SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Sl. No.	TITLE & CITATION	COURT’S ORDER IN BRIEF
1.	Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr Vs. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SC CK 0002	Right to Work The Court went on, however, to put its argument on a firmer – constitutional – footing. It located the Factories Act – and its guarantee of workers' rights – in a long history of labour struggles (para 29), and grounded it within legislative recognition of the "inequality of bargaining power between workers and their employers" (para 30). Drawing upon the Directive Principles as interpretive guides, the Court noted that working hour guarantees and overtime payment had a constitutional foundation, as they came within the ambit of Articles 21 (right to life) and 23 (right against forced labour). Any restriction of those rights, therefore, would have to abide by the principle of proportionality. In the instant case, the Court found that the principle of proportionality had been violated
2.	Indian Hotel And Restaurant Association (Ahar) & Anr  Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors, (2019) 01 SC CK 0036	Right to Work and Right to Earn a Livelihood In this case constitutionality of Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 was upheld and it was held that the Act is not violative to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court Relaxed the stringent conditions for obtaining license for dance bars and also stated that it is not mandatory for the applicant to prove good character and no previous criminal record
3.	Shakti Vahini Vs. Union Of India And Others, (2018) 03 SC CK 0057	“Right to choose life partner”. Very recently, Supreme Court has held the right to choose his or her life partner as fundamental right under Article 21 and directions given to authorities to take all possible preventive steps to combat honour killings and related crimes
4.	Mr ''X'' Vs. Hospital ''Z'', (1998) 09 SC CK 0071	Right to Disclosure of dreadful diseases”. Every person has been held entitled for all human rights including the right to be told about any dreadful and deadly disease. The lady proposing to marry a person is entitled to be informed about her fiancé suffering from HIV + from the doctor in whose treatment the husband is covered. There is no infringement of the fundamental rights under Article 21 if the doctor so informs the lady
5.	COMMON CAUSE (A Regd. Society) & ORS Vs. UNION  OF  INDIA & ORS, (2018) 07 SC CK 0022	“Right to die with dignity”. The Supreme Court has now allowed passive euthanasia under some exceptional circumstances and strict monitoring of the court. In the above judgement, the court has permitted “Living Will” of a patient to withdraw medical support in case if the person concerned goes into irreversible state of coma. Though active euthanasia where something is done to end the life of the patient is not permissible but passive euthanasia when something is not done that would preserve the patient’s life is held to be the fundamental right under Article 21
6.	Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Law And Justice Secretary, (2018) 01 SC CK 0070	“Right to choice of sex”. The 5 Judges Constitution Bench has declared ultravires section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, thereby striking down criminalization in same sex relations between consenting adults. As a result of the above, the LGBT individuals are permitted to engage in consensual intercourse. This is said to be another milestone in the journey of Article 21.
7.	Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Others, (2011) 03 SC CK 0044	“Right to die with dignity”. The Supreme Court has now allowed passive euthanasia under some exceptional circumstances and strict monitoring of the court. In the above judgement, the court has permitted “Living Will” of a patient to withdraw medical support in case if the person concerned goes into irreversible state of coma. Though active euthanasia where something is done to end the life of the patient is not permissible but passive euthanasia when something is not done that would preserve the patient’s life is held to be the fundamental right under Article 21
8.	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), And Anr.  Vs.  Union Of India And Ors., (2017) 08 SC CK 0095	“Right to Privacy”. Under Article 21, the right to privacy is fundamental right as held by 9 judges constitution bench The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution
9.	A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State Of Madras, (1950) 05 SC CK 0006	Procedure Established by Law Supreme Court It is hard to appreciate fully the extent of development of right to life without an overview of the traditional approach. In the traditional interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution was that a procedure established by law can deprive a person of his right to life. Thus, the earliest understanding of this provision was a narrow and procedural one. The state had to demonstrate the interference with the individual’s right to life is accorded with the procedure laid down by properly enacted law. It didn’t matter whether the law was just & fair. Moreover, in Gopalan’s case the Court declined to infuse the guarantee of due process of law, contained in Article 21, with substantive content, holding that as long as the preventive detention statutes had been duly enacted in accordance with the procedures of article 22, the requirements of due process were satisfied. The interpretation as made by the Court was nothing more than the freedom from arrest and detention, from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement of the physical body. Thus, “personal liberty” said to mean only liberty relating to person or body of individual and in this sense it was the antithesis of physical restraint or coercion. In course of time, the traditional and narrow approach of the Supreme Court in interpreting Article 21 has been changed. In Maneka Gandhi’s case, one can find the dramatic change of attitude by the Court in interpreting Article 21 in a manner so as to impliedly include ‘due process of law’ into the contents of Article 21.
