to do with rights given in article
1 AIR 1950 SC 27.
6 | Page

19, which talks about different type of liberty and also held that article 14
which talks about reasonableness has also no relationship with Article 21.
Apex court made literal interpretation of procedure establish by law.
In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India case supreme court took broad view and
held that there is the formation of golden triangle amongst article 14 19, and
21. Apex court held that procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
In other words in A.K. Gopalan Vs State of Madras 1950, SC held that Article
21 guarantees only personal liberty for individual therefore the individual
enjoys protection for his bodily part but not the protection of the aspect of
liberties such as right to movement, right to freedom and speech.
Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI, 19782
Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) was a landmark
judgment and played the most significant role towards the transformation of
the judicial view on Article 21 of the constitution of India so as to imply many
more fundamental rights from Article 21. Justice Krishna Iyer in this case
observed that, the spirit of man is at the root of Article 21, personal
liberty makes for the worth of the human person and travel makes liberty
worthwhile.
The court finally held that the right to travel and go outside the
country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article
21. Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is not violative of Article 21 as it is
implied in the provision that the principles of natural justice would be
applicable in the exercise of the power of impounding a passport . The defect
of the order was removed and the order was passed in accordance with
procedure established by law.
Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision and held that there is no
difference between liberty and personal liberty. Therefore arrest and
detention of an individual has not only to satisfy Art -21 but also Art -19.
Both the rights of personal security and personal liberty recognised by what
Blackstone termed natural law are embodied in Act. 21 of the Constitution.

AIR 1978 SC 597.

7 | Page

The mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot even meet the
mandate of Article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just
and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The question whether
the procedure prescribed by law which curtails or takes away the personal
liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 are reasonable or not have to be considered.
Principle of natural justice is inherently enforced in Art. 21 and succeeded in
reality the due process of law in Art. 21. This decision heralded an era of
judicial activism in India.
As we have seen, the term procedure established by law is used directly in
the Indian constitution. Due Process of Law has much wider significance, but
it is not explicitly mentioned in Indian Constitution. The due process doctrine
is followed in United States of America, and Indian constitutional framers
purposefully left that out. But in most of the recent judgments of the
Supreme Court, the due process aspect is coming into picture again. So it
can be said that it is a journey from procedure establish by law to due
process of law.
A.K. Gopalan Case

Verses

Maneka Gandhi Case

A.K. Gopalan v. Union

Of India.3
In
this
case,
the
Petitioner
had
been
detained
under
Preventive
Detention
Act,
1950.
The
petitioner
challenged
the
validity
of
his
detention on the ground
that it was violative of
his Right to freedom of
movement under Art.
19(1)(d), which is the
very
essence
of
3 AIR 1950 SC 27.
4 AIR 1978 SC 597.
8 | Page

Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of
India.4
In this case, the
petitioners passport
had been impounded by
the Central Government
u/s 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967.
Maneka Gandhi then
filed a writ petition
under Article 32 of the
constitution in the
Supreme Court
challenging the order of
the government of India

personal
liberty
guaranteed by Art. 21 of
the Constitution. He
argued that The
words
personal liberty
include
the
freedom
of
movement
also
and therefore the
Preventive
Detention
Act,
1950 must also
satisfy
the
requirements
of
Art. 19(5).
21 and Art. 19
should be read
together as Art.
19 laid out the
substantive rights
while
Art.
21
provided
procedural rights.
The
words
procedure
established
by
law
actually
meant
due
process of law
from the American
Constitution which
includes principles
of natural justice
and the impugned
law
does
not
satisfy
that
requirement.

9 | Page

as violating her
fundamental rights
guaranteed under
Article 21 of the
constitution. It issues
raised were:
Whether right to
go abroad is a
part of right to
personal liberty
under Article 21.
Whether the
Passport Act
prescribes a
procedure as
required by Article
21 before
depriving a
person from the
right guaranteed
under the said
Article.
Whether section
10(3) (c) of the
Passport Act is
violative of Article
14, 19(1) (a) and
21 of the
constitution.
Whether the
impugned order of
the regional
passport officer is
in contravention
of the principles of
natural justice.

Personal Liberty

Prodecure
10 | P a g e

Rejecting this
contention, Supreme
Court, held that the
phrase personal liberty
in Art. 21 meant nothing
more than the liberty of
the physical body, that
is, freedom from arrest
and detention without
the authority of law.
According to majority,
the term liberty was
wider in meaning and
scope than personal
liberty.
Hence, while
liberty could be
said to include
Art. 19 within its
ambit, personal
liberty had the
same meaning as
given to the
expression
liberty of the
person under
English law.
Hence,
the
majority
took the view that Art.
19 and Art. 21 deal with
different
aspects
of
liberty.

