Tag: #righttolife

INTRODUCTION

Water is indispensable to life. Human beings can survive for 3 weeks without food, but only three days without water. Moreover, there may be no food cultivation without water. Conceptually, therefore, the right to life, considered the foremost basic and fundamental of all rights, must include within it a right to water. The right to water evolved from initial references to water in numerous international treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All types of Discrimination against Women, 1979, the Convention on the Rights of the kid, 1990, and therefore the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2008. Ultimately, in 2010, the international organization (“U.N.”) General Assembly adopted resolutions on the “Human Right to Water and Sanitation” and on the “Human Rights and Access to Safe beverage and Sanitation” emphasizing recognition of the “right to water”. We now have a separate right to water. In 2002, the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“E.S.C.R”.) adopted General Comment 15 noting that “The right to water is indispensable for leading a life with human dignity”. The Committee also defined the core content of the “right to water” to incorporate “everyone’s right to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for private and domestic uses”.

BACKGROUND

Historically, Dalits have sought integration and respect within mainstream Hindu caste society which has been denied to them for hundreds of years, in accordance with the dominant development paradigm. On the opposite hand, Adivasis have sought development on their terms outside mainstream Indian society. As a result, Dalit articulation of the “right to water” seeks not only to secure state provisioning of water within the traditional vertical exercise of their rights against the state but also to make sure enforcement of access to it water provision through the horizontal application of the correct in legal code against upper castes that block such access. For Adivasis, however, articulation of the “right to water” is inextricably linked to their rights to land and forest, seen as a part of one indivisible ecosystem.

Apart from the judicial articulation of a generally applicable “right to water”, I also describe the articulation of this right on behalf of two marginalized groups. the primary group includes Dalits or Scheduled Castes that constitute 16% of India’s population, who have historically faced systematic discrimination within mainstream Hindu society supported their caste. Originating in ancient India, and transformed by medieval elites, and later by British colonial rule, the class structure in India was a system of conditions that consigned people in several castes to different hereditary occupations, positions, and ways of life. Dalits or untouchables were placed outside the societal hierarchy and were denied access to common sources like food and water. The other group includes Adivasis or indigenous peoples which includes 8.6% of India’s population, who are historically marginalized because they need to live largely in geographical isolation in hills and forests with distinct cultures outside the society.

The right to life is continuously expanded, which has the proper to possess a clean environment and also the right to health, and after your time court mentioned that it also includes the correct to water. after we analyze various judgments of the Indian court, we will find that they need not only considered the correct to urge water as a fundamental right, but the court has also mentioned that water should be social asset.

Right to water was added to the extended interpretation of the proper to life under article 21 of the Indian constitution within the judgment of the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (Civil) No. 196 / 2001. This judgment created a precedent that seeped all the way down to rock bottom levels of court.

The country of India hosts a large population that further creates a large demand for basic life necessities like water. However, this demand goes with major disappointment for people because of the severe scarcity of water. consistent with the 2017 UNICEF report, India’s two-thirds districts among the 718 districts, were reported to be under-supplied with water, with groundwater becoming scarcer a day

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is the primary enacted by the parliament in relevance to the protection and preservation of the environment. The water act came into force to make sure the restoration of the water, where the domestic and industrial effluents pollute water with no precautionary measures. The Constitution of the Central Pollution Board and State Pollution control panel is empowered under the act to perform various functions like establishing the standard, research, and investigation of the bodies creating pollution to the water bodies. The awareness about promoting the cleanliness of water streams, well and rivers is also raised by this Act. And also, one every of the most purpose of building this act was to stop and control the pollution of water.

One of the provisions of this act provides that nobody can establish any industry which discharges sewages or trades effluents into the water bodies without the permission of the state board. But within the case of Province Pollution board II v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu it had been held by Supreme Court that Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 doesn’t provide an exemption to the state for exempting the establishment of personal body or polluting industries creating pollution to the water bodies.

PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986

Environment Protection Act has got force on19th of November 1986. The name environment protect act itself provides the most objective of the act as protection of the environment. This act provides power to the Central Government to require appropriate measures so as to shield and improve the environment.