10.	Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union Of India And Others, (1996) 08 SC CK 0114	“Right to clean environment”. Article 21 includes right to live life of dignity in healthy environment with proper sanitation system and free of pollution
11.	Vishaka And Others  Vs.  State Of Rajasthan And Others, (1997) 08 SC CK 0003	“Right against sexual harassment at work place”. The Supreme Court has laid down important guidelines to protect and prevent any kind of sexual harassment of a working woman at her workplace in the judgement reported. In the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all work places, the contents of International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14 15 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein. Any International Convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and content thereof, to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee. where after the legislature has also promulgated Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
12.	Khatri And Others  Vs.  State Of Bihar & Ors, (1980) 12 SC CK 0003	“Right to legal aid and right to speedy trial”. Litigation can become unthinkably expensive affecting the rights of indigent persons to have their just and fair claims adjudicated in the courts of law. In view of the same, the Supreme Court has provided liberty to poor persons to apply to the state for free legal services and it shall be the duty of the state to provide assistance to such poor persons and have their claims adjudicated without burden of legal fees and expenses. Right to free legal aid has been held to be the fundamental right and it is the duty and obligation of any trial court to inform the accused about his right to free legal aid. The right to speedy trial has also been held as inalienable right of every citizen of the country. This Court will then decide, on the basis of the material placed before it as to what directions are necessary to be given for setting up more courts, appointing additional judges and providing more facilities by way of staff and equipment, so as to ensure fulfilment of the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
13.	Hussainara Khatoon And Others Vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, (1979) 05 SC CK 0021	“Right to legal aid and right to speedy trial”. Litigation can become unthinkably expensive affecting the rights of indigent persons to have their just and fair claims adjudicated in the courts of law. In view of the same, the Supreme Court has provided liberty to poor persons to apply to the state for free legal services and it shall be the duty of the state to provide assistance to such poor persons and have their claims adjudicated without burden of legal fees and expenses. Right to free legal aid has been held to be the fundamental right and it is the duty and obligation of any trial court to inform the accused about his right to free legal aid. The right to speedy trial has also been held as inalienable right of every citizen of the country. This Court will then decide, on the basis of the material placed before it as to what directions are necessary to be given for setting up more courts, appointing additional judges and providing more facilities by way of staff and equipment, so as to ensure fulfilment of the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
14.	Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration And Others Etc., (1978) 08 SC CK 0001	“Right of prisoners and right against illegal detention”. The Article 21 is available to each and every person and not only to the citizens of India. It recognises the rights of the arrested persons by providing a fair and reasonable mechanism to be followed in confinement of persons so that no person is illegally detained. Even a person convicted of any offence, though deprived of freedom, but he is well entitled to rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even solitary confinement of a person in jail was held to be violative of Article21. Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities in cases of arrest and detention
15.	D.K. Basu Vs. State Of West Bengal, (1996) 12 SC CK 0089	“Right of prisoners and right against illegal detention”. The Article 21 is available to each and every person and not only to the citizens of India. It recognises the rights of the arrested persons by providing a fair and reasonable mechanism to be followed in confinement of persons so that no person is illegally detained. Even a person convicted of any offence, though deprived of freedom, but he is well entitled to rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even solitary confinement of a person in jail was held to be violative of Article21. Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities in cases of arrest and detention
