life as enshrined

8/22/2019 Life as Enshrined

1/8

"LIFE" AS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND EXPOUNDED BY COURTS

-Justice Abhay Gohil

Brevity is the soul of wit. Articulation of Article 21 of the Constitution is its rare example and its

expansion is a great are of judicial innovation. Perhaps it is not the end but it is the beginning of end. In

the words of Anderson:

" Every man' s li fe is a fair y tale wri tten by God's fingers. In fact, li fe is half spelt before one knows

what l if e is" . As per the philosophy of history, li fe has a value only when i t has something valuable as

its object. Li fe is a wonderfu l thing to talk about or to read about in history books but i t is terri ble when

one has to li ve i t. Jawahar lal Nehru once said " L if e for me is real as I beli eve it to be a spark of the

divine. The divine essence is the sum total of al l li fe" . (F rom selected work of Jawaharlal Nehru).

The Constitution was framed under this ambition that "the ambition of the greatest man of ourgeneration has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us but as long as there are

tears and sufferings, so long our task will not be attained". The four crucial expressions in Article 21 is

the best example of brevity. The language used in Article 21 is "No person shall be deprived of his Life or

Personal Liberty except according to procedure established by Law". Religiously, life is precious like a

precious stone, which has to be served. Life has been interpreted by various prophets in various ways but

as we know that life of a man is valuable, meaningful and creative.

Hindu mythology believes in theory of rebirth of life or life after death. The Darwinian theory of

evolution has given a different meaning to life but in the Constitution, the same has been interpreted in a

different way. Here the word "Life"has been used to mean that under a democratic set up governed by

Constitution, how the life should be protected. This is somewhat different from the religious meaning of

life. During last 50 years of the enforcement of Constitution, Supreme Court has interpreted this word

rather liberally and broadly. While Interpreting the word "Life", the Courts have often quoted the

following observation ofField, J in Munn Vs. Illinois', an American case - "The term 'Life' used here is

something more than mere animal existence The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those

limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed".

In the case of Francis Corali e v. The Administrator, Union Terri tory of Delh i (1981), P.N.

Bhagwati, Justicehas observed that "We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human

dignity and all that goes along with it namely the bare necessity of life 'such as adequate nutrition,

clothing and shelter over their head and facilities of reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse

forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings".


2/8

Pathak, C.J. in Vikaram Deo Singh v. State of Bihar (1988)observed: "We live in an age when this

Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 2 1 of the Constitution, that every person is entitled to

a quality of life consistent with his human personality. The right to live with human dignity is the

fundamental right of every Indian citizen, so the State recognizes the need for whom, therefore, of

necessity, provision must be made for their protection and welfare."

Sawant, Jin Delhi Transport Corporati on v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress(1990) observed: "The right

to life includes right to livelihood. It is all the more improper and undesirable to expose the precious

rights like the rights of life, liberty and property to the vagaries of the individual whims and fancies. The

employment is not a bounty from them, nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of

many rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental.

Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain

applications. That will be mockery of them."

In the case ofShantisar Bui lders v. Narayan Khimalal Gotame (1996), the Apex Court has observed:

"The right of life under Article 21 would include the right of food, clothing, decent environment and

reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal a human being for

shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal, it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being, it

has to be suitable accommodation which allows him to grow in all aspects - physical, mental and

intellectual".

Now it appears that after the judicial pronouncements, this Article and meaning of life and personal

liberty have not only become more meaningful, useful and purposeful but have also received greater

importance for existence of human values. It has helped in improving the quality of life of every person.

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997); the Court has expanded its

interpretation and observed - "To live with human dignity, free from exploitation. It includes protection of

health and strength of workers, men and women and of the tender age of the children against abuse,

opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and

dignity, educational facilities, just and human conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the

minimum conditions which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity. Nogovernment can take any action to deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic rights".