INDIAN EASEMENT ACT, 1882

The Indian Easement Act came into force on the 1st day of July 1882. Under this Act, the word Easement is defined in Section 4. But normally term easement means “right to enjoyment”. The rights of Riparian owners are recognized under this Act. A riparian owner is the one who has his land nearby the river or a stream.

Even after various legislations are passed the river water in India are continuously polluted River Ganga despite being worshiped by almost a billion people of this country is included among the foremost polluted river of the identical, variant liters of chemical waste is disposed of in these waters by the industries including the pollutants like cyanide, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and mercury including sewage waters also which is that the biggest pollutant These pollutants are so poisonous that they not only kill fishes instantly but other animals also. When these poisonous pollutants are disposed of in water it reduces the standard of water and makes them useless for drinking.

In the case of M C Mehta vs. State of Orrisa and Ors, a writ petition was filed for shielding the health of thousands of individuals living within town Cuttack and therefore the other areas which were adjacent thereto, which were plagued by the pollution caused by disposition discharged into the river by a municipal committee of Cuttack and SCB Medical Collage Hospital, also the State Pollution Board in its report concluded that the water within the city wasn’t fit human consumption and even bathing, The Apex court ordered to require immediate steps to manage the present situation and a responsible municipal corporation was formulated by the court for effective management of pollutants within the city’s beverage.

The government also because the Boards established under the legislation should attend to those matters not just by providing fines to the individuals polluting water but through imprisonment.

The case of Vikash Bansal vs Delhi pollution control committee marks an exceptional judgment given by the supreme court because, during this case of Haryana Paneer Bhandar, an offender was imprisoned for a period of 1 year with 1 Lakh Rupees fine together with 2.5 lakhs Rupees to tend to the PM relief fund, but what must be noticed during this judgment is that this case isn’t associated with any criminal offense like rape, murder, robbery or assault whereas it had been a case associated with the environment that’s polluting the river of Yamuna.

These types of convictions are seen as very rare and in line with me, the court must make such convictions more frequently so as to safeguard the environment from degrading further.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Not only a private can approach through the provisions of the legislations associated with the Environment but also through filing a Public Interest Litigation Now, pollution of water is worried to a bigger public, and any dispute associated with water may be settled through filing a Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation is filed through Article 32 of the Constitution of India which provides about the proper Constitutional Remedies and thru Article 226 of the Constitution of India which provides about the ability of the court to issue certain writ Public Interest Litigation may be filed through Section 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides about common nuisance. Public Interest Litigation will be converted into writ and the other way around.

CASE DECISION

Right to induce clean water isn’t an enumerated right under the Constitution of India. This right was brought to light through various judicial pronouncements and has become an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. And also, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the court is guaranteed to bear in mind Article 21 which offers about Right to life and private liberty, and Article 48A which provides the basic duties and Article 51A. (g) which provides about the Directive Principles of State Policy whenever a case associated with environmental problem is brought before such court.

CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION

Central Water Commission was established to perform various functions including the initiation, coordination, and consultation of the authorities within the matter associated with the preservation, control, utilization, and distribution of water resources to the citizens of India. The central water commission is now part of the state of India. It makes sure the utilization of water resources appropriately so as to regulate floods, and droughts, maintain irrigation, and provide potable, etc.

In recent time, thanks to Covid-19, there has been large control on the pollution not only to the water bodies but also control of pollution, noise, pollution, etc. the govt. must take this as a chance to stop any more pollution of the water bodies by bringing various other legislation or simply by improving the provisions of the present legislation. The provisions of current legislation shall be made stricter which creates fear within the minds of individuals from further polluting the environment.

CONCLUSION

Water isn’t a personal asset and is the main essential ingredient for the survival of the people. It’s important to regulate pollution caused to the river water, streams, wells, etc. because India includes a total of only 4% of the world’s H2O, uses 80% of that merely for farming, and using polluted water for farming will adversely affect the health of people. The second most populated country within the world is additionally home to thousands of ethnic and tribal groups which survive on the character or jungle for his or her food and water including the little streams of water from major rivers, the presence of chemical pollutants are incredibly harmful moreover as deadly in some cases. And also, the right to induce clean water isn’t an enumerated right but could be a right enforced under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 Hence Right to induce a clean beverages is additionally considered a a fundamental right and no one can deprive of such a right. If this right is empty a person, the one that has been aggrieved of those rights contains a right to approach under different provisions provided under the varied legislations. Different reasonable protection must even be given to major rivers and their connecting tanneries because these pollutants are directly affecting the habitat prospering around these rivers.

