Right to Life and Personal Liberty Irrespective of Work, Profession and Gender

The article is written by Susmita Kundu. The article provides a detailed analysis of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty by referring to judicial precedents.

The Indian Constitution serves as the primary law of the country, acting as the supreme charter from which all other branches of government derive their authority. Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to the people, which are crucial for their well-being. In case of any violation, it is the duty of the courts to safeguard these rights. Among all the fundamental rights, Article 21 holds immense significance.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India talks about the right to life and personal liberty. According to this article, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Here the term ‘no person’ refers to both the citizens and non-citizens of India.

Overview of the Article:

Further, the term “due process of law” as it appears in the US Constitution and the term “procedure established by law” confused the framers as well. The concept of “due process of law” is very wide because it makes up for the arbitrary actions of both the executive and legislative branches. Conversely, “procedure established by law” is only accountable for the Executive’s arbitrary conduct. India incorporated “procedure established by law” into its constitution as a result.

Before Maneka Gandhi’s decision, Article 21 ensured that citizens had the right to life and personal liberty, but only against arbitrary actions by the executive branch, not legislative actions. The state had the power to limit citizens’ freedom if it could justify its actions with a valid law.However, following the Maneka Gandhi ruling, Article 21 now shields citizens’ rights to life and personal liberty from both legislative and executive action.If two requirements are met, a person may be deprived of their life and personal freedom:

·       there must be a law; and

·       there must be a method that is stipulated in that legislation, as long as it is reasonable, just, and fair.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [1]

Date of Judgement:25 January, 1978

Judges:M. Hameedullah Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishnaiyer, N.L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazalali, P.S. Kailasam

In this case, the meaning and concept of the word ‘personal liberty’ came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in this case has widened the scope of Article 21.

According to Section 10(3)(c)[2] of the Passport Act of 1967, the petitioner’s passport was seized by the federal government and even she was not given the chance to defend herself.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Section violated Article 14 because it conferred arbitrary power on the Government. Since it did not follow the prescribed method as defined by Article 21, it is also a violation of that article. For a law to hold legal force, it must be rational, just, and fair.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the idea of due process of law in the American sense for the first time in this landmark decision. Maneka Gandhi was not given the chance to be heard, which is clearly against the principles of natural justice outlined in the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem[3]”. In the case of Maneka Gandhi, the petition for natural justice, which had previously been denied in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[4], was accepted.

Application of Article 21 in Work, Profession and Gender:

As a fundamental right, this article is regarded as the core of the Constitution. The article highlights how important it is for an individual’s dignity to be protected under the Indian Constitution. The court’s decision specified several aspects based on the broader interpretation of Article 21. Among these is the freedom to live in a dignified manner regardless of one’s occupation, gender, or identity. It implies that a person’s choices in life, including his or her career, gender, and place of employment, should not limit their respect in society. Further, this aspect is strengthened by the landmark rulings of the court.

Sethulakshmi &Ors. vs State of Kerala &Ors.

Date of Judgement: June 13, 2024

Judges:Justice P V Asha (Judicial Member) and Justice Pradeep Kumar (Administrative Member)

The problem of the working conditions of “Ayahs,” or caregivers, employed by the Social Justice Department was brought up by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal concluded that it was not only arbitrary but also a violation of Ayahs’ fundamental rights to require them to work continuously for 24 hours a day, six days a week, with no breaks. Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to live with dignity and personal liberty, was considered to be violated by this practice.

The tribunal emphasized that these working circumstances were unpleasant and contradicted the employees’ fundamental rights. As per the tribunal’s ruling, the state government must act promptly to rationalize the working hours of these caregivers, guaranteeing that they have sufficient rest periods and are not exposed to any form of exploitation.

This decision holds significance because it upholds workers’ fundamental rights and establishes a standard for cases similar to this one in which unjust working circumstances might undermine the rights of employees. The tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder that all individuals, regardless of their occupation, are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity, as enshrined in the Constitution.

Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal[5]

Date of Judgment:14 February, 2011Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai, and A. S. Bopanna

On September 17, 1999, Buri, a sex worker in Kolkata’s red-light area, was brutally attacked by Budhadev Karmaskar after she refused his advances. At around 9 P.M, Budhadev Karmaskar, the perpetrator, approached Buri with a request for sexual activity, which she declined. Regrettably, in a fit of anger, the accused viciously assaulted Buri by repeatedly striking her head, kicking and beating her, and causing injuries to her hands and legs. Consequently, she fell to the first floor. Still, this was not enough for the accused, so he dragged her by her hair and banged her head against the wall.

After that due to rising protest the accused fled the scene, fearing the consequences of his actions,leaving Buri with 11 wounds and severe bleeding.Despite being rushed to the hospital, she tragically lost her life due to the injuries sustained. The case raises questions about ensuring the rights and dignity of sex workers and their children, particularly in terms of Article 21’s interpretation of the right to life. The Supreme Court acknowledged in this decision that sex workers need to be given rights and obligations that they can accomplish. The majority of these women were pushed into the profession of sex workers due to circumstances surrounding them, as a result, it has become their primary source of income. The means to earn a livelihood do not give another person the authority to make one work forcefully. The accused, Budhadev Karmaskar, was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Conclusion

Thus, the above instances showed us a new aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It ensured justice for individuals who were previously overlooked by society. The term ‘life’ in Article 21 signifies a life of dignity, extending beyond mere animal existence. It encompasses all aspects that give life purpose, liveliness and vibrancy. This firmly established the notion that dignity is a fundamental component of the rule of law and is intertwined with life, granted to every citizen of the nation regardless of their gender, religion, occupation, caste, or employment.

vakalattoday.com