Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution : "Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

First Case: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "Law" as used in Article 21 in the A.K. Gopalan Case 

Following the law's rules and procedures in good faith

In the development of article 21, the first significant case was A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The Preventive Detection Act was contested in this case. 1950:

• 'Procedure established by law' was interpreted strictly by the Supreme Court in this instance. In this case, it was determined that protection under article 21 is only available against the executive's arbitrary conduct, or against the procedure that has been established by legislation.
• This protection excludes the arbitrary legislative processes used to create laws. 
• This means that a legislation cannot be declared illegal if it was created by the legislature with the intention of restricting human freedom. The executive branch's implementation of this law will be the only thing from which there will be any protection.
• This protection excludes the arbitrary legislative processes used to create laws. This means that legislation cannot be declared illegal if it was created by the legislature with the intention of restricting human freedom. The executive branch's implementation of this law will be the only thing from which there will be any protection.
• While "due process of law" refers to the idea that the rules of law and procedure should be fair and reasonable, which is essentially the idea of natural justice.

Other important aspects of the judgment 

• The Supreme Court ruled that the definition of "law" should not be understood to include the Natural Justice Principles. 
• In essence, SC said Article 21 is not a substantive right, it is a mere procedural right.
• Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive, according to the SC. That is, the execution of one article need not get in the way of the other.

The second case is the 1975 Habeas Corpus case between ADM Jabalpur and Shivkant Shukla.

• The right to constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 is likewise suspended, according to emergency article 352 read with article 359.
• Article 352: Proclamation of Emergency.
• Article 359, which suspends the application of the rights granted by Part III when an emergency is declared. 
• In a declaration made before the State, the Supreme Court agreed that during times of emergency, the right to petition the court under Sections 32 and 226 is likewise suspended, even in cases where the rights to life and to personal liberty are violated.

Conclusion drawn from the Supreme Court's ruling in the Habeas Corpus Case:

1. The Executive and Parliament have unrestricted authority during an emergency.

2. In times of emergency, even the right to life can be suspended.

3. Part XVIII was the superior part to Part III. 

The third case is the 1978 Maneka Gandhi case.

An overview of the case Maneka Gandhi's passport was seized in this situation, and she was forbidden from leaving the country. There was no outright infringement on any Fundamental Right.

In the A.K. Gopalan Case, Maneka Gandhi contested the Supreme Court's position, which was that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive. 

  

 A law must be just, fair, and reasonable as a result.

Fortunately, South Carolina reversed course on this matter in the 1978 Maneka Gandhi case. The Janata Party government's use of an arbitrary statute to deprive Maneka of her passport without cause was the catalyst. 

The Supreme Court declared that the legal process for robbing someone of their life or personal liberty had to be "just, fair, and reasonable" in order to uphold the American notion of due process.

Conclusions from the case of Maneka Gandhi:

1. Article 21's definition of "Liberty" has the broadest scope.
2. Articles 19 and 21 do not conflict with one another. In other words, any law that falls within article 21 must also comply with article 19. In other words, a legislation passed by the legislature that aims to rob someone of their personal freedom must specify how that robbery will be carried out. Additionally, the process must be fair. 

Fundamental Rights That Are Assumed

A new section of the law governing human rights has been established by the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21. Although not all of them have been officially acknowledged, the court has recognised the following as implied basic rights in a number of judgements. All of them are referred to as Implied Fundamental Rights

1. Right to Privacy
2. Right to Dignity
3. Right to Speedy Trial
4. Right to Travel Abroad
5. Right to Clean Environment: Ban on polluting vehicles
6. Right to Livelihood
7. Right to marriage
8. Right against torture
9. Right against Bonded labour
10. Right to legal aid
11. Right to Food