From Mere Existence To A Life Of Dignity: The Expanding Scope Of Article 21
Hridya Vinod, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.),Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta, Ernakulam, Kerala
ABSTRACT
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Though expressed in a single sentence, the provision has become one of the most dynamic guarantees in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of India has progressively transformed Article 21 from a primarily procedural safeguard into a substantive guarantee encompassing dignity, autonomy and meaningful liberty. Beginning with the restrictive interpretation adopted in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras and the subsequent transformation brought by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Article 21 has expanded to include fair procedure, speedy trial, humane prison conditions, livelihood, healthcare, environmental protection, privacy, reproductive autonomy and dignity at the end of life.
This article discusses the evolution of Article 21 and how the Supreme Court has reacted to the changing social, technological and medical situations. It claims that the extension of Article 21 is not a free roam of the judges granting new rights. Instead, it is an interpretation that is developing over time of the constitutional ideals of life, liberty and human dignity. Concurrently, the growth of the size of the expansion has legitimate concerns about separation of powers, institutional competence, judicial overreach and limited public resources allocation. It is, therefore, suggested that a constitutional jurisprudence of Article 21 can be constructed on the basis of constitutional text, dignity, proportionality, evidence and institutional restraint. The case of Harish Rana v Union of India, a recent one, is discussed as a modern case example of the concept of dignity and autonomy in the context of the right to medical care and the right to die with dignity.
