RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY - SHREYANSH SINGH
RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
AUTHORED BY - SHREYANSH SINGH
ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution
recognizes the fundamental right to life and dignity as essential components of
human existence. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life
and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by the courts to include the
right to live with dignity. The right to life and dignity is not only a
negative right that protects individuals from arbitrary state action but also a
positive right that requires the state to provide basic necessities such as
food, shelter, healthcare, and education.
The right to life and
dignity has been invoked in several cases involving issues such as the death
penalty, police brutality, custodial deaths, and the rights of prisoners. The
Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of the right to life and dignity
to include the right to a clean environment, the right to privacy, and the
right to access healthcare.
However, despite the
constitutional guarantees, the right to life and dignity remains a distant
dream for many vulnerable sections of society, including women, children,
marginalized communities, and the poor. The challenges include inadequate
implementation of laws, social and economic disparities, and the persistence of
patriarchal attitudes and practices.
Therefore, there is a
need for greater awareness, effective implementation of laws, and proactive
measures to address the structural and systemic barriers that prevent
individuals from realizing their right to life and dignity. The Indian Constitution
recognizes the right to life and dignity as fundamental, and it is the
responsibility of the state and society to ensure that this right is upheld for
all individuals.
INTRODUCTION
The right to life and the right to
live with dignity are two fundamental rights protected by the Indian
Constitution. While Article 21 explicitly safeguards the right to life and
personal liberty, the Indian judiciary has interpreted this right to also
include the right to live in dignity. The right to live with dignity is an
important component of the right to life, and it includes access to basic
requirements such as food, water, healthcare, and education. The Indian
Constitution recognises the significance of these rights and, through various
measures such as Article 15, Article 23, and Article 39, seeks to defend every
citizen's right to life and dignity.
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution
restricts discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of
birth, ensuring that every individual is treated equally and with dignity.
Article 23 prohibits human trafficking and forced labour, safeguarding persons
from being forced to work in harsh conditions that offend their dignity.
Through landmark judgements, the Indian judiciary has played a critical role in
protecting individuals' right to life and dignity. For example, in the Vishaka
case, sexual harassment of women at work was recognised as a violation of their
right to dignity. The court set guidelines to protect women from sexual
harassment and established a system for filing complaints. Similarly, in the
Olga Tellis case, the right to livelihood was recognised as a component of the
right to life. The court ruled that everyone has the right to work and that the
government must provide basic requirements to the homeless and underprivileged.
The right to life and the right to
live in dignity are basic rights protected by the Indian Constitution. These
rights ensure that every individual is treated with respect and dignity and
that their basic needs are provided, through various laws and judicial
interpretation. The Indian judiciary has been vigilant in defending fundamental
rights, and its efforts have contributed to the development of a just and equal
society.
CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE ON ARTICLE 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
provides every citizen with the right to life and personal liberty. While the
provision appears straightforward, there has been significant constitutional
debate over the years regarding the scope and interpretation of Article 21. One
of the major issues raised by Article 21 is whether the right to life includes
the right to die, The Supreme Court of India recognised the right to die with
dignity, stating that individuals had the right to refuse medical treatment.[1]
However, the court overruled the Gian Kaur case in the subsequent Common Cause
case, being held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the
right to die. The court ruled that the right to life is supreme and that the
state is responsible for defending life.
Another point of debate in the
Article 21 issue is the definition of the word 'personal liberty.' The word has
been interpreted to include numerous rights such as the right to privacy, the
right to a livelihood, the right to a clean and healthy environment, and the
right to healthcare. However, the government's use of its power to detain
individuals, particularly during times of emergency, has been a source of
contention. According to the court, the government can only limit an
individual's liberty after following due process of law.
Furthermore, there has been debate
about whether the right to life under Article 21 extends to animals. While
animal rights activists have argued that animals have a right to life, the
courts have ruled that they do not, it is limited to human beings.
