Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most powerful and frequently invoked provisions for the protection of fundamental rights. It provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” In simple words, it means that the State cannot take away anyone’s life or personal freedom unless it follows a legal procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable.
Though the sentence appears short and simple, the scope of Article 21 is vast. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted this provision liberally, turning it into a guarantee of numerous human rights such as the right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to education, the right to privacy, and the right to a clean environment. This makes Article 21 the heart and soul of fundamental rights, influencing almost every area of Indian life and governance.
This blog provides a detailed study of Article 21—its text, meaning, evolution through landmark judgments, and its role in modern times.
Text and Meaning of Article 21
The text of Article 21 is as follows:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Breaking this into key components:
-
No person – The protection extends to every individual, whether a citizen or a foreigner. Even non-citizens and prisoners are protected under this Article.
-
Life and personal liberty – It covers not only physical existence but also the right to live with dignity and all that makes life meaningful.
-
Except according to procedure established by law – The State can interfere with life or liberty only by following a fair, just, and reasonable legal process.
Initially, Indian courts interpreted the phrase “procedure established by law” narrowly, meaning that as long as a law was passed by the legislature, the State could deprive a person of liberty.
However, later judgments—most importantly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)—gave this phrase a broader and more protective meaning, bringing it close to the American concept of due process of law.
History of Article 21
In the early years, the Supreme Court took a literal and narrow view of Article 21. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Court held that as long as a law provided some procedure, the deprivation of life or liberty was valid, even if the procedure was unfair or unreasonable. This meant that preventive detention laws, for example, were upheld even if they were harsh.
The interpretation of Article 21 changed dramatically with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). In this case, the government had impounded the petitioner’s passport without giving reasons. The Supreme Court ruled that procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.
The Court read Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Freedom of Movement and Expression) together with Article 21, creating the famous doctrine of “triple test”: any law depriving a person of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, and must not violate equality or fundamental freedoms.
This landmark case transformed Article 21 into a dynamic source of many fundamental rights, making it the foundation for a modern understanding of liberty and dignity.
Scope of the Right to Life
The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution goes far beyond the mere act of staying alive. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the term “life” means something more than animal existence. It includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life that make it worth living.
The expression “life” in Article 21 does not merely mean animal existence or survival. It includes living with human dignity and all that makes life worth living. Courts have read many rights into the right to life, such as:
The right to live with dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 1981).
The right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985).
The right to health and medical care (Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995).
The right to a clean environment and pollution-free air and water (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 and subsequent cases).
The right to shelter and adequate housing.
The right to education, later reinforced by the 86th Constitutional Amendment and Article 21A.
By expanding the meaning of “life,” the courts have turned Article 21 into a living charter of human rights, ensuring that every person enjoys not just existence but a life of dignity and quality.
Initially, in the early years after independence, Article 21 was given a narrow meaning. In the famous A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court held that as long as there was a law prescribing a procedure, the State could deprive a person of life or liberty.
But this changed with the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment, where the Court ruled that procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. Since then, the right to life has been read in a liberal and dynamic way, making it a source of many fundamental rights.
The right to life now includes the right to live with dignity, which means the State must create conditions where people can enjoy a life of respect and basic human needs. It also covers the Right to livelihood, ensuring that people are not deprived of their means of living without a fair procedure.
The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life. Similarly, the right to health and medical care, recognized in cases like Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995), is treated as essential to living a full life.
Environmental rights also fall within the scope of Article 21. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court declared that the right to a healthy and pollution-free environment is an integral part of the right to life.
The right to clean drinking water, fresh air, and a balanced ecology are now recognized as fundamental. Education, too, has been included within this scope through Article 21A and supporting case law, ensuring that children have access to free and compulsory education.
Modern developments have further extended this scope. The right to privacy, affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), is now seen as a core element of the right to life, protecting personal choices, data, and dignity in the digital age. The courts have even recognized the right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia under strict safeguards (Common Cause v. Union of India, 2018).
Scope of the Right to Personal Liberty
The right to personal liberty is an essential part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
While the word liberty at first glance may suggest only freedom from physical restraint, the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that its meaning is much wider. Personal liberty covers a range of rights and freedoms that together ensure that every individual can live with dignity, autonomy, and self-determination.
Early Narrow View
In the early years of the Constitution, the scope of personal liberty was interpreted narrowly. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that personal liberty meant only freedom from physical detention or bodily restraint. This meant that as long as the government followed a law providing some procedure for arrest or detention, there was no violation of Article 21, even if the procedure was harsh or unreasonable.
After Maneka Gandhi
This restrictive approach changed with the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case. Here, the government had impounded the petitioner’s passport without giving her a fair opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive. The Court read Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Freedoms such as speech and movement) together with Article 21, creating the “golden triangle” of fundamental rights.