This article is written by Ashutosh Banshwar, a student of School of Law, Sharda University.

Coordinating a fair trial for those who are inculpated of criminal offences, is the backbone of democracy. A ‘fair trial’ is one of the most important humanitarian aspects of criminal justice and, in a way, an important component reflected in the rule of law. Acknowledgement of the fairest possibility to the accused in order to prove their integrity is the key component of every fair trial. Escorting a fair trial is fruitful both to the accused as well as to the civilisation. A conviction arising from an unfair trial is conflicting with our theory of justice.

INTRODUCTION

A fair trial clearly would mean a trial before an unbiased judge, an honest prosecutor and an environment of judicial tranquillity. A fair trial means a trial in which there’s no discrimination, it is not influenced or twisted for, or against the inculpated and the witnesses or the source which is being tried. If the witnesses get terrorized or are imposed to give forged evidence that also would not score in a fair trial. The failure to gather necessary witnesses is certainly denying a fair trial. The right to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution is enshrined in Article 21. Additionally, Section 142 of the Evidence Act does not give power to the prosecution to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence that a witness intends to give against the accused. To do so infringes the right of the accused to have a fair trial which is enshrined in Article 21, this is not curable in irregularity. The right to have a fair trial, rigorously in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act which would involve procedural protection, is a fundamental right of the juvenile too.

CONCEPT OF A FAIR TRIAL

The right to a fair trial is not just a right furnished in our country but it is also promised by numerous other statutes worldwide. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerns the Right to a fair trial. The Article states that everyone is authorized to have a fair and general hearing within a rational time. The trial must be directed by the liberated and unprejudiced court of law. The African Charter of Human Rights shields the nobility of humans and prevents unfair treatment under Article 5. Article 6 of the same charter also assures separate liberty and safety to a person. The right to a fair trial is promised under Article 7 which embraces several rights like the Right to appeal to adequate jurisdiction, to defence, to be tried and to be assumed decent until proven guilty. Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) furnishes the right to a fair trial and Article 16 gives a right to acknowledgement before the law. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), promises the right to a fair trial. The precautions related to a fair trial in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are further intended and elaborated than the provisions in UDHR.

Principles of Fair Trial –

1. Presumption of integrity.
2. Unbiased, unprejudiced, equitable and competent judge.
3. Speedy and efficient trial.
4. The trial should be in an open court.
5. Proficiency of allegation on adequate occasions.
6. The trial is to be conducted in the presence of inculpated.
7. Evidence to be taken in presence of inculpated.
8. Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
9. Prohibition of vulnerability.
10. Legal help to be provided.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar¹, the Supreme Court has laid great emphasis on speedy trial of criminal offences, and has emphasised: “It is implicit in the broad sweep and content of article 21.” A fair trial suggests a speedy trial. No strategy can be ‘judicious, fair or just’ unless that procedure establishes a speedy trial for the determination of the sin of such a person.

In Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand², the Supreme Court held that the right to have a fair trial strictly in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act which would include procedural safeguards is a fundamental right of the juvenile.

The advent of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India³ strengthened the concept more. This is a landmark case of the post-emergency. It exhibits liberal propensities that have affected the Supreme Court in the matter of elucidating fundamental rights, particularly, Article 21. A great evolution has come about in the judicial perspective towards the guardianship of personal liberty after the agonizing experiences of the emergency from 1975 to 1977 when personal liberty had outstretched its nadir, as understandable by the Supreme Court. It performed as a catalytic agent for the evolution of the judicial opinion on Article 21 and has been enduring varied pay-off expansion of Constitutional Law in India.

Article 21 guarantees every person a right to life and personal liberty and uses four decisive expressions, viz., ‘life’, ‘personal liberty, ‘procedure’ and ‘law’.