The Supreme Court has widened the
scope of Article 21 to include various aspects such as the right to
compensation in cases of wrongful conviction, the right to a speedy trial, and
the right to a fair trial. The court has also ruled that the right to life and
personal liberty includes the right to privacy, and in the Puttaswamy decision,
the right to privacy was recognised as a basic right under the Indian
Constitution. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen
the right to life and personal liberty; yet, its interpretation as well as its
scope have been the subject of a significant constitutional debate. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India
has played an important role in widening the scope of Article 21, ensuring that
every individual is treated with dignity and respect and that their basic needs
are met.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS W.R.T.
RIGHT TO LIFE
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
is one of the most fundamental and important provisions that guarantee the
right to life and personal liberty of all individuals in India. It states that
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law." [2]
The term "life" in Article
21 has been given a broad interpretation by the Indian judiciary. It has been
interpreted to mean a life that is worth living, which includes a person's
physical, mental, and emotional well-being. It encompasses all aspects of a
person's life, including the right to livelihood, right to health, right to a
clean environment, and right to a fair trial. The concept of
"dignity" is strongly related to Article 21's right to life. According
to the Supreme Court of India, the right to life includes the right to live
with dignity, and any act or law that infringes this right is unconstitutional.
The concept of dignity relates to a person's inherent worth, which is
independent of external variables such as wealth, social standing, or power. It
is a fundamental concept that underlies all human rights and is necessary for
safeguarding individual freedom and autonomy.
The right to live with dignity has
been recognized as an essential component of the right to work. The Supreme
Court has held that the right to work with dignity includes the right to a
decent wage, reasonable working hours, and safe and healthy working conditions.
The right to live with dignity has also been expanded to include the right to
die with dignity. In a landmark judgment in 2018, the Supreme Court recognized
the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21. The
court held that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment and be
allowed to die with dignity.
The right to live with dignity is
closely related to the concept of human dignity. Human dignity is the inherent
value and worth of every human being, and it is a concept that is recognized by
various legal frameworks worldwide. The right to live with dignity ensures that
individuals can lead a life of self-respect and fulfilment, and it protects
them from any form of violation of their inherent human dignity.
The Supreme Court of India held that
the right to life under Article 21 is not limited to mere survival, but it
includes the right to live with dignity[3].
The court also held that the term "procedure established by law"
means a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, and it must not be
arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This means that any law or action that
deprives a person of their life or personal liberty must be reasonable and not
arbitrary. The Indian judiciary has widened the scope of the right to life over
time to consist of various other rights that are essential for a person to live
with dignity. For example, the Supreme Court held that the right to life
includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. [4]Similarly,
in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the
right to life includes the right to a livelihood and that no person can be
deprived of a livelihood without due process of law.
The Indian judiciary has also held
that the right to life includes the right to privacy, which was recognized as a
fundamental right in the landmark case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v.
Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy
is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 14 guarantees the right to
equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all individuals in
India. This provision ensures that all individuals are treated equally under
the law, and no one is discriminated against based on religion, race, caste,
sex, or place of birth. The right to equality is closely linked to the right to
life as discrimination and inequality can have a significant impact on a
person's ability to live with dignity.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1974): In this
case, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 requires that the state must act
fairly and reasonably and that it cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The
court held that the principle of reasonableness is implicit in Article 14 and
that any law or action that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair would be
violative of Article 14. This judgment established the principle of
reasonableness as a key component of the right to equality.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
(1992): This case is
also known as the Mandal Commission case. In this case, the Supreme Court held
that reservations in public employment and education for socially and
educationally backward classes do not violate Article 14 if they are based on a
reasonable classification and are aimed at achieving social justice. The court
held that Article 14 does not require absolute equality, but only reasonable
classification based on intelligible differentia, and that the state has the
power to take affirmative action to uplift disadvantaged sections of society
Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution:
Article 19 protects the right to
freedom of speech and expression, which is essential for the protection of life
and liberty. The right to free speech and expression enables individuals to
express their views, opinions, and ideas freely, without fear of retaliation.
This right is critical for promoting democracy and ensuring that individuals
can participate in the governance of the country.
