“DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY AS A HUMAN RIGHTS:
LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT”
Mohammad Hashim Khan
BA.LL.B. 3rd Year, S & S Law College Indore
Abstract- Individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole can all flourish and develop more effectively when they have access to human rights. These are thought to be essential in achieving happiness. Individuals of all ages, classifications, and origins have the right to live lives that are enhanced. As a result, individuals must recognise human rights in order to live enriched lives.
Individuals who participate in many areas, such as social, religious, cultural, economic, political, educational, and vocational, are better able to carry out their work tasks when they understand and are supplied with human rights. In other words, these rights make it easier for individuals to participate effectively
The right to life and personal liberty is the most fundamental right that every human being should have at all times. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This was done in order to attain the "justice" mentioned in the Preamble through citizens' all-around growth. There's no denying that the Indian judiciary has a long history.
Both in reading and executing the Constitution, up to the expectations of the framers. Though there was some hesitancy at first, Article 21 was eventually approved.
The origins and evolution of human rights in India, the definition of human rights and the right to life and personal liberty, and the growth of article 21 in the context of the constitution are the primary topics covered in this research paper.
Keywords: Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Article 21, Supreme Court, Indian Constitution.
1 INTRODUCTION
From birth to death, every man and woman in the globe has fundamental rights and freedoms. Human rights are the conditions that allow everyone to live in dignity, freedom, equality, justice, and peace. They guaranteed equality to everyone, regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or religious beliefs, national or social origin, property, birth, or social rank. Human rights are critical to people's and communities' overall well-being.
―HUMAN,‖ since everything on this planet, in my opinion, has the right to live. The right to life is the most fundamental human right. The deviation from that right affects all other rights. When you consider many different rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement, it's easy to see why none of them mean anything without the right to life.
You can't vote if you don't have life. You can't speak if you don't have life. You can't move without life. You can't have unrestricted will without existence. You can't just do anything you want with your life. All of this is for naught if you don't have the right to live.
―If integrity is not safe, legislation is not safe.
If legislation is not safe, the constitution is not safe.
If the constitution is not safe, rights are not safe.
If rights are not safe, freedom is not safe.
If freedom is not safe, democracy is not safe.
If democracy is not safe, voters are not safe.
If voters are not safe, citizens are not safe.
If citizens are not safe, leaders are not safe.
If leaders are not safe, nations are not safe.
If nations are not safe, the world is not safe.‖
― Matshona Dhliwayo The aboriginal rights for the evolution of human nature are the right to life and personal liberty. The British Magna Carta of 1215 became the wellspring of the right to life and personal liberty. The right to life and personal liberty was proclaimed a basic right for the first time in the United States Constitution when it was amended. ―No one shall be
deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law,‖ according to the Constitution. Different democratic countries have accepted it as a fundamental right to life and personal liberty in their separate constitutions. The right to life and personal liberty was also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which said, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person."
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person (citizen or non-citizen) shall be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty. It encompasses the rights to a decent life, to a livelihood, to privacy, to shelter, to health, to a speedy trial, to information (RTI), to travel abroad, to sleep, to be free from inhumane treatment, and a few others.
2 WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity." - Nelson Mandela Human Rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to in order to live with dignity. Human rights demand that everyone's inherent integrity be recognised and appreciated so that they are protected from abuses that degrade their dignity and provided the opportunities they need to fulfil their full potential without discrimination.
India is the world's largest democracy. Its primary goal is to defend people's fundamental rights. Individual rights are protected by the Indian Constitution, which expresses concern for them. Civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are all included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The majority of the human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
2.1 Development of Human Rights:
Human rights refer to the fundamental freedoms, privileges, and protections that all people are entitled to. Human rights are not limited to a single government or faith. They no longer have a range in times of war or peace. Human rights are universal and inalienable rights that everyone has access to. Governments should ideally sell and defend human rights through legal institutions.
The Buddhist belief in nonviolence has delivered a message that everyone should be given the chance to enjoy equal rights and opportunities. Humans should be drawn to virtues such as nonviolence, honesty, freedom from wrath, renunciation, aversion to blaming, compassion for living beings, freedom from covetousness, kindness, humility, and stability, which are qualities that all people should possess.
Human rights were as much a part of ancient Hindu and Muslim civilizations as they were of European Christian civilizations, according to the historical period of ancient Bharat. The emperors Ashoka and Akbar cannot be omitted from the human rights geneology. Students who have spent a long time studying the Hindu Dharmashastras, and hence the Arthashastras and various legal treatises from the past, have uncovered the human rights system. The rulers were willing to supplement their knowledge of procedures in order to fulfil their tasks effectively.
In ancient India, law was supported the principle of Dharma. The Epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata make us learn that Dharma was ordained for the advancement of all creatures also as restraining creatures from injuring each other. The righteousness has been described because the essence of Dharma within the Bhagwad Geeta. The Upanishads speak of Dharma because the foundation of whole universe. The Vedas and Smritis mention the concept of “Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam” (the whole world together family). All the four Vedas enforce equality and dignity for human rights and Indian constitution.
