Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

Leading cases

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and of the Part III freedoms; M P Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled on that point.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)Procedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; a hearing is implied in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which was held valid.
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)The Court struck down the provision for night-time domiciliary visits in the U.P. Police Regulations as violating personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the other forms of police surveillance infringed no fundamental right.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)The majority upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except Section 14, holding that 'law' in Article 21 means State-made law and that preventive detention is not tested under Article 19; the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
• Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)The Court unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples; by majority it declined to recognise civil unions or joint adoption by unmarried couples.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)The Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC, which made adultery an offence, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21, held Section 198 CrPC invalid in relation to adultery, and overruled Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 and is read down; Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation is overruled.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)The Constitution Bench held that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes a dignified process of dying, recognised passive euthanasia and advance medical directives, and laid down guidelines that apply until Parliament legislates.
• Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014)Article 21 requires that review petitions in death sentence cases be given a limited oral hearing in open court, not decided by circulation; appeals in such cases are to be heard by benches of three Judges.
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)Registration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence; a limited preliminary inquiry is allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in specified kinds of cases.
• State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010)A High Court under Article 226 may direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence in a State without that State's consent; this neither violates the federal structure nor separation of powers, but the power must be used sparingly.

Showing 12 of 51 judgments in the library on this provision, larger Benches first. Search the judgments

Questions on this article

94 questions in 107 of our papers cite Article 21. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. What was the Supreme Court's decision in the Navtej Singh Johar case about Section 377 of the IPC?

   A.Decriminalized consensual homosexual relationsB.Upheld the criminalization of homosexual relationsC.Partially decriminalized Section 377D.Ruling deferred to a later date
   Show answer

2. 2. Match List I (case) with List II (principle or direction): List I A. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) B. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) C. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) D. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath List II 1. The right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air 2. The State is a trustee of natural resources meant for public use and enjoyment 3. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country 4. The Central Government to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures from polluting chemical units at Bichhri Select the correct answer using the codes given below.

   A.A-4, B-3, C-1, D-2B.A-4, B-3, C-2, D-1C.A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1D.A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
   Show answer

3. 3. Consider the following statements: 1. The protection of Article 21 is available to non-citizens as well as to citizens. 2. While a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, the President may by order under Article 359(1) suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Article 21. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.Neither 1 nor 2B.2 onlyC.Both 1 and 2D.1 only
   Show answer