"Right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation."- J. Bhagwati

Historical Background:

• In A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 88] the Supreme Court held that Art. 19 has no application to laws depriving a person of his life and personal liberty enacted under Article 21 of the constitution and article 19, 21 and 14 are mutually exclusive. It was held that protection under Art. 21 is available only against arbitrary action and not from arbitrary legislative action. This means that the state can deprive a person of the right available in Art. 21 based on law. Further it was held that 'law' means 'state made law' and not just Natural Law.
   
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964 SCR (1) 332, the Supreme Court quoted and held - Expression 'life' was not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only but something more than mere animal existence. It was also declared the relevant provisions that allowed police to make domiciliary visits to 'habitual criminal' pr individuals likely to become habitual criminals as unconstitutional.
   
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2) 621, the court held:
  Art. 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty not only from executive but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, (1) there must be a law and (2) there must be a procedure prescribed by that law, provided the procedure is Just, fair and reasonable., there must be a procedure prescribed by that law. The court ruled that any regulation that restricts a person's personal liberty must pass the constitutional tests of Articles 21, 14, and 19. Article 21 also protects natural justice and personal liberty' should not be interpreted in a restricted and rigorous meaning, but rather in a liberal and wide sense.

Applicability:
The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this right.

• However, it does not entitle a foreigner to the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e).
• Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his 'life or personal liberty' by the state as defined in article 12. thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the purview of Art. 21.
• Article 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency.

Rights Which Come Under Article 21:

• Right To Privacy -Right To Privacy Not An Absolute Right:

  In 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' [1998 Supp(1) 723] 'Z' ' the supreme court held although the '' right to privacy'' is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the constitution yet it is not an absolute right and restrictions can be imposed on it for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.
   
• Phone tapping; Rn invasion on Right to Privacy:
  In Rayal M. Bhuvaneshwari V. Nagaphamender Rayala [AIR 2008 AP 98] the petitioner filed a divorce petition and to substantiate his case sought to produce a hard disc relating to the conversation of his wife recorded in U.S. with others. She denied some portions of the conversation held. The act of tapping of conversation of his wife without her knowledge was illegal and amounted to infringement of her right to privacy under Art. 21 of the constitution.
   

• Right To Education:

  Article 21A of the Indian Constitution which was inserted in the constitution by the means of the constitution ,86 Amendment Act ,2003 providing free and compulsory education is intended to allow all children in the age group 6-14 live with dignity, which is a facet of 'Right to life'.
  
  In Environmental and consumer protect foundation v. Dekhi Administration (2012), it was held that in order to ensure compliance of Article 21Aof the Constitution, it is imperative that schools must have qualified teachers and Basic Infrastructure.

Right To Legal Aid

It is is now well established as a result of the decision of this Court in Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary State of Bihar [1979 AIR 1369], case that:
"The right to free legal service is .... clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held to be implicit in the guarantee of Article 21

• Right To Reputation

  Man being a social animal thrives on the fact that one's reputation and dignity go hand in hand for making life worth living. The Supreme Court in Kiran Bedi's case held that a good reputation was an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to the enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.
  
  In Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 AIR 1380]the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to reputation is a person's valuable asset and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
   

• Right Against Sexual Harassment At A Workplace

  The Supreme Court, after a series of cases, has held that the 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution along with other fundamental rights are guaranteed to us by constitutional amplitude to cover gender equality including the Right against Sexual Harassment. The scope of Article 21 has been widened by the Supreme Court to a great extent.
  
  While declaring that sexual harassment of women at the workplace is violative of gender equality, the Supreme Court, in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241] observed that:
  "The meaning and content of the Fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facets of gender equality including the prevention of sexual harassment or abuse"
   

• Right To Medical Care

  According to Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control".
  
  In the State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla [(1996) 113 PLR 499 ]. This has been held that-the right to life ensured under Article 21 incorporates inside its ambit the right to health and clinical consideration.
   

