 First of all, I want to tell you that Fundamental rights give

us six major rights.

 So, Article 19, 20,21 and 21 are grouped under the broad
heading right to freedom.

Article 21 in the Constitution of India 1949

Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

INTRODUCTION
Article 21 reads as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to a procedure established by law.”

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of

supreme importance in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized
Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty.

This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most
organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation
of our laws.

Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or

“personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the
right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according
to a procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna
Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article
40(4) of the Constitution of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution
of Japan, 1946.

Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person,

citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right. It, however,
does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as
mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).

‘RIGHT TO LIFE’
‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The
right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other
rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence
of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living
beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense
primary, since none of the other rights would have any value or utility
without it. There would have been no Fundamental Rights worth
mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This
Section will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the
Supreme Court of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.” ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the
physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or
continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which
includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to
health, right to pollution free air, etc.

Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot

live as a human being and includes all those aspects of life, which go to
make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only
article in the Constitution that has received the widest possible
interpretation. Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found
shelter, growth, and nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum
and basic requirements that is essential and unavoidable for a person is
the core concept of the right to life.

Right to Privacy

As per Black’s Law Dictionary, privacy means “right to be let alone; the
right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live
without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the
public is not necessarily concerned.”

Although not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the right to

privacy is considered a ‘penumbral right’ under the Constitution, i.e. a right
that has been declared by the Supreme Court as integral to the
fundamental right to life and liberty. Right to privacy has been culled by
the Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the
constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although no
single statute confers a crosscutting ‘horizontal’ right to privacy; various
statutes contain provisions that either implicitly or explicitly preserve this
right.

The right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from
restrictions placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on
 his private life. It is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right
to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential
ingredient of personal liberty. Every democratic country sanctifies domestic
life; it is expected to give him rest, physical happiness, peace of mind and
security. In the last resort, a person’s house, where he lives with his family,
is his ‘castle’; it is his rampart against encroachment on his personal liberty

Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia).

Right to live with dignity includes the right to die with dignity, a five-
judge bench led by ChiefJustice Dipak Misra said, recognising the legality
of passive euthanasia. “Right to live with human dignity” would mean
existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. That would include a
dignified death, the court said. A person who is terminally ill or in a
persistent vegetative state can make a “choice” to prematurely extinguish
his life, the bench said.

ARTICLE 21 ALSO PROVIDES SOME MORERIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF

EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENT AND SOME OF THEM ARE LISTEN
BELOW:-
(1) The right to go abroad.
(2) The right to privacy.
(3) The right against solitary confinement.
(4) The right against hand cuffing.
(5) The right against delayed execution.
(6) The right to shelter.
(7) The right against custodial death.
(8) The right against public hanging.
(9) Doctors assistance

Evolution of Art.21:
The Supreme Court and the High Courts have been enlarging the scope of
the Article with various activist judgments. Initially, the phrase ‘personal
liberty’ was interpreted narrowly to confine the protection of Article 21 to
freedom of the person against unlawful detention. In Gopalan vs. State of
Madras case, the majority bench of Supreme Court propounded the view
that by adopting the expression procedure established by law’, Art. 21 of
our Constitution had embodied the English concept of personal liberty in
preference to that of American ‘due process of law’, even though,
according to the minority opinion of the bench, the result of such
interpretation was to throw “the most important fundamental right to life
and personal liberty” “at the mercy of legislative majorities.”
The concept of “personal liberty” gradually began to be liberally
interpreted by the Judiciary. The Supreme Court, in Kharak Singh v. State
of UP, 1963, held, “…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(1). In other words, while Article 19(1)
deals with particular species or attributes of that freedom, “personal
liberty” in Article 21 takes in and comprises the residue.” In simple words,
the Right to freedom is just one of the incidences of Right to life and
personal liberty. So whatever applies to Right to freedom- in this case the
test of reasonableness- applies to Right to life and personal liberty. In the
case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978), the Court examined all
the judgments in previous cases and observed that: “The expression
‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 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.”
As a result, a law coming under Art. 21 must also satisfy the requirements
of Art. 19. In other words, a law made by the State which seeks to deprive
a person of his personal liberty must prescribe a procedure for such
deprivation which must not be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. Once the
test of reasonableness is imported to determine the validity of a law
depriving a person of his liberty, it follows that such law shall be invalid if it
violates the principles of natural justice. [By linking Art.21 with Art.19, the
concept of ‘reasonableness’ and so fairness is applied to Art.21, and hence
the concept of ‘due process of law’ is established]

Why a lawyer is required in Article 21 cases?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a part of the fundamental right of
the constitution, which states that no person should be deprived of any
other person's right to survive and personal liberty except by any process
established by law in India Can.
If a person does such an act, the aggrieved person has the right to go
directly to the Supreme Court under Article 32; he can file his petition
through an advocate in the Supreme Court.
For this reason, a lawyer is the only device that can prove beneficial for a
victim to show the right path, because if the lawyer has proper knowledge
of law and constitution, then he should also give all the appropriate
suggestions related to the case. Can.
But for this we must keep in mind that the lawyer we are appointing to
settle our case should be a skilled lawyer in his field, and he should have
proper experience in dealing with matters related to the Constitution and
Article 21, which can increase your chances of winning your case even
more.
Why are articles 14, 19 and 21 regarded as the Golden Triangle the
Indian Constitution?

1. These three articles are the strongest guards against arbitrary actions
of the government, against taking away of different freedoms and of
a whole host of issues that have bearing on human rights and
freedoms. These articles are so important to our jurisprudence that
their interconnection is rightly called the golden triangle.

2. These Fundamental rights are regarded as the basic principles for the
smooth running of life of the citizens as well as it protect civil rights
of all citizens of India.

3. Dr. B R Ambedkar once said “Unlike a drop of water which loses its
identity when it joins the ocean, man does not lose his being in the
society in which he lives. Man's life is independent. He is born not
for the development of the society alone, but for the development
of his self”. Hence if we want development of society we have to
provide some freedom and protection to the common citizen and
these three articles are the most basic among the other Fundamental
right so these are known as golden triangle in the Indian
constitution.