3. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.

In the famous Gopalan case11 (1950), the Supreme Court has taken a narrow interpretation of the Article 21. It held that the protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action. This means that the State can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a person based on a law. This is because of the expression 'procedure established by law’ in Article 21, which is different from the expression

'due process of law’ contained in the American Constitution. Hence, the validity of a law that has prescribed a procedure cannot be questioned on the ground that the law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust. Secondly, the Supreme Court held that the 'personal liberty’ means only liberty relating to the person or body of the individual. But, in Menaka case12 (1978), the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Gopalan case by taking a wider interpretation of the Article 21. Therefore, it ruled that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable, fair and just. In other words, it has introduced the American expression 'due process of law’. In effect, the protection under Article 21 should be available not only against arbitrary executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action. Further, the court held that the 'right to life’ as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It also ruled that the expression 'Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its judgement in the Menaka case in the subsequent cases. It has declared the following rights as part of Article 21:

(1) Right to live with human dignity.

(2) Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection against hazardous industries.

(3) Right to livelihood.

(4) Right to privacy.

(5) Right to shelter.

(6) Right to health.

(7) Right to free education up to 14 years of age.

(8) Right to free legal aid.

(9) Right against solitary confinement.

(10) Right to speedy trial.

(11) Right against handcuffing.

(12) Right against inhuman treatment.

(13) Right against delayed execution.

(14) Right to travel abroad.

(15) Right against bonded labour.

(16) Right against custodial harassment.

(17) Right to emergency medical aid.

(18) Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital.

(19) Right not to be driven out of a state.

(20) Right to fair trial.

(21) Right of prisoner to have necessities of life.

(22) Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.

(23) Right against public hanging.

(24) Right to road in hilly areas.

(25) Right to information.

(26) Right to reputation.

(27) Right of appeal from a judgement of conviction

(28) Right to family pension

(29) Right to social and economic justice and empowerment

(30) Right against bar fetters

(31) Right to appropriate life insurance policy

(32) Right to sleep

(33) Right to freedom from noise pollution

(34) Right to sustainable development

(35) Right to opportunity.