REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

In the Constitution of various other countries, the provisions relating to protection of

Life and personal liberty are mentioned very much in the same language as in Article 21 of
Indian constitution. There are numerous judgment of the Supreme Court and various High Courts
in India where the Court has emphasized and re-emphasized its liberal outlook on the question of
protection of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21.

The Court expanded the meaning and scope of life and personal liberty as envisaged in
Article 21 of the Constitution through judicial interpretation. It zealously enforced Article 14,
Article 19, Article 23 and Article 24 of the Constitution simultaneously with Article 21. The
Statutes were interpreted with human right angle in view and in the light of international treatises
and conventions.

In 1950, case came before Madras High Court where one Kumarmangalam, a Communist
leader of Madras, was taken into police custody of Bombay Province. But the Bombay Police
handed him over to Madras Police because Bombay police could not make out sufficient material
to detain him under Preventive Detention Act of 1950. While he was in Madras, Madras Police
served a detention order upon him. A petition of habeas corpus was moved by him before
Madras High Court, where it was held that initial arrest by Bombay police was illegal, the
detention was also therefore illegal.iAfter coming into force of the present Constitution on 26th
January, 1950, Preventive Detention (Extension of Duration) Order of 1950 was passed by the
President to continue in force the various Public Security Acts operating in the States. This order
was declared ultra vires by four High Courts.ii Parliament had, therefore, to intervene directly
and Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (IV of 1950) was passed. The Supreme Court in A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras,iii declared Section 14 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution and
the Preventive Detention Act was amended by the Amendment Act (1 of 1950). The Act was to
be in force till 1st April, 1951 but it was extended. These are some old instances where Supreme
Court had protected the right of people from arbitrary state action. Under the weapon of judicial
review court has curtailed the arbitrary and discretionary tendency of government machinery.
Below are some important case laws where Supreme Court and High Courts protected the right
to life and personal liberty along with other fundamental rights:
  That imprisonment of a poor person for non-payment of debts amounted to deprivation of
his right to personal liberty iv

 That under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 it is not enough merely to
identify and release bonded labourers but it is more important that they should be suitably
rehabilitated to meet the plainest requirement of Article 21v

 That the expression 'deprivation of personal liberty' is not limited to bodily restraint or
confinement to prison and that life means something more than mere animal existence vi

 That the 'right to privacy' would have to go through a process of case by case
development this right is available even to a woman of easy virtue, and no one can
invade her privacyvii

 That refusal to grant bail in a murder case without reasonable ground would amount to
deprivation of personal liberty under Article viii

 That protection of Article 21 is available even to convicts in jails or prisoners ix

 That if by imposing solitary confinement there is total deprivation of camaraderie

amongst co-prisoners, commingling and talking and being talked to, it would offend
Article 21.x

 It is the professional obligation of all doctors medical professionals, whether government

or private, to extend medical aid to the injured immediately to preserve life without
waiting for legal formalities to be complied with by the police under Cr.P.C xi .

PIL was started to protect the fundamental rights of people who are poor, ignorant or in
socially or economically disadvantaged position. It is different from ordinary litigation, in that it
is not filed by one private person against another for the enforcement of a personal right. The
presence of 'public interest is important to file a PIL in any higher court. Supreme Court has
entertained numerous PIL and has protected the basic rights of the different sections of society.

 For protection of Women rights:

o -Vishakha v. State Of Rajastha

o -Gourav Jain v. Union Of India

  For protection of Children rights:

o -Sheela Barse v. Union Of India

o -M.C. Mehta v. State Of Tamil Nadu

 For protection of Prisoners rights:

o -D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengol

o -Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary Of Bihar

 For protection of Bonded Labour rights:

o -People’s Union For Dem0creatic Rights v. Union Of India

o -Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India

 For protection of Environment:

o -Indian Council For Envirolegal Action v. Union Of India

o -M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India

On other issues like Sexual harassment of women, Child labour, Unethical Medical
practice, Prison reforms etc. Supreme Court has passed various directions to the governmental
agencies for protection and effective enforcement of right to life and personal liberty. Various
cases like Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporn, P.A.
Inamdar v. State Of Maharashtra, M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India etc. are evidence of it. However
this right is not an absolute right.

Article 21 -Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 32 -Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part 1) The right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed.
2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.

Clause (3) itself is a fundamental right; therefore it should be implemented by parliament

for the benefit of common people. It is very difficult for poor people to reach Supreme Court or
High Court, therefore judicial role in enforcing this right is having very limited scope. Lower
Judiciary should be empowered to pass appropriate writ for easy enforcement of rights. It is very
easy to approach lower court to seek remedy. File petition in Supreme Court or High Court for
any of writ is very time consuming, expensive and difficult for the poor, illiterate, socially and
economically backward people.

At the moment Media and NGO’s are playing vital role in social awareness and
enforcement of fundamental rights. Proper enforcement machinery should be provided to people
that justice will be within reach of them. Judicial response could be increased through
appropriate judicial reforms which ultimately results in effective enforcement of Art. 21 i.e.
Right to life and Personal liberty.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution, among others, is the embodiment of wide range of human
rights a single sentence of that Article - “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law” become a perennial source of human
law.xii

Right to life and Personal liberty is considered as basic structure of Indian Constitution.
i
In re S. Kumarmangalam, AIR 1951 Mad 583
ii
Brahmeshwar Pd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 265;
iii
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 SCJ 174
iv
Jolly George Verghese v. Bank Of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470
v
Neeraja Chowdhari v. State Of M.R, AIR 1984 SC 1099;
vi
Kharak Singh v. State Of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295;
vii
Govind vs. State Of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1379; State of Maharashtra v.
Madhulkar Narain, AIR 1991 SC 207;
viii
Babu Singh v. State Of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527;
ix
D.B.M. Patnaik v. State Of A.P., AIR 1974 SC 2092;
x
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1575;
xi
Parmanand Katara v. Union Of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039;
xii
Dr. Bhardwaj K.( April 2009), Human Rights of Prisoners under Indian Constitution,
Shodh Samiksha and Mulyankan, Vol. II, Issue-6