Article 21 and 21A – Right to Life and Personal Liberty & Right to Education

Synopsis: 

1. Article 21- Right to life
2. Dimensions of Article 21
   1. Personal Freedom
   2. Right to Livelihood
   3. Right to Free Legal Aid
   4. Right to Health and Medical Aid
   5. Right to Privacy
   6. Right to Education
   7. Right to Information
   8. Right to Die
   9. Right to Life against Death Penalty
3. Is the Right to Life an Absolute Right?
4. Article 21A – Right to education 
5. Conclusion

1. Article 21- Right to life
   
   Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
   
   Notably, the term State is absent from Article 21, indicating that its provisions are applicable to both the State and private individuals. While the primary emphasis of this article is on the responsibilities of the State to safeguard the ‘right to life,’ it also implies that the State must not infringe upon the life and personal liberty of individuals without adhering to legally established procedures. Furthermore, the enactment of laws by the State does not absolve private individuals from the obligation to respect the personal liberties of others. There are specific situations that can violate both life and personal liberty, and it is incumbent upon the State to take proactive measures to eliminate such circumstances. Thus, the State has a fundamental role in fostering social justice, which is essential for the protection and preservation of the dignity of life and individual liberty, thereby establishing a connection between Article 14 and Article 21.
   
   The notion of protective discrimination aimed at enhancing the dignity of life and individual liberty for both individuals and groups is also embedded within Article 21, although it is not explicitly articulated in the context of this article. This concept has been previously examined in relation to Equality and Social Justice under Article 14.
   
2. Dimensions of Article 21 
   
   1. Personal Freedom
      A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India (A.I.R-1950) The Supreme Court determined that the concept of personal liberty as articulated in Article 21 pertains solely to the physical freedom of an individual, specifically the right to be free from unlawful detention and arrest. In this ruling, the Supreme Court construed the law as a product of state legislation.
      
   2. Right to Livelihood
      Vellore Citizen Forum v. Union of India (A.I.R 1996) The court established that the state acts as a public trustee for the nation’s resources, with the populace serving as the beneficiaries of this trust. It is incumbent upon the state to manage these resources in a manner that prioritizes the welfare of the citizens. Furthermore, the state bears responsibility to the public regarding the stewardship of these resources and is obligated to undertake measures to safeguard the environment for the benefit of the people.
      
   3. Right to Free Legal Aid
      State of Maharashtra v. Manu Bhai Praggi Vashi 1995 S.C. The court affirmed that the right to free legal aid constitutes a fundamental right, and it is the responsibility of the state to foster an environment conducive to the provision of adequate free legal assistance.
      
   4. Right to Health and Medical Aid
      Parmanand Katara (P.K.) v. Union of India (U.O.I) 1989 S.C. The court acknowledged that the right to health and access to medical treatment is a fundamental right for every individual. It is the obligation of medical professionals to respond to police actions in instances of accidents or severe injuries.
      
   5. Right to Privacy
      A significant ruling regarding the right to privacy was issued in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2018). In this matter, retired judge K.S. Puttuswamy contended that the government’s initiative to implement biometric identity cards for accessing government services infringed upon citizens’ right to privacy. The Supreme Court, after considering arguments from both parties, affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental component of the right to life.
      
      The Court elaborated on the dimensions of the right to privacy, indicating that it encompasses personal choices (such as dietary preferences), bodily autonomy (including reproductive rights), and the management of personal information (for instance, control over health records). Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive data protection framework in India.
      
   6. Right to Education
      The recognition of the right to education as an integral aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 first emerged in the case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka et al. (1992). In this context, the Court examined a petition challenging the validity of the Right to Education Act, which mandates free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years. The Court affirmed that the Right to Education falls under Article 21, reinforcing the notion that it is a fundamental right. Additionally, Articles 45 and 39(f) of the Directive Principles of State Policy stipulate that the state must ensure the provision of affordable and accessible education for all citizens.
      
   7. Right to Information
      In the landmark case of R.P. Ltd. vs. Indian Express (1988), the judiciary recognized the right to know as an integral component of Article 21. The court underscored the significance of the Right to Information within the framework of a participatory democracy. It emphasized the necessity for citizens to be informed about governmental operations and other matters that impact their rights, thereby enabling them to make educated choices. While Article 21 ensures personal liberty, its exercise is contingent upon access to comprehensive information that shapes individual decisions. Consequently, the right to information is deemed vital for genuine autonomy in decision-making. This recognition led to the enactment of the Right to Information Act in 2005, aimed at safeguarding this fundamental right of citizens.
      
   8. Right to Die
      In the case of Common Cause v Union of India (1999), the court determined that the right to life encompasses the right to die with dignity. It affirmed that an adult possessing the mental capacity to make informed choices has the authority to refuse medical treatment or to request the cessation of life-support measures. This case also introduced the notion of a ‘living will.’
      
