INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India provides its citizens as well as non-citizens with the heart of fundamental rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is brief but has an immense umbrella covering various aspects. The Article reads as follows – “Protection of life and personal liberty. – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” The Indian Constitution, being one of the lengthiest written documents, provides for the right as well as its limits and exceptions. The Constitution itself makes it clear that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and are not absolute. Except during a proclaimed emergency, these rights cannot be surrendered or waived.[1]
The words ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ protect an individual’s way of living and overall well-being. The exception here is the prescribed legal process by which the enjoyment of this protection may be curtailed. These words have been expanded by the Supreme Court of India (SC) to include several aspects of human existence. The SC, especially after 1978, has interpreted Article 21 to include many important human rights within its meaning.
This blog is the journey of Article 21 from its inception to its current form. It explores how the Article has evolved through judicial intervention and impacted the lives of individuals within Indian territory. It is aimed to make individuals aware of their crucial right under Article 21.
THE HEART OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
The Heart is a vital organ of the human body, just as Article 21 gives an individual’s life an individual’s life with dignity and discretion. ‘Life’ within the meaning of this article includes the right to live and die with dignity, right to medical care, right to clean environment, right to education, etc. ‘Liberty’ here includes the right to livelihood, right to marry the person of one’s choice, right to privacy, right to travel abroad, right to fair trial, right against detention, etc.
PRE 1970 FORM OF ARTICLE 21
Before the judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the SC had restricted the meaning of Article 21. In two prominent decisions, namely A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras and M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, the SC refused to widen the scope of the Article. The SC interpreted the Article narrowly to mean that the law curtailing it need not reflect the principles of natural justice. Also, the Court held that the government’s power to conduct search and seizure operations could not be contested on the ground of a right to privacy;[2] respectively.
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras :This case dealt with the draconian detention laws which continue to affect individuals. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was challenged as being violative of Articles 13,19,21, and 22. Gopalan was detained without being put on trial, and the detention order was issued under Section 3(1) of the Act.[3] The Petitioner contended that his continued detention without a fair trial and the government action was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The SC held that the Act was not violative of fundamental rights. The Court held that a person’s life or personal liberty could be lawfully restricted if the action was authorized by law and followed the prescribed legal procedure, even if that law was unjust, unreasonable, or arbitrary.[4]
M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra: The issue discussed for the first time was the right to privacy. The case concerned the search and seizure of documents belonging to certain companies within the Dalmia Group during an investigation into their affairs.[5] After a FIR was lodged against the Petitioners, search warrants were issued. The Petitioners challenged the search and contended that the search was unreasonable and violative of their fundamental rights. The Petitioners put forth the argument that the Constitution contains similar provision to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The SC held that, since the Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to privacy comparable to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Court held that there was no basis for reading such a right into another fundamental right.[6]
POST 1970 EXPANSION OF ARTICLE 21
However, the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) fundamentally changed this approach, ushering in an era of broader constitutional interpretation and stronger protection of fundamental rights.[7] The Court’s shift from narrow to wide meaning was reflected in decisions such as Hussainara Khatoon (V) v Home Secy., State of Bihar, Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, and many more. Rights such as the right to travel abroad, right to sleep, right to livelihood, right to free legal service, and right to privacy were held to be within the ambit of Article 21.
Right to travel abroad (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India): This landmark decision marked the beginning of recognising human rights as part of Article 21. Maneka Gandhi, a renowned journalist, was asked to relinquish her passport by the central government. When she sought the reasons for this action, the government declined to provide any explanation.[8] Aggrieved by the government’s action, she filed a writ petition for violation of her fundamental right. The Petitioner contended that impounding of her passport without adequate reason was violative of the principles of natural justice. Here the SC interpreted “the procedure established by law” to mean “due process of law”. Due process of law means that the law in force must be fair, just and reasonable. In other words, any legal procedure that deprives a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, reasonable, and free from arbitrariness.[9]
Right to free legal service (Hussainara Khatoon (V) v Home Secy., State of Bihar):
Indian judiciary today is overburdened with pending cases. This judgment dealt with undertrial prisoners’ right to legal services at minimal or no cost. It began when a report was published revealing the inhumane conditions of central jails. Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani filed a petition on behalf of Hussainara Khatoon and others, challenging prolonged detention of accused without a fair trial. The Petitioners contended that, due to poverty, many accused were unable to acquire legal services which led to their continued detention. In its decision the SC directed the release of 59 undertrial prisoners. It held that pre-trial detention of an individual exceeding the maximum duration of the prescribed sentence is violative of Article 21.[10] The Court also held that the right to free legal service is within the scope of Article 21.