1. Life: Bhagwati J., has perceived in Francis Coralie v. Delhi⁴, that the right to life comprises the right to live with human dignity and all that goes down with it, namely, the sustained demands of life such as sufficient nutrition, clothing and shelter above their head, reading, writing and expressing oneself in different forms, mobility and mixing and commingling with the contemporary environment.
2. Personal Liberty: M. C. Mehta v. Union of India^5, the Supreme Court commented that the term personal liberty is not cast-off in a myopic sense but has been used in Article 21 as a concise term to incorporate within it all those diversity of rights of a person which go to make up the personal liberty of a man. The liberty of a person has to be stabilized with his responsibilities and obligations towards his comrade citizens.
3. Law: Article 21 also takes in several species of law other than the laws enacted by the legislature. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha⁶ said that the rules made by a House of the state legislature under Article 208 have been regulated as laying down procedures established by law for purposes of Article 21. Article 21 applies to the area of legislative privileges and, thus, a person cannot be imprisoned for breach of privilege of a legislature accepted following the procedure established by law. Proceedings held before the committee of privileges of a House of the legislature under the rules framed by it in pursuance of article 208 or article 118 are by procedures established by law.
4. Procedure: It is now established after Maneka Gandhi that procedure for reasons of Article 21 has to be reasonable, fair and just. The expression procedure acclaimed by law expands both to substantive as well as procedural law. A course of action not fulfilling the features is no course of action at all in the eyes of Article 21. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation⁷, the Supreme Court has again highlighted that the procedure directed by law for the seizure of the right vested by Article 21 must be fair, prejudiced and reasonable. The procedure directed by law for seizing a person of his right to life must abide by the norms of justice and fair play. The procedure which is unjust and biased in situations of a case, allures the voice of unreasonableness, thereby deteriorating the law which highlights that procedure and consequently, the measures taken under it.
5. The onus of proof: The presumption of innocence is a human right. Article 21 given its costly meaning not only protects life and liberty but also envisages a fair process. Similarly, under Article 21, the burden is never on the petitioner to prove that the procedure prescribed by law which deprives him of his life or personal liberty, is unjust, unreasonable or unfair. Bachan Singh is an authority to propose that in cases arising under Article 21 of the Constitution, if it appears that any person is being deprived of his life or his liberty, then the burden of proof establishes the State Constitutional validity of the applicable law.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 visualizes a fair trial, a fair procedure and a fair investigation. Such a right not only entitles the appellant to be informed of their fundamental right and statutory rights, but it is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor to record the necessary material before the judge to show the appeal. Fair investigation and fair trial are closely connected to the preservation of the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the constitution. Reasonableness would be determined by the facts and conditions of a case and the appraisal by the courts.

---

CITATIONS

¹ AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1980) 1 SCC 81.

² AIR (2005) 3 SCC 551 : AIR 2005 SC 2731.

³ AIR 1975 SC 775 : (1975) 3 SCC 836.

⁴ AIR 1981 SC 746, 753 : (198) 1 SCC 608.

⁵ (2003) 5 SCC 376 : AIR 2003 SC 3496.

⁶ AIR 1959 SC 395, 410-11.

⁷ AIR 198 SC 180, AT 196-197 : (1985) 3 SCC 545.

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed her BA LLB from Agra College and is currently doing a diploma in Corporate Law from Enhelion.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most unprecedented crisis ever in modern human history unfettered its wings in the form of a virus transmission namely Covid-19. The pandemic shook all spheres of life ranging from regular personal issues to the most intriguing aspect of our life. The Legal field was no exception to this havoc and it too bore the brunt of the pandemic. It compelled the justice delivery system to turn its recourse from traditional instruments of justice delivery to modern ones. In order to cope with the complicated demand system and ensure speedy and accessible delivery of justice, the virtual courts evolved to the fullest. It would be necessary to observe that even though they were present before the pandemic, covid-19 caused their application. Even after the retrieval of the pandemic, the ever arching presence of technology-assisted tools such as video conferencing and virtual courts are like to stay long after given their immense benefits of time-saving, speedy trials, social distancing norms, and technical benefits. However, as we know everything comes at a cost, this becomes more relevant in this case where the queen card is technology.¹

TECHNOLOGICAL CONUNDRUM

Starting from the very conception, nearly all the aspects in this technology-driven process suffer from myriad glitches. In the present scenario of virtual proceedings, only lawyers and their respective clients can view the same. The general public is barred from participating in the process. This completely goes against the notion of open courts and access to justice because these ultimately erode the rule of law as the very credibility and transparency depend on the open and fair judicial trials. Moreover, poor audio-video quality, manipulation of testimonials and evidence, power backup and connectivity issues, irregular code of conduct by the stakeholders, difficulty posed in cross-examination of witnesses, and multiple other issues that have crept into the system have further accentuated the discrepancies and complications of the ongoing virtual process.

