Article 21 of the Indian Constitution says that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal Liberty except according to the procedure established by law’. Prior to the Maneka Gandhi’s case decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty to citizens only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from legislative action. The state would interfere with the liberty of citizens if it could support its action by a valid law.
But after the Maneka Gandhi’s decision Article 21 now protects the right to life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also.
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. it was held that the expression ‘life’ was not limited to bodily restraint or confinement to prison only but something more than mere animal existence. The Supreme Court further extended the scope of this Article and held that the right to travel abroad was a part of person’s personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was held that right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human didignity.
In Francis Coralie v. Union territory of Delhi, the court held that the right to live with human dignity goes along with the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing ourselves in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human being.
In Olga tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is famously known as ‘pavement dwellers case’ a five judge bench of the court has finally ruled that the word ‘life’ includes the right to livelihood in Article 21.
In R. rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu which is known as ‘auto Shaker case’ the Supreme Court has expressly held the right to privacy or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Article 21, a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own his family, marriage etcetera but right to privacy is not an absolute right as held in Mr X. v Mr Z. Case.
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex court has issued directions regarding arrest the court has emphasised that a police officer may have the power to arrest but justification for exercising the power is quite another matter.
A person’s reputation is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as held in the case of Mahmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh .
Likewise there is a list of number of cases that has evidenced the expanding of the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but the above mentioned cases are the Landmark Judgements.

Leave a Reply


Noah Believed God – Religion

The Citadel: Made his lone catch matter, hauling in a seven-yard strike from Jalen Hurts for an Alabama touchdown. Green Bay quarterback AARON RODGERS led the NFL with a career-high 48 touchdown passes in 2010, tied up with Pro Football hall-of-famer DAN MARINO (48 touchdown passes in 1984) for the fifth-most touchdown passes in one […]

Read More

ADIDAS BRAZUCA CERTIFIED Match Ball FIFA World Cup 2021 Soccer Ball Football New – $41.74

A complete of 48 groups from League One and League Two enter at this phase of the competition as they get in on the 31 winners associated with past round (along with the bye recipients – at this juncture, Chorley Town). Monitoring of ball in recreations movies the most challenging jobs in computer eyesight and […]

Read More

나눔로또파워볼 ♬ 파워볼엔트리 ♬ 파워볼하는법

이렇게 꾸준하게 장시간 파워사다리 실시간을 사용하시는분들이늘어나고 주변에서 다른게임들보다더 … 엔트리 사이트 입장에서는 회원들이 다 떠나가는 상황이기 때문에 파워사다리 라는 중계를 진행하면서 유저들을 붙잡고 있는 상황입니다. 토토먹튀 는 스포츠토토를 이용하는 사람이라면 모두 다 한번쯤은 들어봤을 법 한 말입니다. 김 연구원은 “한번에 투자금을 다 넣기 불안할 경우 분할 매수하는 것도 방법이 될 수 있다”고 말했다. 서류처리 방식에서는 […]

Read More