The principle of Dharma was used to support law in ancient India. The epics Ramayana and Mahabharata teach us that Dharma was established for the advancement of all creatures as well as to prevent them from harming one another. Within the Bhagwad Geeta, righteousness has been described as the essence of Dharma. Dharma is described in the Upanishads as the foundation of the entire universe. The notion of "Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam" is mentioned in the Vedas and Smritis (the whole world together family). All four Vedas uphold human rights and the Indian constitution's equality and dignity.
In modern times, the central government has implemented several significant legislation.
2.2 Human Rights and Indian Constitution:
The importance of human rights is expressed in India's constitution, not officially but through several provisos, such as in Preamble, secularism, socialism, democracy, justice, equality, liberty, and brotherhood are all words that come to mind when thinking about the preamble. Fundamental rights and directive principles (Part 3/4, Indian Constitution) also Fundamental Duties.
The Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993, which adds the term DIGNITY to the Right to Life, has already been passed. Human rights are addressed by a number of commissions and ministries, including the NCW, NCPCR, MSJW, and others.
The Indian Constitution (hereafter referred to as the Constitution) protects Fundamental Rights, which are divided into six categories :
Rights to Equality (Articles 14-18),
Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22),
Protection from Exploitation (Articles 23-24),
Religious Freedom (Articles 25-28),
Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30), and
Constitutional Remedies. (Article 32).
2.3 Right to Life:
―No person except according to procedure established by law shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.‖
One of the earliest notions to be protected by national courts is an individual's right to life and personal liberty. Article 21's concept of right to life and personal liberty has been given a considerably broader interpretation in India. The Indian Supreme Court has rejected the notion that liberty solely refers to freedom from bodily restraint, instead holding that it embraces those rights and benefits that have long been recognised as vital to free men's orderly pursuit of happiness.
The Supreme Court explained the meaning of the right to life and personal liberty in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a case that arose out of a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which allowed for surveillance through domiciliary visits and secret picketing. The majority and minority on the bench both relied on an American decision (per Field, J.) in Munn v. Illinois, which found that the term "life" meant more than mere animal existence.
The prohibition on its denial extended to all or any of the boundaries and capacities through which one could enjoy life. The majority held that the U. P. Police Regulations, which allowed cops to make domiciliary visits in the dark as a form of surveillance, were unconstitutional because they deprived people of their right to life and liberty. The Court also stated that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free of restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether directly enforced or indirectly induced by calculated methods.
The Supreme Court echoed the foregoing views in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, holding that the right to life and personal liberty encompassed the right to live a healthy life in order to enjoy all of the physical body's faculties in their prime circumstances. It would also include the right to protect one's tradition, culture, heritage, and everything else that gives meaning to one's existence. It also covers the rights to live in peace, sleep in peace, and rest in peace.
• Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, 1976;
• Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 etc.
• Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1987;
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;
• National Commission for Women Act, 1990;
• National Commission for Minorities Act,1992;
• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993;
• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1995;
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000;
Inspired by Indian principles and ethos, which are most usually stated in one of our Shanti Mantras :
―Sarve bhavantu sukhinah Sarve santu niraamayaah Sarve bhadraani pashyantu
Maakaschit duhkha bhaag bhavet‖
2.4 Procedure Established by Law:
In a slew of cases, the phrase "process established by law" has been interpreted differently.
A review of these instances demonstrates that the Court has broadened the reach of the expression in this judicial interpretation process. According to the Supreme Court of India, the procedure established by legislation in Article 21. It was denied to equate the procedure prescribed by law and enacted by the state with the procedure prescribed by law and enacted by the state.
"Due process of law" in the United States.
However, the Supreme Court later stated that the legal procedure for depriving a person of his or her life and personal liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable," rather than "arbitrary, fanciful, and oppressive," or the procedure would be null and void.
Article 21 would not be met if the criterion was not met in any way.
As a result, in India, the legal procedure now has the same weight as the due process clause in the United States. Though our Constitution does not contain a due process clause, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer has stated that the result of the verdict in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (hereinafter Maneka Gandhi's case) is the same, and thus Article 21 may be considered a counterpart to the due process clause in the American Constitution.
In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India stated that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no one's right to life and personal liberty can be taken away without following the proper legal procedures. Smoking in public spaces, according to the Court, is an indirect impairment of life for non-smokers without due process of law.
The Supreme Court ordered that smoking be prohibited in public areas, citing the harmful effects of smoking on both smokers and passive smokers. It directed the Union of India, state governments, and union territories to adopt appropriate measures to prohibit smoking in public venues such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, health facilities, and educational institutions.