The words of Adv. Dushyant Dave who quoted, “Performance of virtual courts through the medium of video conferencing has been not only far from satisfactory, but utterly disappointing.” presents a stark contrast as to actual requirements of setting up the requisite infrastructure and the ground reality.

One of the pertinent questions that arise is how to retain the public trust and confidence in the ongoing convoluted circumstances when the very concept of open courts and access to justice have been endangered by the advent and ramifications of covid-19? One of the notable answers to this question could be the live streaming of cases in matters of constitutional and national public interest which had been laid down in the case of Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India². The case lays down the groundwork required for setting up virtual courts, thus, paving way for the establishment of online norms and infra for live streaming.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2017, Swapnil Tripathi, a law student, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution and was joined by 3 others, seeking declaration for the live streaming of the cases of constitutional importance and affecting the public at large in a manner that is accessible for public viewing. It further sought guidelines for laying down criteria for determining the cases that qualify for live streaming and also chalking out the list of exceptional cases. In order to buttress his case, the petitioner relied on the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirjkar v. the State of Maharashtra³ wherein the court emphasized the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy, effectiveness of the courts, and enhancement of public confidence and support.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether there should be live dissemination of the cases with aid of ICT( information and communication technology) and, if they are to be introduced in India, then under what conditions?

DECISION

The decision was delivered by a 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India wherein Justice Khanwilkar delivered the majority judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Dipak Misra. Justice D.Y Chandrachud gave a different concurring judgment. The bench ruled that the cases of the constitutional and national importance of public matter should be live-streamed in a manner consistent with the guidelines as prescribed by the honorable Supreme Court of India.

HELD

The Judgement is held to be significant, for it opens the door that provides open access to justice, public information and ensures transparency of the judicial process. The judgment has opened the application of live stream even to the most bottom tiers of judicial institutions i.e. lower courts thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire judicial ecosystem. The court held that the right to view the live broadcast of the above-mentioned cases flowed from the right to access to justice which is derived from Article 21 Right to life and liberty thereby underlining the concept of open courts. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to the provisions of model guidelines framed for this purpose. The SC shall hold the broadcast and archive rights exclusively. The court concluded that live streaming of cases would uphold the constitution values, infuse public confidence into the judicial machinery, and uphold the values of democracy and integrity. However, there is a compelling need to balance the administration of justice and the virtues of privacy and dignity of the stakeholders involved. The other benefits involve:

1. It would infuse radical immediacy of the court proceedings and espouse public awareness regarding matters of national importance.
2. It would reduce public reliance upon second-hand narratives and ensure the credibility of the system.
3. It would literally eliminate the space and the time constraints by removing physical barriers and decongesting the courtrooms, thereby, greatly aiding in keeping infections at bay.
4. It would drastically enhance the accountability and credibility of the judicial process, thus, promoting democracy.

CONCLUSION

While allowing such streaming, the majesty, integrity, and decorum of the courts as well as of the stakeholders involved, should not be compromised. Given in this unprecedented crisis of covid19 and the post covid world, live streams would be an imperative tool for the purpose of serving justice and fulfilling the notion of open courts thereby promoting technological prowess.

References:

1. https://lawtimesjournal.in/swapnil-tripathi-vs-supreme-court-of-india/
2. (2018) 10 SCC 628
3. 1966 3 S.C.R 744

This article is written by Riya Ganguly, 2nd year BBA LLB student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

The Supreme Court of India emphasized in Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India that the freedom to go abroad, like marriage and family, is a genuine and vital human right. “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right because it fosters an individual’s independent and self-determining creative character,” wrote a bench led by Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, “not only by expanding his freedoms of action but also by expanding his scope of experience.

