The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) primarily underscored ‘human dignity’ in the human rights discourse. These rights are inherent in all human beings and cannot be taken away without a fair and reasonable procedure by the State. Article 21 of the Indian constitution is an umbrella of various inalienable human rights that seek to uphold this ideal. It essentially protects the life and personal liberty of the citizens as well as non-citizens from arbitrary state actions. This article has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a highly substantive manner. It has engulfed in itself innumerable human rights that are needed for each individual to live life with human dignity.
In Maneka Gandhi’s case[1], the court held that the right to life does not mean the mere animal existence of the body. Rather, it confers upon individuals the right to live with basic human dignity. Human rights are indispensable in a civil society. Article 21 is a custodian of human rights in the Indian Constitution. Moreover, it has also been upheld by the court that this right can be enforced against private individuals too if they perform public functions[2].
According to the UDHR, every person attains entitlement to a basic standard of living. This includes proper sanitation, health facilities, food, clothing, housing, and social security in certain adverse cases of unemployment[3]. This provision is relatable to the judgment delivered in the Francis Coralie case[4] wherein the court held that right to life is the most precious human right. It also held that this right constitutes the availability of bare necessities of life like adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter. This right involves the minimum expression of human self in diverse forms like reading, writing, freely moving around and mingling with fellow human beings. In the Olga Tellis case[5], the court had also laid down that the ‘Right to Livelihood’ emerges out of the ‘Right to Life.’ Livelihood is an integral part of life as no person can live without means of living.
The World Health Organisation Constitution acknowledges ‘Right to the highest attainable standard of health’ as a human right. It implies a legal obligation on the States to ensure appropriate conditions for the enjoyment of health for all people without any discrimination[6]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has incorporated the right to health and medical care in Article 21[7]. The court has also held that status quo ante cannot be restored once the life is lost[8]. Preservation of life is of paramount importance and Article 21 casts such an obligation on the State. There exists a professional obligation on the doctors in the community to extend timely medical treatment to the injured in critical conditions even without completing the legal formalities.
There is recognition of environmental dimension of Article 21 in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[9]. The right to wholesome environment is an intrinsic part of Article 21. This encompasses the enjoyment of pollution-free air and clean water. It also includes the right to clean surroundings and a decent environment which leads to a healthy mind and body[10]. If anything endangers the life of citizens in this derogation, they can approach the court under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution.
The international human rights standards entail the protection of family, as a fundamental unit of society, by the State[11]. Under Article 22 of the UDHR, individuals also possess right to social security through national and international co-operation along with economic, social and cultural rights for the development their personality.
Likewise, Supreme Court holds, in case of Regional Directors ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa[12] ,that right to social security and protection of family comes within the ambit of Article 21. It has also been discerned that socio-economic rights are basic aspirations to realize the meaning of Right to life. Apart from this, the free choice of employment and favorable working conditions are also accredited as human rights[13], whereas the same right has transcended through Article 21 that acquires its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy[14]. It encapsulates various policies like protection of health of workers, adequate wages, humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
These human rights are all-embracing. Certain fundamental rights also exist for prisoners as well as detainees. Nobody should be arrested, detained or exiled arbitrarily[15]. Everyone has a right to fair procedure following the tenets of criminal justice like presumption of innocence and fitting penalty[16]. In India, although the prisoners face deprivation of certain rights, they do not abandon their right to life and personal liberty except via procedure establishment under the law. The prisoners’ right to free legal aid by government to ensure a fair and reasonable trial is implicit in Article 21[17]. Considering the large number of under trial prisoners, the court has held that the right to a speedy trial[18] and the right to bail[19] and also flow from Article 21. Besides these, the prisoners also have various opportunities to read and write books and get them published thus exercising their right to personal liberty[20].
The protection of honor, reputation, privacy, and personal liberties of individuals from arbitrary interference or attacks is a human right[21]. In the Indian context, the enshrining of these entitlements is under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust[22], that good reputation is a part of personal security and is protected at par with the right to enjoy life, liberty and property. The court has also viewed right to privacy and right to live without unwanted interference to be attracted by Article 21[23]. This right to privacy has been further amplified by the court while dealing with various aspects like abortion, tapping of telephone, right to go abroad and so on. In the recent judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[24], the court also decriminalized homosexuality as the preexisting provision was violate of Article 21 of the constitution.
Human beings do not have a mere physical existence, but they also have a mind. Human rights essentially subsist to make an individual’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a guardian of these human rights. It enables a person to exploit their own potential at the greatest possible extent and provides opportunities to enhance their personality. Human life has its own charm and therefore it has to be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. However, the court has undertaken a purposive approach while interpreting the said article to protect human rights and balance them with just and reasonable procedure established by law. Article 21 is indispensable along the lines of human rights as it fails suspension even during an emergency. This provision is very crucial to ensure that we, as a democratic nation, respect and uphold human rights.
References:
[1] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
[2] Binny v. Sadasivan, 2005 (6) SCJ 156
[3] United Nations (1948). Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[4] Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746
[5] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
[6] Human rights and health. (2017, December 29). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health
[7] State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, AIR (1997) SC 1225
[8] Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, AIR (1989) 2039
[9] AIR 1991 SC 420
[10] Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 SCC 413
[11] United Nations (1948). Art 16(3), Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[12] (1993) Supp 4 SCC 100
[13] United Nations (1948). Art 23, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[14] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802
[15] United Nations (1948). Art 9, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[16] United Nations (1948). Art 11, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[17] M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
[18] Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
[19] Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 527
[20] State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, AIR 1966 SC 424
[21] United Nations (1948). Art 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[22] AIR 1989 SC 714
[23] PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
[24] W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016 D. No. 14961/2016
0 Comments