As a result, it is widely established that the "process created by law" to deprive a person of his or her life and personal liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable," and not
"arbitrary, whimsical, or burdensome.‖
2.5 Expanding interpretation of right to life and personal liberty:
Article21 has the shortest original length of any of the articles. It guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, stating that no one may be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with legal procedures. This right, which applies to both Indian citizens and foreigners, has been interpreted and reinterpreted numerous times in various cases, making it one of the Indian constitution's "broadest" and most important fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has offered varied interpretations to Article 21:
The article is open to further expansion since its original definition is quite vague.
With various activist judgments, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been expanding the scope of the Article. Initially, the phrase "personal liberty" was read narrowly, limiting Article 21's protection to personal liberty against unlawful confinement.
The majority of the Supreme Court bench in Gopalan vs. State of Madras held that, by adopting the expression procedure established by law, Art. 21 of our Constitution had embodied the English concept of personal liberty rather than the American concept of "due process of law," even though, according to the minority opinion of the bench, the result of such interpretation was to throw out the English concept of personal liberty.
The concept of "personal liberty" was gradually interpreted more generously by the judiciary. ―...that ‗personal liberty' is used in the Article as a compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the ―personal liberties‖ of man
other than those dealt with in the several clauses of Article 19,‖ the Supreme Court held in Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963. In other words, whereas Article 19(1) deals with specific species or aspects of that freedom, Article 21's "personal liberty" encompasses and includes the remainder."
Simply said, the right to freedom is one of many manifestations of the right to life and personal liberty. As a result, whatever applies to the right to freedom—in this case, the reasonableness test—also applies to the right to life and personal liberty. ―The expression
‗personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the broadest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberty of man, and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct Fundamental Rights and given additional protection,‖ the Court said in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
As a result, a statute that falls under Art. 21 must also meet Art. 19's conditions. To put it another way, a legislation enacted by the state that intends to deprive a person of his or her personal liberty must provide a mechanism for doing so that is not arbitrary, unfair, or irrational. When the reasonableness test is used to determine the constitutionality of a legislation restricting a person's liberty, it follows that the law is invalid if it breaches natural justice principles. [By connecting Art.21 and Art.19, the concept of ‗reasonability' and hence fairness is applied to Art.21, and thus the concept of ‗due process of law' is established.]
3 CONCLUSION
According to Article 21 of the Constitution, "No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with legal procedure." Maneka Gandhi's case is not only a watershed moment in the interpretation of Article 21, but it also provided a fresh perspective on Chapter III of the Constitution. Prior to Maneka Gandhi's ruling, Article 21 only protected the right to life and personal liberty against the executive branch's arbitrary actions, not from legislative action. In general, this ruling extended this protection to include legislative action as well.
Right to live with Human Dignity
Right to a decent pollution free environment
Right to livelihood
Right to privacy
Right to shelter
Right to Health
Right to free education up to age 14
Right to free legal aid
Right against solitary confinement
Right to speedy trial !!
Right against Handcuffing!!
Right against inhuman treatment
Right against delayed execution
Right to travel abroad
Right against bonded labour
Right against Custodial Harassment
Right to emergency Medical aid
Right to timely medical treatment in government hospitals
Right not to be driven out of a state
Right to fair trial
Right of prisoner to have necessities of life Right to hearing
Right to information
Right to reputation
Right to hearing, etc
The Supreme Court was once again asked to assess the meaning and content of the phrase 'personal liberty' in Maneka Gandhi's case. The Supreme Court not only overturned A.K. Gopalan's case, but also expanded the meaning of the term "personal liberty."
Following that, the meaning of Art. 21 right to life and personal liberty has taken on new dimensions and has reached a new frontier. However, judicial activity can lead to SUPREME ERROR, and it can also reflect when judicial activism oversteps its bounds and becomes judicial adventurism, which takes the form of judicial overreach.
Furthermore, the Indian Court purposefully failed to recognise the true nature of LIFE. i.e. Life in Hinduism encompasses Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha—all of which are meaningless without them. Article 21, Right to Life, stands alone as a living human flesh.
―Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu‖ i.e. MAY ALL BE HAPPY.
REFERENCES Authors –
Chapter III. Human Rights in India – An Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2021 from niu.edu.in
Prasoon Shekhar, ―Human Rights and Constitution of India‖,
Amartish Kaur (2017), ―Protection of Human Rights in India – A Review‖, Jamia Law Journal, Vol.2.
Ms. Nidhi Madan, History and Development of Human Rights in India, Volume 22, Issue 6, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017
―Constitutional Law Right to Life & Personal Liberty‖, www. lkouniv.ac.in
Vidhan maheshwari ―article 21 of the constitution of india - the expanding horizons‖ http:// www.
Legalserviceindia.com /articles/art222.html Case Laws -
K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
Murli S. Deora v. Union Of India and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 765; AIR 2002 SC 40; 2002 (1) ALD 88 SC;
2001 (6) ALT 35 SC Websites -
https://www.quora.com/ human-rights-in-the-Indian-constitution
https://www.quora.com/Which-of-the-human-rights-do-you-personally-think-is-the-most-important