In this case, an IPS officer filed an appeal, from Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. He claimed in his appeal that he was the subject of a departmental inquiry and that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had denied him permission to visit relatives overseas because of it. Despite the fact that Inspector General of Police Satish Chandra Verma was not facing any criminal charges, the Madras High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision that he may not go abroad without first obtaining Vigilance clearance. The Supreme Court overruled the verdict of the High Court, citing Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Kent vs. Dulles, two landmark US Supreme Court cases (1958).

In its judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the bench stated that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right since it strengthens an individual’s independent and self-determining creative character by widening his job experience and giving him more freedom of action. The Supreme Court noted the ruling in the latter case, which stated that “freedom to go abroad is a fundamental human right with major societal relevance.” The Supreme Court said that the freedom to travel globally is a core human right that also relates to private life, such as marriage, family, and friendship.

Right to travel internationally

Article 19 of the Indian constitution guarantees the freedom to freely move beyond Indian territory; nevertheless, the right to go abroad is derived from Article 21’s right to life and personal liberty.

Liberal interpretations have given the phrase “life and liberty” huge meanings in this article. Life here refers to both one’s physical existence and one’s quality of life. Personal liberty, on the other hand, encompasses a wide variety of rights in addition to freedom from physical constraint or confinement.

The Supreme Court stated in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI that the term “personal liberty” as used in Article 21 has a very broad meaning and it encompasses a plethora of rights that include man’s personal liberty, some of which have been elevated to the status of separate fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.

Article 21 defines the state’s negative duty, although it does not totally nullify restrictions or limitations if carried out in line with the “process” prescribed by law. An individual’s personal liberty and the rights that come with it, as well as the individual’s duties and obligations to the state and other citizens, must be balanced. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam: The Supreme Court ruled in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam that the “expression” of personal liberty includes freedom of movement and travel internationally. The necessity to hold a passport in order to
legitimately going overseas may raise the question of whether it is a barrier to an individual’s right to travel abroad, however, the Supreme Court found against this in the same case.

In a nutshell, the right to freely travel throughout India’s territory and the right to freely travel abroad both fall under the umbrella of “personal liberty,” although being provided under separate parts of the constitution. Specific limits on traveling overseas may apply, which must be followed in compliance with legal regulations. There are several fair restrictions on roaming freely throughout India.

Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights addresses the freedom to travel abroad in international law. It empowers anybody, including themselves, to exit any country. As a result, it enhances the basic freedom of foreign travel. However, the Covenant, like the Indian Constitution, places limitations on the right “as may be needed by law to protect national security, public order, health, or morality in the interests of others’ rights and freedoms,” and these restrictions are compatible with the Covenant’s other rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which oversees the Covenant’s implementation, has underlined that Article 12 covers both the freedom to leave for permanent emigration and the right to travel abroad. It also safeguards a person’s freedom to pick his or her own travel destination.

While the UN Human Rights Council asserts that the right to dwell in a country includes the right to get the necessary travel documents, the Supreme Court has a different view on the passport and travel document problem. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court argued that a passport is a political document with no absolute right to get one because it is up to the state to give or deny one. The government does not appear to need to assert someone it does not think acceptable because the document states the holder’s respectability.

When there is a dispute between national and international law, the Supreme Court stated in Gramophone Company of India vs. Virendra Pandey in 1984 that national law shall prevail.

The right to travel freely across the world has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. Following Article 21, it is suggested that a new article, namely Article 21A, be included with the words “A21. (2) Nothing in section (1) stops the State from implementing legislation that sets appropriate boundaries in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, friendly relations with other states, and the general public.” An individual provision for the right to travel abroad might help to accelerate the implementation of this critical right, which is now underway.

Written by Muskan Patidar student at Kirit P. Mehta School of law (NMIMS), Mumbai.

ABSTRACT

Interpretation of Article 21 has been given the widest amplitude post the judgment of Maneka Gandhi and since then it has included rights such as the right to food, the right to shelter, and a host of other rights.

INTRODUCTION

Article 21 is one of the most vital and indispensable fundamental rights that is enshrined in part III of the Indian constitution. It guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to each and every individual irrespective of his citizenship and states that no individual would be deprived of the above-mentioned rights except according to the procedure established by law.

