12 Right to Life under the Constitution of India (Part 1)

Prof. Abhishek Sudhir

1. Learning Outcomes

The purpose of this chapter is:

• To give the students an overview of the constitutionally recognized components of an individual’s right to life;
• To help the students understand the manner in which the scope of the right to life has been expanded by judicial interpretation.

2. Introduction

Much of the development of the right to life under the Constitution of India is down to the creative brilliance of the Supreme Court of India. Through a series of activist decisions, the Supreme Court has expanded the right to life to include the right to a life with dignity, the right to reputation, a clean environment, shelter and protection from sexual harassment at the workplace. This module will give the students an overview of how and why the Supreme Court has given the right to life new meaning.

3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Article 21 of the Constitution reads:

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

According to Justice Bhagwati, Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Justice Krishna Iyer has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty. This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.

The term “life” as mentioned in the Article has been given a broad meaning by the Supreme Court, to include quality of life. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court quoted with approval Field, J.’ s observation in Munn v. Illinois and held:

“By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm or leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.”

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration7 the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval the above observations and held that the “right to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court defined life as follows:

“The right to live with human dignity and the same does not connote continued drudgery. It takes within its fold some of the fine graces of civilization which makes life worth living and that the expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture and heritage of the person concerned.”

4. Components of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

4.1 Right to Life with Human Dignity

Right to Life is not only confined to physical existence but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.

In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as violation of Article 14 and 21. The impugned Section 3 provided that a detenu could meet with his legal adviser only once a month, that too in the presence of a customs officer and only after obtaining prior permission from the district magistrate.

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati, J., speaking for the majority held that the rights and benefits conferred on the workmen employed by a contractor under various labour laws were clearly intended to ensure the basic human dignity to workmen and if they were deprived of any of these rights and benefits, that would clearly by a violation of Article 21.”

4.2 Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

The Supreme Court, through an innovative interpretation of Article 21, has ensured that female workers are not sexually harassed by male co-workers at their places of work. According to the Supreme Court, sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanising act, is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan11, the Supreme Court declared that sexual harassment of a woman at her place of work amounts to a violation of the rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty which is a clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court set out a set of rules, known as the “Vishakha Guidelines” governing sexual harassment at the workplace.

As a result of the Vishakha case, and sustained public pressure, Parliament has passed the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act, whereby victims may proceed against their employer civilly. Sexual Harassment has now also been made an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

4.3 Right to Livelihood

In the year 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression “life” in Article 21. However, this view changed as the Supreme Court became more and more activist, and the word “life” was given a wider more expansive meaning.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, popularly known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case” a five judge bench of the Court has finally ruled that the word “life” in Article 21 includes the right to livelihood also. The court said: “It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect if the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”

The court further opined: “if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation …the state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

In Sodhan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee , the five judge bench of the Supreme Court held the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. The petitioners, hawkers doing business off the pavement roads in Delhi, had claimed that the refusal by the Municipal authorities to them to carry on business of their livelihood amounted to violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court opined that while hawkers have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their choice, they have no right to do so in a particular place. They cannot be permitted to carry on their trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to be conveniently accommodating the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all, or may be permitted once a week. Footpaths, streets or roads are public property and are intended to several general public and are not meant for private use. However, the court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon.

In MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY, the Court held that a person who tested positive for HIV could not be rendered “medically unfit” solely on the ground of being HIV positive. Even though the petitioner might have been a nuisance to others and conducted themselves either in a disorderly way or unbecoming of their profession, that in and of itself is not sufficient for the executive to take away their source of livelihood by an executive fiat. That being said, the right to work has yet not been recognised as a Fundamental Right.

4.4 Right to Shelter

In Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life in any civilised society would include within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, and reasonable accommodation to live in.

It was stated in U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited, that the right to shelter is a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured in Article 19 (1) (e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the right to shelter as one of the basic human rights designed to ensure all facilities to human beings to develop themselves as members of a civilised society.

4.5 Right to Clean Environment

The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include life lived in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation and environment have all been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India18, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of several tanneries which were causing water pollution. The Supreme Court also issued guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation. The Court also held that the blatant and large scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi violated the individual’s right to a salubrious and decent environment.

In Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that the “right to life‟ means clean surroundings which lead to a healthy body and mind. The Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas. In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the Court held that persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or be subjected to passive smoking on account of an act of a smoker. Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place.

Noise pollution has also been dealt with under the preview of Article 21 by the Apex Court in In re: Noise Pollution. The Court held that nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or to decline to listen. If anyone increases the volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, then rights of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution free life guaranteed under Article 21 is being violated.

5. Conclusion

This module has demonstrated how the Supreme Court, for better or for worse, has taken it upon itself to give the right to life a wider meaning than was originally intended. The Supreme Court’s right to life jurisprudence has meant that the State now has to guarantee citizens shelter, a living wage, a clean environment and above all a life with dignity. Irrespective of whether one agrees or not with the activist approach of the Supreme Court, one cannot help but admire their judicial craftsmanship.

Reference

• Manoj Mate, The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases, Berkeley Journal of International Law.
• B.P. Singh Sehgal, Human Rights in India: Problems and Perspectives (1995)
• Jayna Kothari, Social Rights and the Indian Constitution, 2004 (2) Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal (LGD)
• Shefali Jha, Democratic Constitutionalism in India, Available at: http://indiaseminar.com/2013/642/642_shefali_jha.htm