Dignity of the human person is non-negotiable. Dr. Ambedkar once wrote: "The question is not

whether a community lives or dies; the question is on what plane does it live ...this it a gulf between

merely living and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode; to beat retreat, to

surrender and to live the life of a captive is also a mode of survival."


3/8

This Article as well as the word "Life" has been interpreted keeping in view the preamble of the

Constitution which says - "We the people of India ... to secure to all its citizens social, economic and

political justice....".

It the social, economic and political justice is to be secured, it would be necessary that the person's

life should be protected and not only protected but should be developed and shaped in the manner in

which it receives true meaning. "The right to live with human dignity should encompass within its fold,

some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation

of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of persons concerned" as observed by Supreme

Court in the case ofCERC v. Union of I ndia.

In the case ofChameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1996), the Supreme Court has observed "In any

organized society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man.It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is free from restrictions which

inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guarantee in any

civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter.

These are basic human rights known to any civilized society".

Our Constitution provided a dream to all the persons to live with human dignity and under Article 38

of the Constitution, State is required to secure a social order for the promotion and welfare of people. In

the light of preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, the Court, under Article

21 has protected not only the quality of life but has also provided right of livelihood which also includes

employment and to prohibit backdoor entry in the employment is a part of protection. The protection of

rights of slum dwellers, hawkers, fight of medical care, health of labour, care homes, right to shelter, hill

roads, right to education, sexual harassment, right to privacy, protection of environment and ecology,

medical rights have been included in the right to life by judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court has

laid much emphasis on the concept of "welfare state," social justice, right to economic justice and right to

economic equality. Economic empowerment of weaker sections of the Society constitutes Fundamental

rights. The aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, political and economic equality as

it is known that social justice and the concept of equality are complimentary to each other.

After much struggle on the question of livelihood, from the case of Re Santrams, Nachane, Bapi

Raju and ultimately in the case of Olga Tellis", Supreme Court has employed the right to livelihood under

right to life. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Council (1985), pavement dwellers resisted eviction

from their habitat by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Court has observedThe question which

we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to


4/8

that question namely that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 2 1 is wide and far-

reaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the

imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to the procedure established by law.

That is but one aspect of the right to live and equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood

because, no person can live without the means of living that is the means of livelihood. Otherwise it

would mean deprivation of his right to life."

Though Article 41 of the Constitution under Directive Principles makes provision for right to work, to

education, and to public assistance in cases of old age, sickness, disablement but it is true that the country

has so far not made the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. The right to work

has also not yet been recognized as a fundamental right. In the case of DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress

(1991), the Supreme Court has observed - "income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and

when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental as others".

The case ofParmanand Katara v. Uni on of I ndia (1989), which is a medico legal case of accident,

the Supreme Court found that generally doctors are refusing to give immediate aid to the victim till legal

formalities are completed and in some cases the injured dies for want of medical aid. In this connection

the Supreme Court has clarified that preservation of life is a paramount importance. Once the life is lost

status quo ante cannot be restored. Therefore, it is the duty of the doctors to preserve life whether the

concerned person is a criminal or an innocent person and the apex court directed that every doctor at a

Government Hospital or otherwise has a professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise

for protecting life. In several other cases of such kind, Supreme Court gave repeated directions about the

same. In the ,case of Common Cause (1996), Apex Court highlighted the serious deficiencies and

shortcomings in the matter of collection, storage and supply of blood through the various blood centers

operating in the country especially in the context of incidence of HIV infected one.