After this case, personal liberty began to be understood in a much broader sense, extending beyond physical freedom to include all those rights and freedoms that are necessary to live a full, dignified, and meaningful life.
Rights Included within Personal Liberty
The expanded scope of personal liberty has led the courts to recognize numerous rights under Article 21, such as:
-
Right to Privacy: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty. This protects individuals from unwarranted surveillance and safeguards personal choices and data.
-
Right to Travel: In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer (1967) and reaffirmed in Maneka Gandhi, the Court ruled that the freedom to travel within India and abroad is part of personal liberty.
-
Right to Free Movement and Residence: Although separately guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e), these freedoms are also protected as part of personal liberty, ensuring individuals can move and live freely anywhere in India.
-
Right to Speedy Trial: In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Court recognized that personal liberty includes the right to a quick and fair trial, so that no person is kept in jail indefinitely without conclusion of the case.
-
Right to Legal Aid: The Court has held that free legal assistance for those who cannot afford a lawyer is part of personal liberty, because no one should lose liberty simply due to poverty.
-
Right against Solitary Confinement and Custodial Torture: Cases like Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) ensured that prisoners are protected from cruel and degrading treatment.
-
Right to Marry and Choose a Life Partner: The right to personal liberty protects the freedom to choose one’s spouse, as seen in judgments upholding inter-faith and inter-caste marriages.
-
Right to Die with Dignity: In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia and living wills as part of the right to personal liberty.
Personal Liberty for All Persons
Article 21 uses the word “no person”, not “no citizen.” This means that the protection of personal liberty extends not only to Indian citizens but also to foreign nationals, refugees, and even prisoners. Everyone on Indian soil is entitled to these guarantees, and the State must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedures before curtailing anyone’s liberty.
Interconnection with Other Fundamental Rights
Personal liberty is closely linked with Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19 (freedom of movement, speech, profession, etc.). After the Maneka Gandhi ruling, any law restricting liberty must satisfy all three articles together. This ensures that liberty is curtailed only when it is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in the public interest.
Importance of Personal Liberty
The broad and evolving meaning of personal liberty under Article 21 ensures that people are free not only from unlawful detention but also from any action that limits their dignity, autonomy, or fundamental choices in life. It safeguards both physical freedom and the freedom to make personal decisions about marriage, family, privacy, health, and way of life.
In short, the scope of the right to personal liberty in India is wide and dynamic. From freedom of movement to the right to privacy and dignity, it guarantees that no one can be deprived of essential freedoms except by a fair, just, and reasonable law, making it one of the strongest pillars of individual freedom in the Indian Constitution.
Protection for Citizens and Non-Citizens
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The use of the word “person”—and not “citizen”—is of great constitutional importance.
It means that the right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed to every human being on Indian soil, whether they are Indian citizens, foreign nationals, refugees, or even stateless persons.
-
Citizens of India.
-
Foreigners visiting India.
-
Stateless persons.
-
Refugees and asylum seekers.
-
Prisoners and detainees.
For example, even a foreign national cannot be deported or detained except according to a fair legal process. Prisoners retain their right to life and dignity and cannot be subjected to torture or degrading treatment..
This broad protection ensures that all individuals enjoy basic human rights while in India’s territory. For example, a foreign tourist, an overseas student, or a refugee cannot be deprived of life or liberty without a fair, just, and reasonable legal procedure.
Even if a person is accused of a crime or is under preventive detention, they must be informed of the reasons for arrest, produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, and given the opportunity to defend themselves.
Indian courts have repeatedly upheld this inclusive approach. In cases like Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court confirmed that foreigners too are entitled to the protection of Article 21, though their right to stay in India can be regulated according to law.
Similarly, prisoners and undertrials—whether Indian or foreign—retain their right to live with dignity and cannot be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment.
Thus, Article 21 acts as a universal guarantee of human rights, ensuring that the State respects the life and liberty of every person within its jurisdiction, irrespective of nationality, citizenship status, or background.
Relationship with Other Fundamental Rights
Article 21 is deeply connected with Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Freedoms of Speech, Movement, etc.), forming what the Supreme Court calls the golden triangle of fundamental rights.
After the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, any law that deprives a person of life or personal liberty must satisfy all three articles together. This means the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable (Article 21), non-arbitrary and equal (Article 14), and must impose only reasonable restrictions on freedoms guaranteed by Article 19.
This interlinking ensures that no law or executive action can curtail personal liberty in an unfair or discriminatory manner. For example, restrictions on travel, speech, or residence must meet the test of reasonableness and equality, not just exist in statute.
