Article 21 was supposed to be a shield, not a ceremonial decoration

Unpacking the Evolving Concept of 'Right to Life' in India The concept of 'Right to Life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence for decades. However, its interpretation has been a subject of intense debate, with various judgments oscillating between expansive and restrictive views. In this article, we will delve into the evolution of Article 21 and examine its implications for contemporary Indian society.

Early Beginnings: The M.P. Sharma Saga

In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 SCR 1075, the Supreme Court of India first interpreted Article 21. The Court held that the right to life did not encompass the right to individual liberty, thereby limiting the scope of Article 21. This restrictive view was later revisited in the landmark case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88, where the Court expanded the concept of 'Right to Life' to include the right to individual liberty.

The Watershed Moment: Golaknath vs. State of Punjab

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643, judgment marked a significant shift in the Court's interpretation of Article 21. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, including Article 21, were not amendable by the Parliament. This judgment further solidified the importance of Article 21 in Indian jurisprudence.

The Pendulum Swings: The Mandal Commission Case

In the context of affirmative action, the Mandal Commission case, Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 1996 AIR 1783, saw the Supreme Court oscillate between expansive and restrictive views of Article 21. The Court initially upheld the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission's recommendations, which aimed to promote social justice through affirmative action. However, this decision was later revisited in the Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2006 AIR 2308, where the Court struck down the Mandal Commission's recommendations, citing the principle of proportionality.

The Expanding Scope of Article 21

In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a more expansive view of Article 21. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 799, the Court decriminalized consensual homosexual relationships, thereby recognizing the right to life with dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. Similarly, in the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 319, the Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, which has significant implications for individual autonomy and dignity.

The Way Forward

In conclusion, the concept of 'Right to Life' enshrined in Article 21 has undergone significant transformations over the years. While the Court has oscillated between expansive and restrictive views, the recent judgments have taken a more inclusive and expansive approach. As we move forward, it is essential to recognize that Article 21 is not a ceremonial decoration, but a shield that protects the dignity and autonomy of individuals.