In case of Upendra Baxi (1987), the Supreme Court gave directions to the State Government for

improvement of living conditions in the Government protective home at Agra and reiterated that the right

to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every citizen. In case of State of Himachal

Pradesh Vs. Umed Ram (1986), the Supreme Court was concerned with the importance of roads in thehilly areas for the enjoyment of life. It was considered that there should be road for communication in

reasonable conditions and denial of that right would be denial of life as understood in its richness and

fullness by the ambit of the constitution. Right to education has also been considered as a fundamental

right under Article 2 1 because education promotes good and dignified life, see Mohini Jain Vs. State of

Karnataka (1992). But on the other side the Court has said that the concept of "te lops" is contrary

to the Constitutional scheme and is wholly abhorrent to the Indian culture and heritage. Restricting the


5/8

admission to non meritorious candidates belonging to richer sections of the society and denying the same

to poor meritorious is wholly arbitrary and against constitutional scheme and the court has further

declared charging of capitation fee by the State recognized educational institutes as wholly arbitrary. The

Court has now limited the State obligation to provide educational facilities and has given right to free

education until the age of 14 years and beyond that stage the State obligation is subject to limitations of

economic capacity and development. The case ofUnn i Kr ishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)is

another protection provided by judicial pronouncements in the field of education and capitation fee.

Sexual harassment of working women at her place of work has also been considered as violation of rights

of gender equality, and right to live and liberty under Article 14, 15 and 2 1 of the Constitution. Sexual

harassment also violates the victims fundamental right under Article 19(l)(g) to practice any profession or

to carry out any occupation, trade or business, see case ofVishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997). In the

case of Chopra, Supreme Court has observed that- "there is no gain saying that each incident of sexual

harassment at the place of work, results in violation of fundamental right to gender equality and the rightsof life and liberty. The gender equality includes prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts

are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those rights. In the case rape, it is considered

a crime not only against a person of woman but a crime against entire society. It destroys the entire

psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Therefore it is the most hated crime."

It is a crime against human right and is also violative of the victims most cherished rights namely right to

live which includes right to live with human dignity as contained in Article 2 1.

Right to privacy has also been included as the right to life and personal liberty. Right to privacy now

has acquired constitutional status. It is a right to be let alone. A citizen has a right to safeguard privacy of

his own family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. The

right to reproductive autonomy, right to use condoms, right of woman to abort, all these fall within the

ambit of right to privacy. In the case ofState of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardika (1991),

Supreme Court has protected the right to privacy of a prostitute and held that "even a woman of easy

virtue is entitled to her privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes." Now the right to

privacy has become established in India as a part of Article 2 1 under right of personal liberty.

In the case ofR. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), Supreme Court has laid down certain thepropositions defining the right to privacy which has been recognized as a new fundamental right. The

right to hold a telephonic conversation is also covered under the right of privacy. The question of

protection environment was equal to the protection of natural rights of persons. Nature has provided

water, air, soil, sunlight and environment with ecology to preserve the life. It is considered that if the

natural rights are polluted they will directly affect the right to life. Therefore it was incumbent on the

courts to protect the basic environment elements namely soil, air and water and to remove all hazardous


6/8

hurdles and to maintain hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance, to provide protection to the forest

and other valuable natural assets. The Courts have shown their anxiety and had issued various directions

under various environmental laws in several cases. The quality of life cannot be maintained without

pollution free water and air. General public is the beneficiary of all natural resources. In the case ofAP

Pollution Control Board v. M .V. Nayudu (1989), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) and in the case

ofVellore Citi zens Welf are Forum v. Union of I ndia (1996), Court has issued various directions for the

protection of environment and forest of the country. Supreme Court has ordered closure of tanneries

which were polluting water, rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land and has issued

guidelines and directions for the protection of Taj Mahal and ancient monuments and for protection of

rapidly deteriorating quality of air and directed that entire fleet of public transport buses be run on CNG

and not on diesel and ban has been put on the use of diesel in the city of Delhi. In the case ofVincent Vs.

Union of I ndia(1987), the Supreme Court has emphasized that a healthy body is the very foundation of

all human activities and there was prohibition of drugs injurious to health and directed that injuriousdrugs should be totally eliminated from the market. " Poll uter pays principle"has also been put on trial.

The question of further protection of "life" and "dignified life" still continues still there are many more

dimensions which are to be explored by the courts. The question of flowing dead bodies, animal bodies,

ashes and hazardous material into the rivers is to be banned. Rivers are also to be protected from

sentimental and religious use. Ingenuity-of the courts has not come to an end.