16.	Miss. Mohini Jain  Vs.  State Of Karnataka And Others, (1992) 07 SC CK 0015	“Right to Education”. Very recently, the Supreme Court recognised right to education as one of the key rights thus giving it place under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. The right to education is fundamental right of a person as it directly flows out from right to life. Earlier this right to education was covered under directive principles of state policy but with the change in needs and circumstances in the society, it has been now categorised as fundamental right
17.	Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Others Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others Etc. Etc., (1993) 02 SC CK 0035	“Right to Education”. Very recently, the Supreme Court recognised right to education as one of the key rights thus giving it place under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. The right to education is fundamental right of a person as it directly flows out from right to life. Earlier this right to education was covered under directive principles of state policy but with the change in needs and circumstances in the society, it has been now categorised as fundamental right
18.	Olga Tellis And Others  Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation And Others Vayyapuri Kuppusami And Others, (1985) 07 SC CK 0019	“Right to livelihood” Right to life includes right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living. It has been held by the Supreme Court that imposition of Tehbazari by the Municipal Corporation is in violation of rights of hawkers to carry on the business fetching them livelihood.
19.	Mrs. Maneka Gandhi  Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1978) 01 SC CK 0026	“Right to live with human dignity” is the roadmap to several other rights that have been recognised under Article 21. It was the first right under Article 21 which received supreme consideration and the Supreme Court held for the first time that any law that deprives a person of his/her life or personal liberty must pass the test of reasonability and the law should be just and fair and must provide for a procedure. The law must satisfy the requirements of Article 14, Article 19 read with Article 21. The Right to live with dignity includes adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter over the head with facilities of reading, writing and to express one self.
20.	Francis Coralie Mullin  Vs. Administrator, Union Territory Of Delhi And Others, (1981) 01 SC CK 0001	“Right to live with human dignity” is the roadmap to several other rights that have been recognised under Article 21. It was the first right under Article 21 which received supreme consideration and the Supreme Court held for the first time that any law that deprives a person of his/her life or personal liberty must pass the test of reasonability and the law should be just and fair and must provide for a procedure. The law must satisfy the requirements of Article 14, Article 19 read with Article 21. The Right to live with dignity includes adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter over the head with facilities of reading, writing and to express one self.
21.	Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Others, (1983) 12 SC CK 0010	“Right to live with human dignity” is the roadmap to several other rights that have been recognised under Article 21. It was the first right under Article 21 which received supreme consideration and the Supreme Court held for the first time that any law that deprives a person of his/her life or personal liberty must pass the test of reasonability and the law should be just and fair and must provide for a procedure. The law must satisfy the requirements of Article 14, Article 19 read with Article 21. The Right to live with dignity includes adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter over the head with facilities of reading, writing and to express one self.
22.	Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India, New Delhi And Others, (1967) 04 SC CK 0034	Right to go abroad Hon’ble Supreme Court Prior to the act, the position which obtained prior to the coming into force of the Act was that there was no law regulating the issue of passports for leaving the shores of India and going abroad. The issue of passport was entirely within the unguided and un-channelled discretion of the Executive. It was only after Satwant Singh’s Case13 that Right to go abroad was embedded under Article 21 which could not be taken away except by a procedure established by law.
