Myth-Busting Constitutional Law: Unpacking the 'Right to Life' in India

The 'Right to Life' - a sacrosanct concept in Indian constitutional law. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which reads, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," is often touted as a shield against arbitrary state action. However, a close examination of the Supreme Court's decisions reveals that the 'Right to Life' is often reduced to a mere ceremonial decoration. In this article, we'll delve into the myths surrounding Article 21 and explore the harsh realities of its application. One of the most enduring myths surrounding Article 21 is that it provides an absolute right to life. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) clarified that the 'Right to Life' is not a fundamental right in the classical sense. The court held that it is a right that is subject to reasonable restrictions, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution. This ruling has had far-reaching implications, as it has allowed the state to restrict the 'Right to Life' in the name of 'reasonableness.' Another myth surrounding Article 21 is that it provides a panacea against all forms of state action. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) revealed that Article 21 is not a talisman that can be invoked against all forms of state action. In this case, the court held that Article 21 is not violated merely because the state fails to provide basic amenities such as water and sanitation. A third myth surrounding Article 21 is that it provides a right to 'personal liberty.' However, the Supreme Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) clarified that the 'Right to Personal Liberty' is not a separate right, but rather an aspect of the 'Right to Life.' This ruling has had significant implications, as it has allowed the state to restrict the 'Right to Personal Liberty' in the name of 'national security' and 'public order.' In conclusion, the 'Right to Life' in India is far from being a sacrosanct concept. Article 21 is often reduced to a mere ceremonial decoration, subject to the whims of the state. The Supreme Court's decisions in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India have clarified that the 'Right to Life' is subject to reasonable restrictions and not an absolute right. It is time for a critical re-evaluation of Article 21 and its application in Indian constitutional law.