The interpretation of article 21 was initially given a very restrictive and narrow meaning soon after the commencement of our constitution. It was after the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v UOI¹ that the scope of article 21 was drastically widened. Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s judgment, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty only against arbitrary and unreasonable executive actions and not from legislative actions. The arbitrary and unfair state actions that interfered with the life and personal liberty of the individuals could be protected and upheld if it was validated by the law. However, after the judgment of the Maneka Gandhi case, it was held that Article 21 protects an individual’s fundamental right of life and personal liberty from the arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable actions of both the executive and the legislature. To deprive a person of his rights under Article 21, there has to be a valid law and the procedure prescribed by the law has to be just, fair and reasonable.

RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 21

1. A K Gopalan v. UOI ²
   The petitioner contended that Article 21 must be read together with the rights encompassed in Article 19 (1) and 19 (5) as Article 19 dealt with substantive laws and Article 21 dealt with procedural laws. Moreover, the phrase “procedure established by law” meant the due process of law and included the principles of Natural Justice. The court, rejecting the above contentions gave a narrow and restrictive interpretation of Article 21 and held that Article 21 protected an individual only from those arrests and detentions that are made without the due authority of law or in other words Article 21 protected the physical liberty of a person and did not include any other rights. Moreover, the state-made laws did not include within its sweep the principles of natural justice.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of UP ³
   The court, in this case, held the domiciliary visits by the UP police that led to surveillance of the petitioner as illegal because the police action was not validated by any law and it led to an invasion of personal liberty as the term personal liberty was not only limited to prison confinement but also other forms of restrictive bodily restraint.
3. Govind v. State of M.P ⁴
   The court in this case upheld the whimsical and unreasonable domiciliary visits by the MP police which was violative of the fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 as the same was validated by Section 46 of the Police Act. Since the regulations had the force of law and were duly prescribed by the law, hence they were deemed as valid.

LIBERAL INTERPRETATION

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ⁵
This landmark case examined the amplitude of the phrase “personal liberty” used in Article 21. The passport of the petitioner in the given case was impounded by the government under the Passport Act 1967 in the interest of the general public. The majority judge bench, in this case, construed the term ‘personal liberty in the widest possible manner and thereby, exercising the rules of natural justice held the act of impounding of the passport as illegal. The court overruled AK Goplan and held that Article 21 was inclusive of Articles 19 and 14. The court held that in order to deprive an individual of his personal liberty, there must be valid law, prescribing a procedure and the procedure so prescribed should be fair, just, and reasonable.

The judgment of Maneka Gandhi paved way for the liberal interpretation of Article 21, thereby leading to the inclusion of a host of rights as fundamental to life and personal liberty under Article 21. These included the right to livelihood, right to clean air, right to privacy, right to gender expression, right to food, right to shelter, right to health, right to education, right to sleep, right to die, and a bunch of other derived rights.

RIGHT TO FOOD AND SHELTER

Food is one of the most crucial compelling necessities of human life after air and water. All the activities of mankind are directed towards satiation of this very need. It provides the much-needed nutrition to the human body which is vital for survival, growth, and bodily development. It is needless to further underscore its importance further given its prima facie absolute importance for the continuation of life on earth. Juxtaposed to this very importance of food for survival, there exist several lakh people in self-sufficient and food secure countries like India who die every day out of hunger and starvation. The vicious circle of the twin evils of poverty and unemployment often leads to hunger, prolonged malnutrition, and distress. Even if the direct cause of many such deaths may not appear to be from starvation prima facie, the somber reality remains unchanged that lack of food and avenues of employment often leads to prolonged periods of malnutrition, making them more vulnerable to diseases and distress, thereby, ultimately resulting in their deaths. On one hand, where the poor dies of hunger, it is even more appalling to note that the granaries of the FCI abound in food grains and often rot over there. Policy changes for appropriate nutrition requirements and distribution of food grains free of cost to the needy and destitute have to be executed with due diligence in order to correct this perpetuating wrong and ensure justice.

