Context

• On December 6, 1948, the Constituent Assembly of India witnessed a heated debate over a pivotal aspect of the emerging Constitution: the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
• K. M. Munshi, a leading figure in the assembly, delivered a powerful speech advocating for the inclusion of due process protections in Article 21, arguing that the right to life and liberty should not be at the mercy of ordinary laws.
• Decades later, this vision seems to be vindicated through various judgments by the Supreme Court of India, especially in recent years, as the court has reaffirmed the primacy of personal liberty and due process.

Historical Debate on Due Process and Personal Liberty

• The Philosophical Foundations of Due Process
  • The concept of due process is fundamentally rooted in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights from arbitrary state actions.
  • In legal philosophy, due process ensures that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property must follow established legal procedures, and the state's power cannot be used without adequate checks.
  • In the context of India’s independence movement, the demand for freedom from colonial oppression deeply resonated with the desire to enshrine personal liberties into the new legal framework.
• Munshi’s Argument: Ensuring Protections Against Arbitrary Laws
  • In the Constituent Assembly, K. M. Munshi emerged as a prominent advocate for incorporating due process rights into Article 21, which governs the right to life and personal liberty.
  • His argument was framed around the idea that fundamental rights should not be reduced to the whims of ordinary laws passed by the legislature.
  • For Munshi, the lack of explicit due process protection would allow future governments to erode personal liberties under the guise of maintaining public order or national security.
  • Munshi emphasised that personal liberty is too crucial to be subject to arbitrary or excessive state interference.
• Opposition to Due Process: Concerns of Administrative Efficiency
  • Despite the compelling case made by Munshi and his allies, there was significant opposition to incorporating explicit due process protections into Article 21.
  • A key figure in this opposition was N. Rau, the Constitutional Advisor, who cautioned against the inclusion of due process on the grounds that it could paralyse administrative and legislative efficiency.
  • Rau, along with other members like Dr B.R. Ambedkar, recognized the need to strike a balance between individual freedoms and the demands of governance in a complex, diverse, and newly independent nation.

The Role of Judicial Interpretation in Upholding Personal Liberty

• A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
  • The original text of Article 21 reads: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • At first glance, this provision appears to offer basic protection against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty.
  • One of the earliest instances highlighting the limited interpretation of Article 21 was in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
  • In this case, the petitioner challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, arguing that his right to life and personal liberty had been violated.
  • However, the SC rejected the claim, ruling that as long as the procedure laid down by law was followed, the deprivation of liberty was valid.
  • This narrow interpretation focused purely on the formal legality of the process, rather than its fairness or substantive justice.
  • As a result, the scope of Article 21 was significantly constrained, giving the state considerable leeway to impose restrictive laws without concern for individual rights.
• The Turning Point: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
  • This case is widely regarded as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law, as the SC fundamentally reinterpreted the scope of Article 21, embedding due process protections within it.
  • The case arose when the government, invoking its powers under the Passport Act, impounded the passport of Maneka Gandhi without providing any reasons.
  • Gandhi challenged this action, arguing that it violated her right to personal liberty under Article 21, as well as her freedom of movement.
  • In its ruling, the Court dramatically expanded the interpretation of Article 21 by holding that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful.
  • This judgment reintroduced the due process concept into Indian law, despite the framers’ decision to avoid its explicit mention.

Expanding the Scope of Article 21: Judicial Activism and Human Dignity

• Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)
  • In this case, the SC ruled that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and encompasses various rights essential for leading a meaningful life.
  • The Court held that personal liberty means not only freedom from physical restraint, but also the right to personal autonomy and privacy.
  • This judgment was critical in establishing the principle that the right to life is more than mere survival and includes the quality of life.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
  • The expansion of Article 21’s scope was further solidified in this case, where the Court recognised that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.
  • The Court held that any deprivation of livelihood, which is essential for living a life of dignity, would be considered a violation of Article 21.
  • This interpretation of the right to life significantly broadened its protective ambit, making it clear that the state must not only protect life from physical threats but also ensure that citizens can live with dignity and security.
• The Right to Privacy: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
  • Another major development in the expansion of personal liberty under Article 21 came with the recognition of the right to privacy.
  • For years, the issue of privacy remained a contentious one, with courts reluctant to explicitly declare it a fundamental right.
  • However, the situation changed with this landmark case, where the SC unequivocally declared that the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
  • This case arose in the context of the government's Aadhaar program, which required citizens to link their personal information to a biometric identification system.
• Recent Trends: Balancing Security Laws and Personal Liberty
  • In recent years, the SC’s commitment to protecting personal liberty has been tested in cases involving national security laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
  • These laws, which impose stringent conditions for bail and allow for prolonged detention, often clash with the right to personal liberty.
  • However, in several key rulings, the Court has reaffirmed the primacy of Article 21, even when dealing with such restrictive laws.

Conclusion

• Through its progressive interpretation of Article 21, the SC has significantly enhanced the protection of personal liberty in India.
• By expanding the meaning of life and liberty to include dignity, privacy, and autonomy, the judiciary has ensured that these rights remain central to the country’s constitutional framework.
• Today, Article 21 stands as a bulwark against arbitrary state action, and the courts continue to uphold its spirit, ensuring that personal liberty remains at the heart of India’s constitutional democracy.