Table of Contents

Art. 21 states,

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

It is available to both citizens as well as non-citizens. The word ‘deprived’ does not mean total loss. Any restriction imposed on the liberty is a deprivation. The court may even act when there is an imminent threat.

Due Process of Law

The American Constitution follows ‘Due Process of Law’. It means that a law must be substantively fair, reasonable, and just, not merely formally valid. It gives wides scope to the court to grant protection to the rights of the citizens.

Countries where this concept is followed, enables the court to question the legislature whether it has the power to create the concerned law and does it comply with the principles of natural justice. If there is a negative response, the court can declare that law or a particular part of that law invalid.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wanted this phrase to be included in Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution as well. Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar said that this provision will become an obstacle in matters of future legislation. Thus, instead of ‘Due Process of Law’, our Constitution makers inserted the phrase ‘Procedure Established by Law’.

Procedure Established by Law

It means that a law that is duly enacted by the legislature or the body in question is valid if the procedure to establish it has been correctly followed. The Constituent Assembly chose this phrase over due process to maintain parliamentary supremacy, while courts later required the procedure to be fair, just, and reasonable.

Case: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

In this case, the court took a restrictive approach to personal liberty by ruling that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 means any validly enacted statutory law, even if that law is unjust or oppressive.

The dispute began when A.K. Gopalan, a prominent communist leader, was detained by the Madras state government under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He had already been in physical custody since 1947 under ordinary criminal charges, but each time he was acquitted or his sentence expired, the state issued a fresh detention order to keep him barred from public political life. Gopalan filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging the constitutional validity of his detention. He argued that the Act allowed the state to jail him without a standard trial or a right to be heard, directly violating his freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. He urged the Court to interpret Article 21 using the American doctrine of “Due Process of Law” to strike down arbitrary legislation.

Gopalan argued that the word “law” in Article 21 must mean universal principles of natural justice and fairness. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this, holding that the framers of the Indian Constitution intentionally avoided the phrase “due process of law.” The majority ruled that “law” strictly means lex (state-enacted statute law), not jus (natural justice). If Parliament passes a valid law following proper legislative procedures, courts have no authority to strike it down on the grounds that it is morally unfair or unjust. The Court ruled that the fundamental rights in Part III operate in completely separate, watertight compartments. The Bench held that Article 19 (freedoms) and Article 21 (personal liberty) are mutually exclusive. Since preventive detention directly takes away physical liberty under Article 21, the prisoner loses the capacity to exercise their freedoms under Article 19. Therefore, a detention law cannot be tested against the freedoms of speech or movement listed in Article 19.

[Note: Justice Fazl Ali delivered a legendary lone dissent in this case, prophetically arguing that fundamental rights must be read together as a whole, and that procedural natural justice is an inherent element of personal liberty. This minority view eventually became the law of the land in 1978 when a seven-judge bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India completely overthrew the A.K. Gopalan precedent, establishing that any procedure under Article 21 must be “just, fair, and reasonable”.]

Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

In this case, the court ruled that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, but must be inherently “just, fair, and reasonable.” This historic seven-judge Bench decision completely overthrew the literalist approach set in A.K. Gopalan (1950) and infused the spirit of American “due process” into the Indian legal framework.

The dispute arose in July 1977 when Maneka Gandhi, a prominent journalist and daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, received an official notice from the Regional Passport Officer in New Delhi. The letter ordered her to surrender her passport within seven days under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. When she formally requested the Ministry of External Affairs to state the specific reasons for this action, the government flatly refused, claiming it was done “in the interests of the general public” and that disclosing the specific reasons was not in the public interest. Maneka Gandhi moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that impounding her passport without giving her a fair opportunity to be heard violated her fundamental rights to travel abroad, express herself, and maintain her personal liberty.

The Court completely dismantled the old A.K. Gopalan rule, which held that fundamental rights operate in separate, watertight compartments. Instead, the Bench ruled that fundamental rights are structurally interconnected. For any law to validly restrict a citizen's personal liberty under Article 21, it must simultaneously satisfy the equality tests under Article 14 and the freedom tests under Article 19. This conceptual union created what is known in Indian jurisprudence as the “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution (Articles 14, 19, and 21).

The government argued that the Passports Act did not explicitly require them to hold a hearing before impounding a passport, and doing so would frustrate the urgency of administrative action. The Supreme Court clarified that the principles of natural justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side), are implicitly woven into every statutory law, even if they are not explicitly written down. To resolve the administrative deadlock, the Court accepted an undertaking from the Attorney General to grant Maneka Gandhi a “post-decisional hearing” (a full, fair review after the initial passport seizure), thereby curing the initial procedural defect.