Established The SC rejected the

The Supreme Court not

only
overruled
A.K.
Gopalans case but also
widened the scope of
words personal liberty
considerably.
Bhagwati,
J.
observed:The
expression
personal liberty
in Article 21 is of
widest amplitude
and it covers a
variety of rights
which
go
to
constitute
the
personal liberty of
man and some of
them have raised
to the status of
distinct
fundamental
rights and given
additional
protection under
Article 19.
With respect to
the
relationship
between Art. 19
and Art. 21, the
Court held that
Art.
21
is
controlled by Art.
19, i.e., it must
satisfy
the
requirement
of
Art. 19.
The court overruled the

by law

11 | P a g e

aforesaid contention &

held that it did not
mean due process of
law as understood in
America.
There was no
justification for
adopting the
meaning of the
word Law as
interpreted by the
SC of America in
the expression
due process of
law merely
because the word
law is used in
Art.21.
It was held that
the expression
procedure
established by
law must mean
procedure
prescribed by the
law of the State.
The court
interpreted the
term law as
State made law.
The Report of the
Drafting
Committee shows
that the
Constituent
Assembly
deliberately
dropped due
process of law in

A.K. Gopalan Case and

held that Art. 21
provides that no person
shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty
except in accordance
with procedure
established by law but
that does not mean that
a mere semblance of
procedure provided by
law will satisfy the
Article.
The procedure
should be just, fair
and reasonable &
not fanciful,
oppressive and
arbitrary.
A procedure to be
fair and just must
embody the
principles of
natural justice.
One of the
significant
interpretation in
this case is the
discovery of inter
connections
between Article
14, 19 and 21.
Thus a law which
prescribes a
procedure for
depriving a
person of
personal liberty
has to fulfill the

favor of
procedure
established by
law. If they
wanted to
preserve in India
the same
protection as
given in America
there was nothing
preventing them
to do so.

Natural Justice

SC rejected this plea &

held that the law in
Art. 21 must mean a law
enacted
by
the
Legislature and not the
law in the abstract or
general
sense
embodying
the
principles
of
natural
justice as interpreted by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

requirements of
Article 14 and 19
also.
Moreover the
procedure
established by
law as required
under Article 21
must satisfy the
test of
reasonableness in
order to conform
to Article 14.

Natural
Justice
is
intended to invest law
with fairness and to
secure
justice.
The
Court said:
Law should be
reasonable
law,
and not enacted
piece of law.
It must be just,
fair
and
reasonable.

Post Maneka Developments:

1. Right to live with Human Dignity
In Maneka Gandhi case, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21.
It held that the right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but it
includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. Elaborating the
same view the Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi,5 said that
5 AIR (1981) 1 SCC 608.
12 | P a g e

the right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means

something more than just physical survival. In this case, the Supreme Court
struck down Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as violation of Article 14 and
21. The impugned Section 3 provided that a detune could have interview
with his legal adviser only one time in a month and that too only after
obtaining prior permission of the district magistrate, Delhi and to take place
in the presence of customs officer.6 The right to live is not confined to the
protection of any faculty or limb through which life is enjoyed or the soul
communicates with the outside world but it also includes the right to live
with human dignity, and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare
necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilitates for reading, writing and expressing ourselves in diverse forms,
freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
It is claimed that this right has neither been granted by the state nor created
by the person himself or herself but exists irrespectively of sex, race and
nationality, as well as from life style. Every human being has been provided
with it. Dignity is related to human subsistence itself; no one can take this
right to dignity away. This right is owned not only by the honest, but also by
dictators, children molesters or other asocial individuals. Even an unborn life
in the body of a mother, mortally ill has the matter-of-course dignity. Thus, an
individual himself or herself is not involved in creation of his or her dignity,
that dignity is put into the person like a ready-made conformation from
aside, that it is like a biological human property that may neither be given,
nor created or lost, that is characteristic even to the unborn life in the body
of a mother. Therefore, in my view the SC court was undoubtedly correct in
pronouncing this right.
In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v UOI 7, also known as Asiad
Workers Case, the Court held that non- payment of minimum wages to the
workers employed in various Asiad projects in Delhi was denial to them to
their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of art 21. Bhagwati
J., (as he then was) speaking for the majority held that the rights and
benefits conferred on the workmen employed by a contractor under various
labor laws are clearly intended to ensure basic human dignity to workmen
6 Justice P.N. Bhagwati.
7 AIR 1982 SC 1473.
13 | P a g e