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
(1950): In this
case, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes
the right to criticize the government and its policies and that any law or
action that seeks to restrict or curtail this freedom must meet the test of
reasonableness and public interest. This judgment established the importance of
the freedom of speech and expression in a democracy and emphasized the need to
protect it from arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
(1989): In this
case, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes
the right to express unpopular or controversial views and that any law or
action that seeks to stifle or suppress such views would be unconstitutional.
The court held that the test of reasonableness and public interest must be
applied in a manner that upholds the core values of the Constitution, such as
democracy, pluralism, and tolerance.
Suspension of the right to life and
personal liberty:
The Constitution of India provides
for the suspension of the right to life and personal liberty in certain
situations, such as during a state of emergency declared by the President of
India. However, even in such circumstances, the right to life cannot be
suspended entirely, and it can only be restricted to the extent necessary to
deal with the emergency. The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in
ensuring that the right to life is not arbitrarily suspended during an
emergency, and any restriction must be reasonable and proportionate to the
situation.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
(1976): This case is
also known as the "Habeas Corpus case" and is a landmark judgment
regarding the suspension of the right to life and personal liberty during a
state of emergency. The Supreme Court held that during an emergency, the right
to life and personal liberty could be suspended under Article 359 of the
Constitution. The court held that during such times, the government could take
any action it deemed necessary, and the courts could not question the validity
of such actions. This judgment was later overruled by the Supreme Court in
2017.[5]
LANDMARK CASES PERTAINING TO LIFE AND
DIGNITY
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(1978)
This landmark case in Indian
constitutional law established the concept of due process and the right to be
heard as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case arose when Maneka Gandhi's
passport was impounded by the government because it was in the interest of the
public to do so. She challenged the government's decision, claiming that it
violated her right to freedom of movement, which is protected under Article 21.
The Supreme Court of India heard the
case and held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution was not limited to mere animal existence but extended to the
full range of human rights, including the right to travel abroad. The court
observed that the procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable
and that the state could not deprive a person of their fundamental rights
without following the due process of law. The court also held that the right to
be heard was an essential part of the concept of due process. It observed that
before any decision affecting a person's rights or interests is taken, that
person must be allowed to be heard. The court thus struck down the government's
decision to impound Maneka Gandhi's passport, as she had not been given a
hearing before the decision was made.
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India was significant in that it expanded the scope of Article 21 to include
the right to travel abroad and established the principle of due process as a
fundamental right. It also reaffirmed the importance of the right to be heard
in any decision that affects a person's rights or interests.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation (1985)
This landmark case was heard by the
Supreme Court of India in 1985, concerning the right to livelihood and the
constitutional validity of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which
allowed for the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai (formerly known as
Bombay) without due process.
The petitioner, Olga Tellis, was a
social worker who filed a writ petition on behalf of pavement dwellers in
Mumbai, challenging the constitutionality of Section 314 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, which empowered the Corporation to remove or evict
any person occupying or letting to others any unauthorised structure on any
public street or public place. The petitioner argued that the section violated
the right to life and livelihood, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark
judgment, held that the right to livelihood was a part of the right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the
provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, which allowed for the
eviction of pavement dwellers without providing any alternative arrangements
for their rehabilitation, were unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the
government had a positive obligation to provide housing and basic amenities to
all citizens, including the homeless and pavement dwellers.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
This landmark was case heard by the
Supreme Court of India in 1997, which led to the establishment of guidelines to
prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The case arose from a petition
filed by Bhanwari Devi, a social worker who was gang-raped by upper-caste men
in a village in Rajasthan while trying to prevent child marriage. The case
raised important questions about the rights of women in the workplace, and the
Supreme Court, recognizing the need for a safe and secure work environment,
laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. These
guidelines, known as the Vishaka Guidelines, are not statutory law but have
been recognized by the Supreme Court as part of the fundamental right to gender
equality and the right to life and dignity.
The Vishaka Guidelines provide a
framework for employers to follow to prevent sexual harassment in the
workplace. The guidelines define sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexually
determined behaviour, such as physical contact and advances, a demand or
request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or
any other verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. The guidelines also
require employers to take preventive measures such as setting up a complaints
committee, providing awareness and training programs to employees, and taking
appropriate disciplinary action against offenders. The guidelines further
provide that if the employer fails to prevent or deter sexual harassment, they
will be held liable for any such harassment that occurs.