The Court expanded the definition of “personal liberty” to encompass a wide array of human rights that constitute the dignity of a human being. It firmly ruled that the right to travel abroad and go outside the borders of India is a fundamental component of personal liberty under Article 21. Consequently, no citizen can be deprived of their travel documents through arbitrary executive actions.

Important Case Laws [Year-Wise Timeline]

The A.K. Gopalan Case and the Maneka Gandhi Case are the two widely recognised case laws with respect to Art. 21. All these years, with numerous judicial interpretation, the scope of Art. 21 had widened enormously. The expression ‘personal liberty’ covers a wide variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberties of a man other than those which are already included in Art. 19. The courts are inclined to give the widest-amplitude to the expression. Here are some important case laws with respect to ‘Facets of Life and Liberty’ or Art. 21:

  1. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) – This case served as the first major battleground for the Right to Privacy under Article 21, ruling that while arbitrary police surveillance violates human dignity, the right to privacy was not yet an absolute fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

[Note: - The historical finding that privacy is not a fundamental right was expressly overruled in 2017 by a unanimous nine-judge bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.]

  1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – In this case, it was held that during a proclaimed National Emergency, a citizen loses the right to approach any court to enforce their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.

[Note: - To permanently prevent such executive overreach in the future, Parliament amended Article 359. (44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978). The amendment explicitly states that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and protection against ex-post facto laws under Article 20 can never be suspended, even during a National Emergency.]

  1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – In this case, the court ruled that the right to a “speedy trial” is an essential part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court ruled that a fair and just procedure under Article 21 cannot exist if a trial is dragged out for years. The Bench firmly established that a speedy, expeditious trial is an implicit fundamental right of every citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to free legal services for a poor or indigent accused is an essential component of a reasonable and fair trial under Article 21.
  2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) – In this case, the court ruled that convicts and prisoners do not strip away their fundamental rights upon entering jail, and the Supreme Court retains full jurisdiction to protect their human dignity against custodial torture under Article 21. The Bench established the landmark penal rule that convicts are not non-persons; lawful imprisonment does not make them slaves of the state. While their physical liberty is restricted by law, they retain all other fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, including protection against cruelty, the right to health, and the right to human dignity. It ruled that solitary confinement and bar fetters can only be used as a last resort in extreme, volatile security situations.
  3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – In this case, the court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but established the binding “Rarest of Rare Cases” doctrine to severely restrict its use. The Court ruled that Article 21 explicitly recognizes that a person can be deprived of their life, provided it is done via a “procedure established by law.” It ruled that the death penalty must only be imposed in the “rarest of rare cases”, where the alternative option of life imprisonment is completely unquestionable and useless.
  4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) – In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 guarantees a person the right to live free from human bondage and exploitation, firmly establishing the power of the judiciary to conduct on-site investigations via court-appointed commissions.
  5. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) – In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that detaining children in adult prisons is a blatant violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21, and the state must provide separate, rehabilitative infrastructure for juvenile offenders. The Court directed that every detained child must be provided a state-funded defence lawyer from the moment of their restraint. (Free Legal Aid).
  6. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – In this case, the court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the Right to Livelihood, making it illegal for the state to evict pavement dwellers without a fair procedural hearing. The Court delivered a historic, expansive interpretation of the Right to Life. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud observed that if the Right to Life does not include a right to work and earn a living, the easiest way to take a citizen’s life would be to cut off their means of livelihood. The Bench ruled that no person can live without the means of living, meaning any state action that robs a person of their work or shelter must strictly satisfy the fairness tests of the Constitution.
  7. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) – This case is also known as the Dehradun Valley Mining Case. It is a historic landmark Supreme Court judgment that first read the Right to a Healthy Environment into the Right to Life under Article 21, effectively launching modern environmental jurisprudence and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. The Supreme Court established that the right to live in a healthy, pollution-free environment is a core aspect of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court observed that while industrial development is necessary for the country, it cannot be achieved at the cost of permanent ecological ruin.
  8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) - Mahesh Chandra Mehta, known as the “Green Avenger” of India; His cases revolutionized Indian environmental law and systematically expanded the Right to Clean Environment as an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21
  9. T. Damodhar Rao & Others v. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (1987) – In this case, the court held that enjoying an unpolluted environment is a core part of the Right to Life under Article 21, and the state cannot convert designated green spaces for housing developments.
  10. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) – In this case, the court established the absolute right to emergency medical treatment as a core component of the Right to Life under Article 21, ruling that saving a human life overrides all criminal and police procedures. The Bench ruled that the preservation of human life is of paramount importance. Every doctor, whether practicing in a government hospital or a private clinic, possesses a non-negotiable, professional, and constitutional obligation to extend immediate medical aid to any injured person brought to them, without waiting for administrative clearances.
  11. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) – In this case, Right to Education at all levels was held to be a Fundamental Right. The Bench ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 cannot be fully realized unless it is accompanied by the Right to Education.
  12. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) – In this case, the court partially modified the Mohini Jain ruling. The Court held that the absolute right to free education is strictly limited to children up to the age of 14 years. Beyond 14 years, a citizen’s right to education is entirely dependent on the economic capacity and development limits of the state.
  13. P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) – In this case, it was held that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the “Right to Die”, thereby declaring Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (which criminalised attempted suicide) unconstitutional. The Court adopted a broad, philosophical interpretation of fundamental rights. The Bench noted that freedom of speech implies a right to remain silent, and the freedom to carry on a business implies a right to close it down. Following this logic, the Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes a negative aspect, the right not to live a forced life of suffering. Therefore, a person cannot be legally compelled by the state to continue living if they choose to end their life.
  14. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) – In this case, the court completely overruled P. Rathinam, deciding that the Right to Life under Article 21 does not include the “Right to Die”, thereby restoring the validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court completely rejected the philosophical logic used in P. Rathinam. The Bench ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 is a positive right to exist with dignity until natural death. It cannot be expanded to include its exact opposite, the right to extinguish that life. Terminating life is the unnatural termination of existence, making it completely incompatible with the protection of life guaranteed by the Constitution.
  15. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) – In this case, the court established a mandatory set of procedural guidelines, the “D.K. Basu Guidelines”, to prevent custodial torture, deaths, and illegal detentions by the police. The court ruled that custodial violence and third-degree torture are direct attacks on human dignity and break the core of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Bench emphasized that a person does not lose their fundamental rights upon being arrested. The state cannot use the excuse of investigating a crime to physically or psychologically break a human being held in its custody.
  16. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – In this case, the court recognized sexual harassment in the workplace as a direct violation of the fundamental rights to gender equality and life with dignity under Articles 14, 15, and 21, creating the historic “Vishaka Guidelines” to fill a legislative vacuum.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 guarantees the right to work in a safe, healthy environment. The Court established that sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination that violates the right to equality under Article 14, the right to live with human dignity under Article 21, and the right to practice any profession freely under Article 19(1)(g).