There is an imperative need for a paradigm shift from viewing the policy changes inequitable food distribution as acts of benevolence to that of it as the right of citizens. Various judicial pronouncements have been rendered in order to correct this perspective and ensure equity. Given the centerpiece importance of the right to food, the right to shelter also forms one of the very vital subsidiary human rights. A permanent roof on the head has traditionally been a sign of social security. It provides the much-needed material support and security for the realization of our avenues. It is an important indicator and buttress for the necessary progress and growth of the human being. The right to shelter, thus, forms an intrinsic part and parcel of the right to live with dignity.

The right to food and shelter, thus, form an indispensable and rudimentary need of human life. They are the bare necessities of life that go into everyday survival and ensure a dignified life. Given the expanding scope of Article 21, which has been given the widest possible interpretation through the various bold judicial enactments and decisions in recent times, Article 21 has included within its sweep an array of rights that have been deemed fundamental for a reasonable survival and realization of the worth of human lives.

The fundamental right under Article 21 that guarantees the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity with such basic amenities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, education, livelihood, medical care, decent environment, etc. that provide a reasonable standard of living, thereby providing scope for the development of human resources as a whole. Besides Article 21, Constitution, through the instrumentality of DPSP under Article 39 A and 47 mentioned in part IV of the constitution have also cast a positive obligation on the state to take affirmative steps, so as to meet the ends of equity and justice. Article 39A requires the State to direct its policies so as to secure all its citizen’s adequate means of employment and Article 47 directs the state to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living of its citizens by providing them avenues of shelter, clothing, education, health, and other amenities for integrated development.

The right to food and shelter can thus be enforced under article 32 of the constitution. The Supreme Court, through its various pronouncements, has rightly held these rights as fundamental to survival and has thereby kept it under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

1. Chameli Singh v. State of UP ⁶
   The SC held the right to shelter as a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the constitution. The court held that in given civilized societies, human living did not imply a mere animal existence, but included all those facilities that go into making the human life worthful and dignified. The right to live implied the basic human rights of food, shelter, water, medical care, education, clean environment, sanitation, and other amenities. The right to shelter not only includes the mere facility of a roof over one’s head but includes the right to have all those necessary infrastructures that enable one to live off a meaningful life and develop as a human being.
2. Francis Coralie v. union Territory of Delhi ⁷
   The Supreme Court in this case interpreted the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 and held that the right to life included more than mere animal existence and physical survival. The right to ‘life’ was not confined to those physical faculties or limbs through which we interact with the outside world but includes the right to live with human dignity which includes all those necessities that go into survival such as food, clothing, shelter, and facilities for education and expression.
3. PUCL v. Union of India ⁸
   In this case, the Supreme Court held the right to food as a fundamental right of the people under Article 21 that guarantees the right to life. Court held that State ought to provide food grains free of cost from the surplus reserve lying with the States to the starving people such as destitute children /men/ women, aged, infirm, disabled who were unable to purchase food grains. They have the right to get fed under Article 21.
4. P.G. Gupta v. Slate of Gujarat and Ors ⁹
   The court held that the basic needs of man in any civilized society traditionally include the trinity of food, clothing, and shelter. The Right to life under Article 21 includes within its sweep right to food, right to reasonable accommodation, and right to a decent environment.
5. Kapila Hingorani vs State Of Bihar ¹⁰
   The court held that the employees of the public sector undertaking have a fundamental right under article 21 to get the salaries paid by the government as the denial of the same may lead to hunger which is a gross violation of human rights. The State cannot claim lack of resource and abdicate from its duty to pay its employees as the same would amount to a denial of basic and indispensable fundamental rights under Article 21.

Conclusion

Article 21 rightly seeks to serve the interests of all individuals irrespective of their by validating their right to life and personal liberty. By including the sets of rights that are crucial and imperative for the survival of human beings with dignity and that form an indispensable part of the basic human rights, it serves the purpose of equity, justice, fairness, and principles of natural justice.

Citations

1. AIR 1978 SC 597
2. AIR 1950 SC 27
3. AIR 1963 SC 1295
4. AIR 1975 SC 1378
5. AIR 1978 SC 597
6. (1996) 2 SCC 549
7. AIR 1981 SC 746
8. 2000 (5) SCALE 30
9. [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 182
10. 2003 Supp(1) SCR 175

Written by Riya Ganguly student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.