   9. Right to Life against Death Penalty
      The principle of ‘rarest of rare cases’ was articulated in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980). The ruling established that the imposition of the death penalty does not contravene the right to life as enshrined in Article 21, provided it is executed in accordance with a just, fair, and proper legal procedure. The court further asserted that capital punishment should be reserved exclusively for the rarest of rare instances to prevent the wrongful execution of innocent individuals.
      

3. Is the Right to Life an Absolute Right?
   
   The right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not an unconditional right. The text of Article 21 explicitly indicates that life and personal liberty can be curtailed in accordance with the procedures established by law. However, this perspective underwent a significant transformation with the landmark ruling in the case of Maneka Gandhi. The court determined that the deprivation of life and liberty must not only adhere to the established legal procedures but must also be just and fair, thereby aligning with the principles of due process. Consequently, any such actions must avoid being arbitrary or oppressive.
   
4. Article 21A – Right to education
   
   Education serves as a crucial instrument for enhancing both individual self-development and the overall progress of a nation. It facilitates personal freedom and cultivates awareness among citizens. Furthermore, education illuminates the principles of equality and social justice. The Right to Education is formally recognized in Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which was incorporated through the 86th Amendment Act in 2002. This legislative action was heralded by the government as a significant milestone, referred to as “The dawn of the second revolution in the chapter of citizens’ rights.”
   
   The Ramamurthi Committee Report of 1990 was pivotal in initiating the discourse surrounding the right to education. In the landmark case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court determined that, although the right to education is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it can be inferred from the Preamble and a straightforward interpretation of the Directive Principles of State Policy outlined in Part IV. Subsequently, in 1993, the Supreme Court, in the case of Unnikrishanan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, affirmed the necessity of the right to education as a fundamental right. However, the court did not endorse the view expressed in the Mohini Jain case that the right to education could be claimed at all educational levels, asserting that the constitutional provision does not guarantee this right universally. In 1999, the Tapas Majumdar Committee was established to facilitate the inclusion of Article 21A into the Constitution.
   
   86th Constitutional Amendment
   
   Enacted in 2002, this amendment established the principle of free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. It introduced three key provisions aimed at achieving this objective. Article 21A asserts that “the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14 through a law that it may determine.” A revised version of Article 45 emphasizes that “the State shall strive to ensure early childhood care and free and mandatory education for all children up to the age of six.” Additionally, Article 51A(k) imposes a responsibility on parents and guardians to ensure the education of their children within the 6 to 14 age bracket.
   
   Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
   
   This legislation was enacted on September 3, 2009, and came into effect on April 1, 2010. It mandated that elementary education be both free and compulsory for children aged 6 to 14 years. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was designated as the overseeing authority. Schools were prohibited from denying admission to children who had previously left other institutions or were not enrolled elsewhere. Furthermore, private educational institutions were required to allocate 25% of their seats for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The act also stipulated the necessary number of teachers to ensure quality education and established a Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation mechanism. It is characterized by its enforceable and justifiable nature, rather than being merely advisory.
   
   Case laws:
   
   The Right to Education was addressed in significant judicial decisions, notably St. Xavier College v. State of Gujarat (1974) and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002).
   
   The interpretation of Article 30 was further examined in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014), where the court deliberated on whether institutions recognized under Article 30 are required to allocate 25% of their seats for free and compulsory education for disadvantaged groups. The ruling clarified that while minority institutions may consider these directives as a regulatory framework, they are not mandated to comply.
   
   In the obiter dicta of Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the court emphasized that all children within the age bracket specified in Article 21A are entitled to education, which must meet certain quality standards.
   
   Additionally, the Supreme Court recognized the right to a safe learning environment as an integral component of the right to education in the case of Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009).

5. Conclusion
   
   Additional safeguards have been established for the right to life, particularly in situations of national emergency when all other fundamental rights may be suspended. In such instances, Article 20, in conjunction with Article 21, remains applicable. This stipulation ensures that the right to life and liberty is preserved, even during declared emergencies. Article 21 emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the life and safety of citizens, incorporating various rights within the Fundamental Rights framework to prevent violations. It underscores the principle of equality, asserting that all individuals possess equal rights that must be respected, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of their entitlements.
   
   Among these rights, the right to receive basic elementary education stands out as a crucial entitlement, serving as a catalyst for development. The promotion of awareness is a fundamental objective associated with this right. The process of integrating Article 21A into the Constitution was lengthy and involved numerous legal cases that contributed to its realization. Furthermore, the education of girls has emerged as a significant focus of this Article, which primarily addresses basic education rather than professional qualifications.