  1. PUCL v. UOI (1997) - Long before the Puttaswamy verdict, the Supreme Court firmly ruled that telephonic conversations are a vital component of an individual’s private life, meaning arbitrary phone tapping violates the Right to Privacy under Article 21 and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
  2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2000) – In this case, the court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 necessarily includes the right to live with human dignity, which directly encompasses the right to food and freedom from starvation.
  3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – In this case, it was held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court explicitly and completely overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. The Bench ruled that the Right to Privacy is a core, inalienable human right that is implicitly woven into the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
  4. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) – In this case, the court held that the right to sleep is a fundamental human right intrinsic to the Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21.
  5. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) – In this case, the court formally recognized transgender individuals as the “Third Gender” under the Indian Constitution, ruling that gender identity is a core part of personal liberty, equality, and human dignity. The state had historically argued that a person could only change their legal gender after undergoing mandatory Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). The Supreme Court firmly rejected this medical restriction. The Bench ruled that forcing an individual to undergo SRS or medical sterilization to obtain legal recognition of their gender identity is an absolute violation of their bodily integrity, privacy, and mental dignity under Article 21. Legal gender recognition must flow strictly from the individual's internal psychological self-awareness.
  6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – In this case, the court decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships between adults by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Bench held that the Right to Life includes the right to choose a partner, the right to intimacy, and the right to live with self-respect.
  7. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – In this case, the court decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ruling that the law was deeply patriarchal and treated a married woman as the private property of her husband. The Bench held that a woman’s dignity is an inalienable facet of her life. Section 497 completely stripped a married woman of her sexual privacy, agency, and bodily autonomy by making her choices dependent on her husband's approval. The Court famously observed that a husband is not the master of his wife, and any law that treats a woman as chattel is a direct violation of Article 21.
  8. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) – In this case, the court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 encompasses the right to a dignified dying process, officially legalizing Passive Euthanasia and Living Wills in India. The Court expanded on its prior Gian Kaur (1996) ruling, clarifying that while an individual cannot actively destroy their life (Active Euthanasia), a dying terminal patient has the absolute right to refuse artificial, painful medical prolongation of a vegetative existence.