Author Name- Princy
College Name- CPJ College of Higher Studies and School of Law {Affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University}
INTRODUCTION
Article 21 – Right to Life Under Indian Constitution. The term “life” as mentioned in the Article has been given a broad meaning by the Supreme Court. Right to Life does not merely mean the continuance of a person and animal existence but a quality of life. In the case of KHARAK SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the Supreme Court quoted with approval Field, J.S observation in MUNN V. ILLINOIS, and held:
By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than a mere animal existence. The restriction against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and abilities by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm or leg the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ in the body through which the soul interacts with the outer world.
SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION
The Supreme Court rehearsed with the approval of the above observations and held that the “right to life” includes the right to lead a healthy life and to enjoy all benefits of the human body in their foremost conditions. It would even involve the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage, and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live and sleep in peace, the right to repose and health.
P. RATHINAM V. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court defined “Life” as follows:
“The life to live with human dignity and the same does not indicate continued menial work. It takes within its fold some of the fine graces of civilization that make life worth living. It also expanded the theory that life would mean the tradition, culture, and heritage of the concerned person.”
In OLGA TRELLIS, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the term “life” in Article 21 is not only restricted to the mere animal existence of a person. It means something more and includes inhibiting the deprivation of life to all the limits and faculties by which we enjoy life.
Right To Life With Human Dignity
As already discussed, the Right to Life encompasses not only physical existence but also the right to live with human dignity.
Right To Reputation
The Supreme Court referring to D.F. MARION V. MINNIE DAVIS, in SMT. KIRAN BEDI V. THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.
Right To Livelihood
The Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Article 21 would not include livelihood. In RE SANT RAM, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression of “life” in Article 21.
This view of the court underwent a change. With the defining of the word “life” in Article 21 in a broad and expansive manner, the court came to hold that the “Right to Life” guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court now implied the “Right to Livelihood” out of the “Right to Life”.
Right To Shelter
In SHANTISAR BUILDERS V. NARAYAN KHIMLAL TOTAME, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would include the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to a decent environment, and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the needs of an animal and a human being has to be a suitable accommodation that would allow him to grow in every aspect- physical, mental, and intellectual.
Right To Clean Environment
The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means to live in a proper environment free from diseases and infections.
Right To Education
The Supreme Court in BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA, while interpreting the scope of the “Right to Life” under Article 21, held that it included “Educational Facilities”.
Right To Know Or Right To Be Informed
The Supreme Court held that Article 21 has reached a new dimension and in R.P. LTD. V. PROPRIETORS INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, BOMBAY PVT. LTD., Bombay Pvt. Ltd., observed that if democracy had to function effectively, people must have the right to know or to obtain the conduct of affairs of the State.
NO RIGHT TO DIE OR COMMIT SUICIDE
Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, punishes a person convicted of attempting to commit suicide. There had been a difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the Statute Book.
This question came for review for the first time before the High Court of Bombay in the STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MARUTI SRIPATI DUBAI. In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to die, and the honorable High Court struck down Section 309 of the IPC that provides punishment for an attempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional.
In P. RATHINAM v. UNION OF INDIA a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, favour the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the MARUTI SRIPATI DUBAL Case, holding that under Article 21 Right to Life also includes the Right to Die and laid down that Section 309 of India Penal Code which deals with “attempt to commit suicide is a penal offense” unconstitutional.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Section 309, IPC was neither a breach of Article 21 nor Article 14. The court held that the “right to life” under Article 21 did not cover the “right to die”.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 is the bedrock of individual rights in India. Its interpretation by the judiciary has breathed life into the concept, extending it beyond basic survival to encompass dignity, livelihood, and a healthy environment. This dynamic interpretation paves the way for a society that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens.
It is a powerful safeguard for individual well-being in India. Its dynamic interpretation by the courts has ensured a life of dignity, encompassing a vast array of rights. As society evolves, the definition of the Right to Life will likely continue to adapt. Balancing individual rights with societal needs will be a crucial aspect of future interpretations. To ensure this right reaches all corners of India, we must actively engage with the challenges of poverty, healthcare access, and environmental protection. Every individual has the opportunity to live a life of dignity and fulfillment.
About the Author