• Quality Of Life

  In the Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [AIR (2005) SC 3180], the Supreme Court recognized that "life" is more than just mere animal existence. The Supreme Court stated that,
  
  "The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.''
   

• Right To Livelihood

  A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)] held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. Thereby, the court recognized the rights of the pavement dwellers and the hawkers in Bombay. However, this does not mean that the State can be held accountable for not providing livelihood through affirmative action programs and policy. This recognition of the right to livelihood only bars the state from denying the right to livelihood to any individual without any procedure established by law
   

• Right To Information

  This right which is a subset of Article 21 was transformed into an act known as 'Right to Information Act, 2002' allowing any citizen to request information from a public authority and bounding the governing authorities to reply within a stipulated time of 30 days. In R.P Limited v. Indian Express Newspapers [ (1988) SCR Supl. (3) 212], it was held by the Supreme Court that Article 21 is wide enough to accommodate the essential features of a democracy such as the right to know and the right to be informed.
   

• Right To Live In A Decent Environment

  This right under article 21 of the Indian constitution covers a wide variety of rights not just for Human but also for wildlife, forest, lakes, ancient monument, fauna - flora, unpolluted air, water, and maintenance of the ecological balance.
  
  In MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 202 SC 1696 (CNG Vehicles case). SC propounded that Article 21 of the constitution provides the right to life which includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Supreme court in many cases had come forward to protect this right. The supreme court has directed the Government to use only CNG vehicles as a form of public transport in Delhi and has banned the running of diesel buses in Delhi and has banned the running of diesel buses in Delhi, in light of the deteriorating air quality in the capital.
   

• Right To Die (Euthanasia)

  Art. 21 provide right to die with dignity and right to live with dignity also Euthanasia and Right to Life.
  
  Euthanasia is termination of the life of a person who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1996) AIR 946], the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide. The court held that death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death that has already commenced.
  
  The court further held that this may fall within the ambit of Right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. This cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.
   

• Right To Life Does Not Include Right To Die

  In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India [(1994) INSC 264]
  the court argued that the word life in Art. 21 means right to live with human dignity and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus, the court concluded that the right to live of which Art. 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live a forced life. The count further emphasized that "attempt to commit suicide is in reality a cry for help and not for punishment."

Right Against delayed execution
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in T. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1983) AIR 361, (1983) SCR (2) 348] held that delayed execution of death sentence is contrary to the idea of life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the execution is delayed 2 years after such a death sentence is finalized then such a sentence may be commuted. The cause of the delay is immaterial.

Remedies:
Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Constitution can be invoked by any citizen in case his/her fundamental rights have been violated by any member of the State or executive.

The provision of Article 21 and Article 21A itself being a part of the fundamental rights, cannot be denied to any citizen except in the case of State emergency (Article 359).

An application made under Article 32 in violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be dismissed on technical grounds. Such applications can be made under any prescribed writs, and the Supreme Court shall protect these rights by providing appropriate relief as deemed fit.

We must also not forget that these rights are given to us by the State and hence, available only against the State and not against an individual, in that case, one must seek remedy under ordinary law and not under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

References:

• A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 88]
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964 SCR (1) 332]
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2) 621
• 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' [1998 Supp(1) 723] 'Z'
• Rayal M. Bhuvaneshwari V. Nagaphamender Rayala [AIR 2008 AP 98 ]
• Environmental and consumer protect foundation v. Dekhi Administration (2012)
• Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary State of Bihar [1979 AIR 1369]
• Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 AIR 1380]
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241]
• State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla[(1996) 113 PLR 499 ]
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [AIR (2005) SC 3180]
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)]
• R.P Limited v. Indian Express Newspapers [ (1988) SCR Supl. (3) 212]
• MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 202 SC 1696 (CNG Vehicles case).
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1996) AIR 946]
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India [(1994) INSC 264]
• T. Vatheeswaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1983) AIR 361, (1983) SCR (2) 348]