Article 21 At The Crossroads: Judicial Innovation, Constitutional Ambiguity And The Quest For A Dignified Life
Honey Jadiya, Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College (Deemed To Be University), Pune.
ABSTRACT
The scope of Article 21 has undergone a remarkable evolution through judicial interpretations. Article 21 has evolved significantly from a predominantly negative right protecting against the exercise of arbitrary powers of the State to providing numerous ancillary rights within Article 21 through positive obligations by the State. This judicial evolution has led to higher standards of living and empowering the society by giving them rights beyond mere existence. However, this interpretation has also led to constitutional ambiguity due to lack of a clearly defined framework for the enforceability of the fundamental right. This undermines the effective realisation of the constitutional promise embedded in Article 21. This paper critically examines the constitutional ambiguity arising from the judicial interpretation of Article 21 and analyses how certain rights under the same provision are in conflict with one another. Further, the paper evaluates how implementation of several socio-economic rights necessarily depends upon the State’s institutional and financial capacity and is not always capable of immediate realisation. The absence of clear boundary between the Legislature and Judiciary regarding the extent to which judicial interpretation should expand Article 21 creates inconsistent standards of enforcement of a fundamental right. The emerging challenges arising from AI-driven surveillance, large-scale data collection and exceptions under the Digital Privacy Data Protection Act, 2023 further poses fresh challenges to the meaningful enjoyment of the right to live a life with dignity. To address these concerns, the paper proposes a structured framework and sub categorisation within Article 21 and introduces a Layered Model of Enforcement aimed to promote greater constitutional clarity and consistency for better implementation. Lastly, the paper concludes that the future of Article 21 depends upon a balanced framework which is guided by the principles of Human Dignity and evolving societal needs and the institutional capacity of the State.
Keywords: Article 21; Right to Dignity; Judicial Activism; Constitutional Ambiguity; Progressive Realisation of Fundamental Rights.