23.	Prem Shankar Shukla  Vs. Delhi Administration, (1980) 04 SC CK 0040	Guarantees Freedom form Police Atrocities The Supreme Court has shown its great concern in cases of maltreatment of prisoners. As far as mode of punishment is concerned in held that handcuffing is a prima facie is inhuman in nature therefore it must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security. Similarly in D.K Basu v State of West Bengal the Supreme Court held that any form of torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment during the investigation, interrogation or otherwise is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court has given directions to prison authorities to ensure rights of women against torture and maltreatment in police lockup
24.	Pt. Parmanand Katara, Advocate  Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1995) 01 SC CK 0074	Right to Health and Medical Care Supreme Court We agree with the petitioner that right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death. According to us, the only requirement of the above-quoted para of the Manual is that the body of the condemned prisoner shall only remain suspended till the time the medical officer, present on the spot, declares him dead. We make it clear and hold that the jail authorities in the country shall not keep the body of any condemned prisoner suspended after the medical officer has declared the person to be dead. The limitation of half an hour mentioned in para 873 is directory and is only a guideline. The only mandatory part of the above-quoted para is that the condemned person has to be declared dead by the medical officer and as soon as it is done the body has to be released from the rope.
25.	Consumer Education And Research Center And Others Vs. Union Of India And Others, (1995) 01 SC CK 0143	Right to Health and Medical Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person
26.	Chameli Singh And Others Etc. Vs. State Of U.P. And Another, (1995) 12 SC CK 0104	Right to Shelter Supreme Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. After observing the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Court held that – “Shelter for a human being, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities. Right to life guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. Right to shelter is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
27.	Attorney General Of India Vs. Lachma Devi And Others, (1985) 12 SC CK 0003	Right against Public Hanging We would like to make it clear that the execution of death sentence by public hanging would be a barbaric practice clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and we are glad to note that the Jail Manual of no State in the country makes provision for execution of death sentence by public hanging which, we have no doubt, is a revolting spectacle harking back to earlier centuries. We have no doubt that the expectation of the Bench that an amendment might be made in the Rules providing for public hanging is bound to be belied. The direction for execution of the death sentence by public hanging is, to our mind, unconstitutional and we may make it clear that if any Jail Manual were to provide public hanging, we would declare it to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
28.	Deena Alias Deen Dayal And Others  Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Others, (1983) 09 SC CK 0017	Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21 This then is the data on which reliance is or can be placed by the Union of India for discharging the burden which rests upon it for proving that the method of hanging prescribed by Section 354(5) of the Code does not violate the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution
29.	Babu Singh And Others Vs. State Of U.P., (1978) 01 SC CK 0030	Right to Bail The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Art- 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.
30.	Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs. State Of Maharashtra, (1978) 08 SC CK 0025	Right to Free Legal Aid & Right to Appeal In the present petition, the party, though preferred legal aid by the court, preferred to argue himself. Even so we uphold the right to counsel not in the permissive sense of Article 22(1) and its wider amplitude but in the peremptory sense of Article 21 confined to prison situations
31.	People''S Union Of Civil Liberties (PUCL)  Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1996) 12 SC CK 0098	Tapping of Telephone The right to privacy-by itself-has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one''s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as "right to privacy". Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern man''s life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man''s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one''s home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law
32.	In Re:  Noise  Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution, vs., (2005) 07 SC CK 0017	Right Against Noise Pollution We have referred to a few and not all available judgments. Suffice it to observe that Indian Judicial opinion has been uniform in recognizing right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution and noise pollution beyond permissible limits as an in-road on that right. We agree with and record our approval of the view taken and the opinion expressed by the several High Courts in the decisions referred to hereinabove
33.	Murli S. Deora  Vs.  Union Of India And Ors, (2001) 11 SC CK 0067	Smoking in Public Place Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, inter alia, provides that none shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. Then-why a non-smoker should be afflicted by various diseases including lung cancer or of heart, only because he is required to go to public places? Is it not indirectly depriving of his life without any process of law? The answer is obviously-yes. Undisputedly smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers but there is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution
34.	M.C. Mehta Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Others, (1997) 11 SC CK 0060	Right to have clean Environment It need hardly be added that the duty cast on the State under Articles 47 and 48A in particular of Part IV of the Constitution is to be read as conferring a corresponding right on the citizens and, therefore, the right under Article 21 at least must be read to include the same within its ambit. At this point of time, the effect of the quality of the environment on the life of the inhabitants is much too obvious to require any emphasis or elaboration.

  OR

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com