Thus, Article 21 strengthens and is strengthened by other fundamental rights, making them mutually reinforcing safeguards for individual freedom and human dignity.
Preventive Detention and Article 21
Preventive detention means detaining a person not for a crime already committed but to prevent a possible future offence. The Indian Constitution permits preventive detention under certain conditions through Article 22, but such detention must still comply with Article 21, which guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This means the State cannot arbitrarily detain someone on mere suspicion. The law must provide a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. Key safeguards include: informing the detainee of the grounds of detention, giving them the right to make a representation, and review of detention by an advisory board of judges within a prescribed time (generally three months).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that preventive detention laws must be strictly interpreted and are subject to judicial review. In cases like A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Court held that while preventive detention is constitutionally permitted, it cannot override the basic protection of life and liberty under Article 21.
This ensures a delicate balance between national security and public order on one hand and individual freedom on the other.
Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
The right to privacy is one of the most important modern dimensions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Although the Constitution does not mention the word privacy, the Supreme Court has held that the right to life and personal liberty necessarily includes the right to privacy. This recognition came after decades of evolving judicial thought, reflecting the increasing importance of personal autonomy and data protection in a digital world.
The landmark judgment is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), where a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously declared privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21.
The Court stated that life and liberty are meaningless without privacy, which protects an individual’s dignity, freedom of thought, and control over personal information. This decision overruled earlier narrow rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963), which had denied such protection.
The right to privacy under Article 21 now covers many areas:
-
Personal autonomy and bodily integrity, including decisions about marriage, family, and reproductive choices.
-
Protection of personal data and digital privacy, regulating how the State and private companies collect and use personal information.
-
Freedom from unwarranted surveillance by the government or others.
-
Confidentiality in medical and personal communications.
At the same time, the Court clarified that privacy is not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions if there is a lawful purpose, such as national security, public order, or protection of others’ rights, and if such restrictions are necessary and proportionate.
By reading privacy into Article 21, the Supreme Court has ensured that every person in India—citizen or non-citizen—enjoys a zone of personal freedom and dignity. In today’s world of mass data collection and digital surveillance, this recognition of privacy as a fundamental right is a vital safeguard for democracy and individual liberty.
Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment
The right to a clean and healthy environment has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Life, the Court has repeatedly said, does not mean mere physical survival but living with dignity, which is impossible without pure air, safe water, and ecological balance.
Beginning with M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and reinforced in later cases like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court held that environmental degradation directly violates the fundamental right to life. It directed governments and industries to control pollution, treat waste, and protect forests and rivers.
This right places a duty on both the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment. It also guides policies on sustainable development, climate action, and industrial activity. By reading environmental protection into Article 21, Indian law ensures that present and future generations can enjoy a life of health, dignity, and ecological security.
Right to Livelihood and Shelter
The right to livelihood and shelter is an important part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Life with dignity cannot exist without the means to earn a living and a safe place to live.
In the landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that depriving pavement dwellers of their livelihood without a fair procedure amounts to depriving them of life itself. This decision firmly established livelihood as a fundamental right.
Similarly, in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Court recognized the right to shelter as a basic need and integral to the right to life. Adequate housing, it observed, is essential for health, privacy, and human dignity.
The Court has also stressed that the State must create conditions that enable citizens to earn a decent living and have safe housing.
By including livelihood and shelter within Article 21, Indian constitutional law ensures that every person has the opportunity to live with dignity and security, not merely to survive.
Right to Speedy Trial and Legal Aid
The right to a speedy trial and free legal aid forms a crucial part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that an accused cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period without conclusion of trial.
In the famous Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) series of cases, the Court ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had spent more time in jail than the maximum punishment for their alleged offences. The Court declared that a speedy trial is an essential and inseparable part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.
Equally important is the right to free legal aid for those who cannot afford a lawyer. In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) and Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Supreme Court held that providing free legal assistance is not charity but a constitutional obligation of the State. Without legal representation, the guarantee of a fair trial and personal liberty would be meaningless.
Together, these rights ensure that no person is deprived of liberty because of poverty, ignorance, or delays in the justice system, making Article 21 a true guardian of fair and timely justice for all.
Right to Die with Dignity and Euthanasia
The right to die with dignity has emerged as one of the most sensitive and evolving aspects of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While Article 21 guarantees the right to life, the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean a life of dignity—not mere animal existence.
In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that the “right to life” does not include the “right to die,” and upheld the validity of laws penalizing abetment of suicide. However, it left open the question of allowing a person to die with dignity in cases of terminal illness.
This issue was addressed in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), where the Court for the first time permitted passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, meaning withdrawal of life support for patients in a persistent vegetative state.
