Write a short note on “Right to life and personal liberty” with help of case law.
Ans : The Constitution of India provides Fundamental Rights under Chapter III. 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. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against state only. The meaning and scope of ‘life and personal liberty’ can be analyzed in detail in two facets on the basis of the interpretation of the courts.
Case law- Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s Case, The words ‘personal liberty’ was first came up for contemplation in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.
Facts: The petitioner. A. K. Gopalan, a communist leader was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged the validity of this Act on the ground that it was violative of his right to freedom of movement guaranteed in Article 19(1)(d) which is the essence of personal liberty given under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that ‘personal liberty’ includes freedom of movement also and hence, the Preventive Detention Act should also satisfy Article 19. He also contended that the word ‘law’ under Article 21 does not include the ‘state made laws’ but only meant jus naturale or the principle of natural justice.
Interpretation of the Court: The Supreme Court illuminated the meaning and scope of ‘personal liberty’ with a very literal and narrow view. The term ‘liberty’ has a very wide meaning but when it is qualified by the word ‘personal’, the spectrum of the concept of liberty diminishes therefore, it does not include all that which is implied in the term ‘liberty’. The Supreme Court held that personal liberty includes nothing more than physical freedom of body i.e. freedom from arrest and detention from false imprisonment or wrongful confinement. The SC also interpreted the word ‘law’ as ‘state made law’ and rejected the contention of the petitioner. Fazal Ali J., however, held a demurring view and gave a broad and comprehensive meaning to the words ‘personal liberty’ as consisting of freedom of movement. Since Article 19 is a substantive right whereas and Article 21 is a procedural right therefore, they must be read together. Any law which deprives the life or personal liberty of any person must satisfy the requirements of both Article 19 and Article 21 as well.However, this restrictive interpretation of ‘personal liberty’ in Gopanaln’s case has not been followed by the Supreme Court in its later judgments. In the case Govind vs state of MP the Supreme Court held that M.P Police regulations 885 and 856 authoring domiciliary visits were constitutional as they had the force of law. The petitioner challenged the validity of these Regulations on the ground that they were violative of his fundamental right guaranteed in article 21 Which also included the right to privacy. The SC held that regulations 855 and 856 have the force of law and therefore they were valid. The right to privacy would necessarily have to go through a process of case by case development. Therefore even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech guaranteed create an independent right of privacy which can be characterised as a fundamental right, the right is not absolute. Depending upon the characters and antecedent of the person subject to surveillance and the object and limitations under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said that surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. The impugned regulation 855 empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable material exists to include the opinion that they show a determination to lead a criminal life. The petitioner was shown to be degerous criminal. The regulations impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of petitioner guaranteed in Article 21 and they are valid. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case reiterated the stand taken earlier that any procedure that would deprive a person’s fundamental rights should conform to the norms of fair play and justice. Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): In this case, the SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right to life.
Comparing Article 21 with similar constitutional provisions in other democracies reveals interesting parallels and contrasts. Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada also enshrine the right to life and personal liberty, but the extent and interpretation of these rights vary. This global perspective highlights the unique position of Article 21 in championing not just basic human rights but also emerging rights like the right to privacy and a clean environment.