Right to marry a person of one’s own choice (Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M.):Autonomy of mind and body is a major part of an individual’s life. In this landmark case the voluntary actions of an individual were called into question. Hadiya (formerly Akhila) was a medical student who had converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan. Hadiya’s father took her husband to court and alleged forceful conversion and marriage. The SC decided in favour of the respondent husband, affirming that Hadiya, having attained the age of majority, possessed the legal right to choose her spouse. The Court also recognized this freedom as a human right protected under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[11]
Right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation):
The right to earn a living was discussed at length in this case. Here, the Government of Maharashtra ordered eviction of pavement dwellers and destruction of their houses within the city of Mumbai. This action resulted in unemployment of lakhs of workers and deprived them of their means of livelihood. The petitioners contended that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 encompasses the right to livelihood, and therefore, their eviction amounted to a violation of this fundamental right.[12] The Court clarified that while the State is under no constitutional obligation to provide livelihood to individuals, it cannot deprive them of their means of livelihood in an arbitrary or unfair manner.
Right to walk (Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz vs P. Ayyappan): Maniyar Iliyaz represents the Supreme Court’s latest significant articulation of the right to walk safely on public streets under Article 21. The case arose from the tragic death of a minor in a road accident while walking to school, with the petitioner highlighting the absence of a demarcated pedestrian pathway. The Supreme Court recognised the right to walk as a primary component of Article 21, emphasising that pedestrian safety cannot be subordinated to the convenience of motorised traffic. The judgment therefore takes the evolving interpretation of Article 21 beyond abstract personal liberty and connects it with the everyday conditions necessary to live with safety, dignity, and freedom of movement.
CONCLUSION
The evolution of Article 21 demonstrates how the Supreme Court has transformed a seemingly simple guarantee of life and personal liberty into a dynamic constitutional protection. From recognising the right to travel abroad in Maneka Gandhi to protecting free legal services, the right to marry a person of one’s choice, livelihood, and the right to walk, the Court has consistently interpreted personal liberty in light of changing social realities and the constitutional value of human dignity. This evolution is not merely an expansion of judicial interpretation, but a continuing effort to ensure that Article 21 remains responsive to emerging claims of liberty and autonomy while remaining anchored in constitutional principles. Its journey from passport to pathway ultimately reflects the Constitution’s capacity to protect not only an individual’s freedom from State interference, but also the conditions necessary to live with dignity and exercise meaningful personal liberty.
Author(s) Name: Hrushi Rajaram Bendkoli & Prerana Pradip Chindarkar (Government Law College, University of Mumbai & Government Law College, University of Mumbai)
References:
[1]Basheshar Nath v Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan AIR 1959 SC 149.
[2]M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate AIR 1954 SC 300.
[3]A K Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27.
[4]Asmita Shrivastava, ‘Beyond Survival: The Transformative Role of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution’ (2025) 7(3) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 9367.
[5]M P Sharma v Satish Chandra (n 2).
[6]M P Sharma v Satish Chandra (n 2).
[7]Shrivastava (n 4).
[8]Shrivastava (n 4).
[9]Nisha Gandhi, ‘Expanding and Evolving the Ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the Developing Scenario’ (2022) 2(4) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law 1.
[10]Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369.
[11]Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217 A(III) (10 December 1948) art 16.
[12]Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545.
