What Does Article 21 Mean

What Does Article 21 Mean

The right to life confers on the person the right to lead a fulfilling life and stipulates that the State may interfere with this right only through procedures established by law. But what happens if a person decides to end his life? Can he interfere with his own right to life? As we have seen above, the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 has evolved with the changing sense of individual freedom. The court ruled that the detention of persons in pre-trial detention for a longer period than they would have been sentenced to had they been convicted was unlawful. And the same thing violated Article 21. The court ordered the release of remand prisoners who served a longer sentence than the sentence imposed on conviction. It has been decided that a convicted person is not totally deprived of his fundamental rights and that his conviction does not reduce him to a non-person whose rights are subject to the whims of the prison administration. Therefore, the imposition of a heavier sentence in the penitentiary system depends on compliance with the procedural safeguard. In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop.

Housing Society Limited[xxxii] considered the right to housing to be a fundamental right deriving from the right of residence guaranteed in Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed in Article 21. The state must provide facilities and facilities to build houses to make the law meaningful to the poor. [xxxiii]. This means that all employers or managers in the workplace, whether in the public or private sector, should take appropriate measures to prevent sexual harassment. The Supreme Court has ruled that even lawful detention does not mean a farewell to all fundamental rights. A prisoner retains all the rights enjoyed by a free citizen, except those “necessarily” lost as a result of an incident of imprisonment. Curiously, both the majority and the minority of the judiciary relied on the meaning given to the term “personal liberty” in an American judgment (Field J.) in Munn v. Illinois, in which the term “life” meant more than just an animal existence. The prohibition of his deprivation extended to all the limits and capacities by which life was enjoyed. 1. Thank you for this very detailed discussion and footnotes. 2.

I am accused in a false criminal case brought by my siblings for embezzlement of funds from our father`s company. On this basis, in 2014, the IO sealed all the bank accounts of my father, me, my wife, etc. They will continue to be sealed. 3. My father passed away in 2016, so the banks still sealed his accounts until a successor was chosen. The indictment was filed in February 2017. 4. There is a link between my brother or sister and the IO and all the information I provide to the IO reaches my siblings, which is detrimental to me.

5. U/s 173(8) CrPC, (investigation ongoing), can the IO force me to provide details of my new bank accounts that I opened after the date it sealed all accounts in 2014? 6. Can I refuse to transmit this information to the IO using the protection offered by Article 21 of the Constitution? 7. Thank you. The Supreme Court ruled in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), stated that the right to dignity means the right to “full personality” and includes “the right to perform those functions and activities that would constitute the meaningful expression of the human self.” In this case, a very important aspect of human dignity was discussed – the control of one`s intimate relationships. When we think of a good life, it probably means living respectfully in the community without others taking adverse action against you. However, in this patriarchal society, women are often treated as sexual objects for men`s pleasure, leading to unwanted sexual advances towards them. The Court held that individual freedom meant freedom of the physical body and therefore did not include the rights guaranteed by Article 19, paragraph 1.

Therefore, it was assumed that personal freedom included certain rights such as the right to sleep and eat, etc., while the right to move freely was relatively weak and not part of “personal” freedom. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978: In this case, the Supreme Court reversed its judgment in Gopalan by further interpreting section 21. It held that a person`s right to life and personal liberty may be deprived by law, provided that the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable, just and just. In addition, it was clarified that the right to life does not only mean the existence of animals. He noted that all aspects of life that make a person`s life meaningful, complete, and worth living will be included. Since that landmark case, the courts have sought to give a broader meaning to “personal liberty.” The principles of natural justice were also emphasized, as any proceeding that restricts a person`s liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Kharak Singh v.

U.P. State and Ors. (1964) saw an expansion in the meaning of personal freedom, which can be explained as follows. Early deposit is a legal right and does not derive from Article 21. Consequently, an advance guarantee cannot be provided ipso jure, as it cannot be regarded as an essential element of Article 21. The meaning of a citizen`s personal freedom in India has evolved and its scope has expanded. Before the case of Maneka Gandhi, it had a relatively narrower scope, encompassing only a part of a person`s freedoms. In December 1985, in response to a request by the Attorney General to review this decision, the Supreme Court suspended public executions, stating that “it is not necessary to respond to a barbaric crime with barbaric punishment.” The right to life is fundamental to our existence, without which we cannot live as human beings, and includes all aspects of life that make a person`s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It is the only article of the Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus, the basic needs, minimum and fundamental requirements of a human being derive from the fundamental concept of the right to life. “The meaning of the terms `life` and `personal liberty` in Article 21 was examined by the Court in the Kharak Singh case.

Although the majority felt that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee the “right to privacy,” it interpreted the right to personal liberty broadly and included a right to dignity. It stated that “an unauthorized intrusion into a person`s home and the disturbance it causes constitutes, so to speak, a violation of a customary human right – the ultimate essence of ordered freedom, if not of the concept of civilization itself”. In the state of Karnataka & Ors,[xxvii] the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life under section 21 protects subsistence. The Court added, however, that its deprivation could not be extended too far, planned or extended to leisure, business or commerce which are detrimental to the public interest or have an insidious effect on public morality or public order. Thus, taking into account the life and personal liberty of the judgement debtor, the court limited the circumstances in which he could be arrested. Thus, if a debtor does not pay the money, he can be arrested – provided he deliberately avoided paying it, even if he could afford it. In Confederation of Ex-Solmen Association v. Union of India,[liv] the right to free and timely legal assistance or facilities was not considered a fundamental right of former soldiers. Therefore, a political decision to formulate a contribution system for former soldiers and to ask them to make a one-time contribution is neither contrary to section 21 nor incompatible with Part IV of the Constitution.

If you want to know what hard work is. Secondly, this work on Article 21 shows the brilliant work of a student. I wish the author every success. The right to a speedy trial means that the accused must be brought to justice as soon as possible to determine whether or not he or she is guilty. It protects against the fact that the accused is imprisoned for a long time, with no date in sight in the near future to be brought to justice. It is available to the accused at all stages, including investigations, investigations, trials, appeals, etc. This right is based on the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied”. Very well presented. Very useful and informative article Therefore, such a broad connotation of Article 359 denied the valuable right to personal liberty guaranteed to citizens.

Experience has shown that the fundamental freedom of the people lost all meaning in 1975. The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not mean the existence of animals or the mere act of breathing.