Table of Contents

The following landmark judgments explain the scope and interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. These cases have expanded the meaning of life, liberty, dignity, fair procedure, and various rights that flow from Article 21.

  1. A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India (AIR 1950 SC 27)

Held: It was held that personal liberty in Article 21 means liberty of physical body and nothing else. Procedure established by law does not mean process of law. Law means state made law and it does not mean having element of natural justice.

  1. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746)

Held: The Supreme Court held that right to live is not limited to mere animal existence. It is something more than just physical survival.

  1. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 3 SCC 429)

Held: The  Supreme Court held that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting licence for dance bars. The complete prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate.

  1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

Held: It was held that personal Liberty in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and covers variety of rights. The procedure established by law should be fair and reasonable. Law means having elements of principles of natural justice.

  1. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324)

Held: It was held that If there is a conflict of two rights qua individuals under Article 21 then in such a situation the test of 'larger public interest' is required.

  1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2019) 17 SCC 490)

Held: It was held that It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a decent environment. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the quality of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in absence of a healthy environment.

  1. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (AIR 2010 SC 1476)

Held: It was held that Article 21 of the Constitution, in its broad scope, safeguards life and personal liberty, ensuring that no person is deprived of these rights except through a procedure established by law. Its wide application extends beyond protecting the rights of the accused to also include the rights of the victim.

  1. Union of India v. Omkar Nath Dhar ((2021) 1 SCC 40)

Held: It was held that Right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation. The Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order allowing a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain Government accommodation. The court observed that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse.