THE EXPANDING HORIZONS OF ARTICLE 21: A STUDY IN JUDICIAL CREATIVITY.
THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL VOLUME:-21 ISSUE NO:- 21 , April 3, 2025 ISSN (ONLINE):- 2584-1106 Website: www.the lawway with lawyers.com Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com AUTHORED BY :- Taniya Kundu THE EXPANDING HORIZONS OF ARTICLE 21: A STUDY IN JUDICIAL CREATIVITY. Abstract Article 21 of the Constitution of India, originally envisaged as a narrow protection against executive action without authority of law, has over time evolved into a repository of substantive rights. Judicial interpretation has progressively expanded its scope to include rights essential for the full development of human personality, such as the right to livelihood, health, privacy, education, and a clean environment. This paper examines the transformative journey of Article 21, analyzing its expansive interpretations and its pivotal role in securing human dignity. Keywords Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Right to Life, Judicial Activism, Constitutional Law, Human Dignity. Introduction The Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights that form the bedrock of the democratic structure. Among these, Article 21 holds a distinctive position. It provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Initially, the interpretation of this article was restrictive, as seen in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.[^1] However, subsequent judicial pronouncements, particularly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[^2] marked a paradigm shift, expanding the meaning of “life” and “personal liberty” to encompass a variety of rights necessary for leading a meaningful existence. This paper traces the trajectory of Article 21, highlighting how the Supreme Court has used it as a springboard for recognizing diverse human rights, thereby making the Indian Constitution a living document responsive to the needs of the society. Introduction of Article 21: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every individual. It provides that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Originally given a narrow interpretation, Article 21 has undergone a remarkable expansion through judicial creativity. The Supreme Court has interpreted “life” to mean a life of dignity, not just mere animal existence, and “personal liberty” to include a wide range of rights essential for living a meaningful life. Today, Article 21 serves as the foundation for various rights such as the right to livelihood, health, education, privacy, clean environment, and speedy trial, among others. It applies to both citizens and non-citizens and remains a cornerstone for human rights protection in India. Thus, Article 21 reflects the spirit of a welfare State and ensures that the State acts fairly, justly, and reasonably when affecting individual freedoms. Horizons under Article 21 on India Constitution: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has undergone a dynamic transformation since its inception. Originally interpreted narrowly, it merely protected against deprivation of life and personal liberty without the authority of law. However, judicial creativity has expanded the horizons of Article 21 far beyond its literal meaning. The Supreme Court has recognized that “life” under Article 21 is not mere animal existence, but a life imbued with dignity, freedom, and all basic necessities. Personal liberty too has been interpreted to include various rights essential for a meaningful human life. Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has continuously broadened the scope of Article 21, embracing rights such as the right to livelihood, education, health, privacy, shelter, clean environment, and speedy justice. Thus, the expanding horizons of Article 21 reflect the progressive spirit of constitutional interpretation and the growing recognition of human dignity as the foundation of a just society Original Interpretation: A.K. Gopalan (1950). In the first major test, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court took a formal view of Article 21. Gopalan had been detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and argued that the detention violated his fundamental rights, including Article 21. A six-judge bench of the Court upheld the detention law almost in full. Critically, it held that “procedure established by law” simply means any procedure that a legislature enacts; there is no independent requirement that the law be fair, just or reasonable. By reading Article 21 in isolation, the Court rejected the notion of “due process” in substantive form. The Gopalan majority treated the various fundamental rights as separate silos, refusing to read Articles 14 or 19 into Article 21. The practical effect was that Article 21 offered no safeguard beyond checking that the detention order had been issued under some law; any law, however arbitrary, could sustain deprivations. In short, Gopalan confirmed that Article 21’s “procedure established by law” did not require judges to apply the American-style due process test. This narrow understanding stood for nearly three decades. The Maneka Gandhi Revolution (1978). The jurisprudence took a decisive turn in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).Audi alteram partem which means hare the other side . Its a principle of natural justice the court have stressed that life and liberty can’t be curtailed without following fair procedure – procedurak fairness is a core of Article 21 .Maneka’s passport was impounded by the government without giving reasons, and she challenged it under Articles 14, 19 and 21. A historic Supreme Court ruling by Justice Bhagwati overruled Gopalan. The Court held that Article 21 must be read in tandem with other fundamental rights, forming a constitutional “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19 and 21. In Maneka’s case the Court explicitly stated that the “procedure” established by law under Article 21 “must be just, fair, and reasonable” – it cannot be arbitrary or oppressive. Any law depriving a person of life or liberty must satisfy the tests of reasonableness and not violate equality or other fundamental rights. This was a fundamental shift: the Court declared that Article 21 demands substantive due process of law, despite the absence of that term in the text. Maneka Gandhi opened the door to an expansive, purposive reading of Article 21, firmly tethering it to the constitutional ethos of justice and individual dignity. Bandhua Mukti Morcha emphasized that Article 21