The landmark step came in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21. It legalized passive euthanasia and recognized “living wills”, allowing individuals to state in advance their wishes regarding end-of-life medical treatment.
Through these rulings, the Court has balanced the sanctity of life with respect for personal autonomy and dignity, making Article 21 a living guarantee of humane and compassionate treatment even at the end of life.
Rights of Prisoners and Undertrials
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 applies equally to prisoners and undertrial detainees. Imprisonment does not strip a person of fundamental rights except to the extent that restrictions are unavoidable for confinement. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even those behind bars must be treated with human dignity and protected from torture, cruelty, or degrading treatment.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), the Court ruled that solitary confinement and inhuman jail conditions violate Article 21. In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), it emphasized speedy investigation and fair treatment of women prisoners.
The Hussainara Khatoon (1979) series of cases highlighted that undertrials cannot be kept in jail longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged offence and are entitled to speedy trial and free legal aid.
These rulings make it clear that constitutional rights do not end at the prison gates. The State has a duty to provide adequate food, healthcare, legal assistance, and humane conditions, ensuring that justice remains reformative and humane, not merely punitive.
Article 21 and Emergency Provisions
A unique strength of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is that it remains enforceable even during a national emergency. Originally, during the Emergency of 1975–77, the government claimed the power to suspend all fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty.
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976)—also known as the Habeas Corpus case—the Supreme Court controversially upheld this view, allowing the suspension of Article 21 and denying detainees the right to challenge unlawful arrests.
The experience of that period led to the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, which corrected this flaw. The amendment expressly provides that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even when an emergency is proclaimed under Article 352. This ensures that every person—citizen or non-citizen—retains the right to life and personal liberty even in times of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Today, thanks to this amendment, no government can legally curtail or suspend the core protection of Article 21, making it a permanent and non-derogable guarantee of human rights in India.
Criticism and Challenges
While Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is celebrated as the heart of fundamental rights, its wide and evolving interpretation also brings certain practical and conceptual challenges. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to cover rights ranging from livelihood, health, and education to privacy, environment, and even the right to die with dignity.
Although this has enriched Indian constitutional law, it has also raised concerns about judicial overreach. Critics argue that by reading so many rights into Article 21, the judiciary sometimes performs a legislative function, creating new rights without detailed policy frameworks or parliamentary debate.
Another major challenge is implementation. Many people, especially in rural areas and among the poor, remain unaware of their rights under Article 21. Long delays in investigation and trial mean that undertrial prisoners often spend years in jail, undermining the guarantee of a speedy trial.
Preventive detention laws are sometimes misused, allowing authorities to detain individuals on vague grounds. In addition, police excesses, custodial torture, and fake encounters continue to threaten the right to life and personal liberty.
Modern technological developments have added new concerns. Mass surveillance, data collection, and misuse of personal information can infringe on the right to privacy. Environmental degradation and inadequate public healthcare also test the promise of a clean and dignified life.
Even though the 44th Amendment ensures that Article 21 cannot be suspended during emergencies, extraordinary security laws and prolonged detentions can still create situations where liberty is seriously restricted.
Contemporary Relevance
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution continues to be one of the most dynamic and relevant fundamental rights in modern times. As society, technology, and governance evolve, new dimensions of life and liberty constantly emerge.
Issues such as data privacy, cyber security, artificial intelligence, and mass digital surveillance bring fresh challenges to personal freedom and reinforce the need for strong constitutional protection. The Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) is a key example of adapting Article 21 to the digital age.
Public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic have also highlighted that the right to health and medical care is central to the right to life. Similarly, rising concerns over climate change, pollution, and environmental degradation give Article 21 renewed importance for ensuring a clean and safe environment. By safeguarding dignity, equality, and security in changing conditions, Article 21 remains a living guarantee of human rights, shaping the future of Indian democracy.
Conclusion
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is rightly called the heart of fundamental rights. What began as a simple guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty has, through bold and progressive judicial interpretation, grown into a comprehensive charter of human rights.
It now embraces the right to live with dignity, the right to privacy, the right to livelihood, the right to health, the right to a clean environment, the right to speedy trial, and even the right to die with dignity.
From early cases like A.K. Gopalan to transformative ones like Maneka Gandhi, K.S. Puttaswamy, and Common Cause, Article 21 has been the foundation for some of India’s most significant constitutional developments. It stands as a constant reminder that individual liberty is the cornerstone of democracy.
Even as society and technology change, Article 21 continues to protect every person—citizen or foreigner—by ensuring that no one can be deprived of life or personal liberty except through a fair, just, and reasonable legal process.
In the words of the Supreme Court, Article 21 ensures that “life is not mere animal existence but a life of dignity and freedom,” making it one of the most vital guarantees in the Indian Constitution.
COMMENTS