and if the workmen are derived of any of these rights and benefits, that
would be violation of Art. 21.
This decision has heralded a new legal revolution. It has clothed millions of
workers in factories, fields, mines and project sites with human dignity. They
had fundamental right to maximum wages, drinking water, shelter crches,
medical aid and safety in their respective occupations covered by the
various welfare legislations.
2. Right to Livelihood
In 1960, the Apex Court was of the view that Article 21 of Indian Constitution
does not guarantee right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram8, a case which arose
before Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood
would not fall within the expression life in Article 21. The Court said curtly:
The argument that the word life in Article 21 of the Constitution includes
livelihood has only to be rejected. The question of livelihood has not in
terms been dealt with by Article 21.
But in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 9, popularly known as
the Pavement Dwellers Case a five judge bench of the Court has finally
ruled that the word life in Article 21 includes the right to livelihood also.
The court said: It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or
taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death
sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
aspect if the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the
right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of
livelihood. The court further opined: if the right to livelihood is not treated
as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation. The state may not by affirmative action,
be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the
citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except
according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the
deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.

8 AIR 1960 SC 932.

9 AIR 1986 SC 180.
14 | P a g e

I agree with the courts decision. However, these are second generation
human rights, which consist of social and economic rights of a positive
nature and have to be backed up by political action. The right to
livelihood can be a reality only when the state allocates resources
for providing education or jobs to people.
3. Right to Shelter
In Olga Tellis Case10, the court said that Art. 21 provide that a person can
be deprived of life by a procedure established by law, which meant, a fair,
just and reasonable procedure. Justice Chandrachud observed that after
anxious consideration, the Court came to the conclusion that Section 314 of
the BMC Act for removal of encroachments on footpaths could not be
regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. However, while holding that
Section 314 was constitutional, the Supreme Court order also laid down that
the eviction of the slum and pavement dwellers could be done only after
arranging alternative accommodation for them and not before that.
Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a
reasonable accommodation, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal
Totame11 the Court held that,
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.
4.
Right to Privacy
It is now a settled position that right to life and liberty under Art. 21 includes
right to privacy. Right to privacy is a right to be let alone. A citizen has a
right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters.
10 AIR 1986 SC 180.
11 (1990) 1 SCC 520: AIR 1990 SC 630.
15 | P a g e

Right to privacy is not an absolute right: Right to life includes right to

privacy. In Kharak Singh v. State of UP12, the court held that police
surveillance of a person by domiciliary visits would be violative of Article 21
of the Constitution. The majority judgment in the impugned case was of the
opinion that our constitution does not in terms confer any constitutional
guarantee like right to privacy. But, Subba Rao, J. in his minority judgment
opined that though the constitution does not expressly declare a right to
privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of
personal liberty in Art. 21. The right to personal liberty takes in not only the
right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements but also free from
encroachments on his private life.
Mathew, J. in his classic judgment in Govind v. State of MP13, accepted the
right to privacy as an emanation from Arts. 19 (a), (d) and 21, but right to
privacy is not an absolute right. Assuming that the fundamental rights
explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to
privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject
to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest. Surveillance by
domiciliary visits need not always be an unreasonable encroachment on the
privacy of a person owing to the character and antecedents of the person
subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which
surveillance is made. The right to privacy deals with persons, not places.
5. Sexual harassment of working women: violative of Art 14 and
21.
In case of Vishakha v. state of Rajasthan14, the SC has made it clear that
the sexual harassment of working women amounts to violation of right of
gender equality and right to life and personal liberty. As a logical
consequence it also amounts to the violation of right to practice any
profession, occupation or trade. The SC laid down certain guidelines to be
observed at all work place or other institutions until legislation is enacted for
the purpose. These guidelines would be treated as the law declared by SC
12 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.

13 1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946.

14 AIR 1997 SC 3011.
16 | P a g e

under Art 141. This case law provided relief to millions of working women
who were compelled to remain silent at their working place even though they
face sexual comment, harassment etc. In fact this case fills the lacuna in law
to deal with this kind of problem facing by working women at their working
place.
6. Right to Health & Medical Aid
In Parmananda Katara Vs. Union of India 15, it was held that it is the
professional obligation of all doctors (government or private) to extent
medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without legal
formalities to be complied with the police. Article 21 casts the obligation on
the state to preserve life. 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. No law or state action can
intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members
of the medical profession.