Another aspect of life, which includes "personal liberty", is also equally important. No person shall

be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. the

expression "procedure established by law" introduced in our Constitution is basically an American

concept of procedural due process which enables the courts to see whether the law fulfils the requisite

elements of reasonable procedure, The expression of personal liberty used in Article 21 has also been

given an elaborate interpretation. It does not merely mean liberty of the body, freedom from physical

restraint freedom from confinement within the bounds of a prison, freedom from arrest or detention or

false imprisonment or wrongful confinement but it means much more than that.

Immediately, after the constitution came in force, the question of interpretation of these words arose in

the' famous case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and the procedure as laid down in anenacted law." Fazal Al i, Jdisagreeing with the majority view held that principle of natural justice that no

matter shall be condemned unheard was a part of general law and it should accordingly be read into

Article 2 1. U.S. Constitution lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life-or property without

due process of law and the words "due process" means just, proper or reasonable".


7/8

As per Gopalan's case, the legislature was free to lay down any procedure but later in Maneka Gandhi v.

Union of I ndia (1978)case shifted the chain and practically over-ruled Gopalan's case and it was held

that -"No person, can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to procedure established by

law" and the right to travel abroad was treated as right under Article 2 1 and the Court gave new

orientation to this expression. It has created multi dimensional impact on development of Constitutional

law. Bhagwati, Jobserved in Maneka Gandhi's cases "The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 2 1 is

of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which 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 under Article 19."

After Maneka Gandhi's case, its impact on the administration of criminal justice in India is

beneficial. The questions of arrest, fair trial, speedy trial, long pre-trial confinement, bail, more criminal

courts, right of appeal, legal aid, hand-cuffing offender trials, police torture, prisoner's administration,prisoner's grievances, awarding of damages to victims, custodial violence are the important questions

which are governed under the Personal Liberty Jurisprudence. Series of cases are available in which the

right of life enshrined in Article 21 has been elaborately interpreted and this includes all those aspects of

life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. They are all extended

dimensions which have made the Indian Constitution as a living Constitution to make the life on the lines

of Human Rights Jurisprudence.

It is said that "generation after generation man is born new. Each generation gives rise to new

questions for fulfillment of new aspirations in life and new standards of thought and action". The whole

purpose of life is to guide activity in an evolutionary direction of time. It is a very bondable purpose and

the aspiration of every law is to save the man from pitfalls. For all this innovation and expansion of the

scope of interpretation of constitution with revolutionary vision, Legal fraternity has paid rich tributes to

the courts especially to Supreme Court of India saying that "it is a light house whose benignant rays of

liberty and justice illumine the troubled surface of water".

Kr ishna Iyer, Jreminded that "Law is not omnipotent in the sky, but it is an instrument of social justice".

Though framers of the constitution had not conceived the Indian judiciary as an instrument of peaceful

resolution, but, by the passage of time judiciary became a centre of reverence to the people of thiscountry.

Albert Ei nstienused to say: "Try not to be a man of success but rather try to be a man of value". Our

values should be: "We cannot help ourselves without helping others, we cannot enrich our lives without

enriching others, we cannot prosper without bringing prosperity to others" (Jennete Cole).


8/8

In the end, I will conclude this with the saying of Mahatapasvi Jain Saint of this Century Acharya Shr i

Vidyasagarji:"Human life is very precious and above all it is full of principles of values. It has to be

lived with full devotion, magnanimity and qualities of unlimited treasure of knowledge of universal

acceptance, which can take him to Moksh Marg and ultimate salvation, therefore the importance of life is

to be judged on this angle and should be lived on these principles and should not be allowed to be

wasted".

As per oriental saying:

Where the vision is for one year,

Cultivate flowers;

Where the vision is for ten years,

Cultivate trees;

Where the vision is for eternity

Cultivate people.

life as enshrined

Documents