The Vishaka Guidelines have been seen
as a significant step towards creating a safe and secure work environment for
women in India. [6] The
guidelines have been incorporated into the, which provides a legal framework
for preventing and redressing complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)
It is a landmark case in India that
dealt with the issue of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution. The case involved the arrest of Francis Coralie
Mullin, a social worker and artist, who was taken into custody by the police
without a warrant. Mullin was detained for several hours and subjected to
custodial violence, including physical assault and electric shocks. He was
released on bail the following day. Mullin filed a writ petition in the Delhi
High Court challenging the legality of his arrest and the custodial violence he
had been subjected to. The High Court dismissed his petition, but he then appealed
to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to
all persons, including those who are not citizens of India. The Court also held
that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and the right to
be free from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. In its
judgment, the Court emphasized the need for police officers to follow the due
process of law and respect the rights of individuals. The Court also held that
the police must follow the guidelines laid down in the landmark case of D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) to prevent custodial violence and protect
the rights of arrested persons.
The case of Francis Coralie Mullin v.
The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) is significant as it
established the importance of the right to life and personal liberty in India,
and recognized the need for the State to protect these rights. It also
emphasized the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to respect the rights
of individuals, and the need for them to follow the due process of law.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The Indian Constitution recognizes
the right to life and dignity as fundamental rights. Article 21 of the
Constitution provides every citizen with the right to life and personal
liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity. The right to life and
dignity is a positive right that requires the state to provide basic
necessities such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. The Constitution
also prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of
birth through Article 15 and prohibits human trafficking and forced labour
through Article 23. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in protecting
and expanding the scope of the right to life and dignity through landmark
judgments such as the Vishaka case and the Olga Tellis case. However, the right
to life and dignity remains elusive for many vulnerable sections of society,
and there is a need for greater awareness, effective implementation of laws,
and proactive measures to address the structural and systemic barriers that
prevent individuals from realizing their right to life and dignity. The scope
and interpretation of Article 21 have also been the subject of significant
constitutional debate, with the Supreme Court of India playing a crucial role
in widening the scope of the right to life and personal liberty
CONCLUSION
The right to life and
dignity is a fundamental right recognized by the Indian Constitution. Article
21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
including the right to live with dignity. This right is not limited to mere
existence but also includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses
the basic necessities required for a meaningful life.
However, despite the
constitutional recognition of this right, there are several challenges that
prevent vulnerable sections of society from realizing their right to life and
dignity. These challenges include inadequate implementation of laws, social and
economic disparities, and the persistence of patriarchal attitudes and
practices. For instance, marginalized communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, and
women continue to face discrimination and violence, which violate their right
to life and dignity.
The Indian judiciary has
played a critical role in protecting fundamental rights, including the right to
life and dignity. The scope and interpretation of Article 21 have been the
subject of significant constitutional debates. The judiciary has widened the
scope of Article 21 to include various aspects such as the right to
compensation in cases of wrongful conviction, the right to a speedy trial, and
the right to privacy.
The Supreme Court held
that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, free from
exploitation. In another landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the
right to life does not include the right to die. However,[7],
the Court recognized the right to refuse medical treatment, which can result in
the natural death of an individual.[8]
Furthermore, the Supreme
Court has emphasized the importance of personal liberty in upholding the right
to life and dignity. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963), the
Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty includes the right to
privacy. In subsequent judgments, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of
the right to privacy as an essential component of personal liberty.
In conclusion, the right
to life and dignity is a fundamental right recognized by the Indian
Constitution. The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in protecting
this right, by widening the scope of Article 21 to include various aspects and
emphasizing the importance of personal liberty. However, challenges such as the
inadequate implementation of laws, social and economic disparities, and the
persistence of patriarchal attitudes and practices must be addressed to ensure
that all individuals can realize their right to life and dignity.