7. Right to live in a Pollution Free Environment

The judiciary expanded the meaning and scope of art. 21 and included the
right to a healthy, clean environment; in other words, the right to life
includes a pollution-free environment including water and air, because in the
absence of a pollution-free environment the right to life will be meaningless.
The right to a clean and wholesome environment was brought under the
umbrella of Article 21.
Doon Valley Case16: This case is the first example or first indication of the
right to a healthy environment. In this case a letter sent by and NGO to the
Supreme Court was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. It was alleged in that letter that the illegal limestone mining in
the Doon Valley was destroying the fragile eco-system. The Supreme Court
held that even if the limestone quarry contractors have invested large sums
of money and expended considerable time and effort, the right of people
around to live in a healthy environment must be protected and safeguarded.

15 AIR 1989 SC 2039.

16 Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra Dehradun V/s State of U. P. AIR 1985 SC 652).
17 | P a g e

M.C. Mehta V/s Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) 17: This case
relates to the prevention of nuisance caused by the pollution of river Ganga.
This nuisance, treated as a public one, was wide in its range and
indiscriminate in its effect. The Supreme Court issued specific directions for
all the municipalities of the towns situated on the river Ganga. It was
observed by the Court that Article 21 of the Constitution includes a right to
clean and wholesome environment.
Clean, green and pollution free environment is the need of the hour. With
increasing technology and modernization, our environment is also degrading.
But, in my view, it is really not in the power of courts to provide clear air,
water & environment to the people. This can be achieved by everyones
initiative not solely by the courts. However, courts can order removal of
industries or factories away from residential area. Thus, an important
interpretation of art 21 to an extent.
8. Ban On Smoking In Public Places
Murali S.Deora Vs. Union of India18: The Congress leader Murali S.Deora
filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking orders for banning smoking in public
places and the Supreme Court seeing the ill effects of smoking held that
public smoking is banned and it directed all States and Union Territories to
immediately issue orders banning the smoking in public and this ruling of the
Court is to boost the public health. Thus the Center has introduced an AntiSmoking Bill in the parliament and it is being implemented in many parts of
the Country but not effective at present.
9. Compensation for Violation of Article 21
In Rudal Singh v. State of Bihar19, the Supreme Court has held that the
Court has the power to award monetary compensation in appropriate cases
where there has been a violation in the constitutional right of the citizens. In
this case the Supreme Court directed Bihar Government to pay
Compensation of Rs. 30,000 to Rudal Singh who had to remain in jail for 14
years because of irresponsible behavior of the State Government Officers
even after acquittal.

17 AIR 1988 SC 111.

18 AIR 2002 SC 40.
19 (1983) 4 SCC 141.
18 | P a g e

10. Right of Prisoners

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 which 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. In
Charles Sobraj20 and Sunil Batra21, it was held that a prisoner was not
denuded of his fundamental rights such as right to equality or right to life or
personal liberty beyond what has been taken away by the nature of the
imprisonment itself.

CONCLUSION
In India a liberal interpretation is made by judiciary after 1978 and it has
tried to make the term Procedure established by law as synonymous with
Due process when it comes to protect individual rights. In Maneka Gandhi
Vs Union of India case (1978) SC held that Procedure established by law
within the meaning of article 21 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. Thus, the
procedure established by law has acquired the same significance in India as
the due process of law clause in America.
20 Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail AIR 1978 SC 1514.
21 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675.

19 | P a g e

In the end it can be concluded that Article 21 has become the means by
which to create new rights and entitlements. Questions regarding the
constitutional validity of death sentences, a persons liberty to die, whether
personal liberty included the right to privacy, and whether freedom of speech
included the right to information, were legitimate concerns of judicial
activism because the Court was called upon to articulate the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, a prisoners right to humane
treatment, a prisoners right to a speedy trial, and an accused criminals
right to legal aid emanated from the fundamental rights guaranteed by
Articles 21 and 22 and the directive principles of state policy contained in
Article 39-A of the Constitution. Even in regard to such rights, the Court can
merely declare them part of the normative order, but cannot articulate them
in reality, which is evident from the fact that a large number of people have
obtained neither the right to speedy trial nor the right to legal aid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites:

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm
http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art21.pdf

20 | P a g e

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/khap-panchayat-signs-ofdesperation/article424506.ece.

Books:

Pandey, J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, 47th Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad,
2010, p. 269

Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, 2010. Oxford Reference Online.
Oxford University Press. Malmo hogskola. 31 January 2011.

Biswas and Sengupta, Principles of Interpretation of Statutes, (Kamal Law House,

Kolkata, 1st Edition, 2010), 175- 202.

Datar P Arvind on the Constitution of India, 2nd Edition. Reprint, 2010.

Kmiec, Keenan D. (2004). The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism'.
Cal. L. Rev. 92: 1441, 1447.

21 | P a g e