Role of Supreme Court of India in developing ‘Right to Life’

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is referred to as the spine of human rights in India. The verbatim of the Article is “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to a procedure established by law”. It is referred to as the ‘right to life’, which is available even to a non-citizens. This article is used by the Supreme Court (SC) of India to exhibit the transformative character of the Constitution. Both the terms – life and personal liberty has been given a very expansive and wide amplitude covering a variety of rights by the SC and expanding it for the protection of human rights of people in India.

In the case involving Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (UOI), the SC held that the ‘right to life’ means to live with human dignity and not merely an animal existence. In the case of PUCL v UOI, SC was presented with an opportunity to address ‘right to food.’ In this case, petition was filed bringing to the notice of the court that the food grains in FCI (Food Corporation of India) warehouses were being spoilt due to rain water seepage, whereas the people were suffering from starvation. The court held that the privilege to sustenance that is, right to food is an important constituent to maintain article 21 of the constitution, which ensures the fundamental and human right to “life with human dignity”.

The SC has also used Article 21 to protect numerous rights of prisoners and prevent them from being illegally detained. The Court held that even though all the other rights of a prisoner are suspended, but his rights under Article 21 remain intact. In the case of DK Basu v State of West Bengal, the court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the State and central authorities in case of arrest and detention.

In Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, the court held that the right to seek free legal aid at the cost of the State to an accused who cannot avail the legal assistance mainly due to his/her financial contraints is part of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21. In the same case the court also held that the accused also has the right to speedy trial.

In Sheela Barse v UOI case, the SC was dealing with the petition to release children who are under the age of 16 detained in prisons. The Court opined that the detention of children below 16 years violates Article 21. It also ordered to ensure that such trials are taken up at the juvenile courts and that free legal aid is provided in such cases. The SC has played a pivotal role in expanding Article 21 to include the right to clean and healthy environment and various environmental issues and challenges are addressed and dealt with them with the foresight of the welfare of the citizen.

In Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India case, the SC discussed the concept of ‘sustainable environment’ saying though the industries are vital for development, the pollution emanated/caused by them should be addressed and adopted as concept of sustainable development.

M.C. Mehta was a Supreme Court lawyer who had filed and won various environment-related cases in SC.

One of the many cases filed by MC Mehta is, M C Mehta v UOI, filed in 1986 also known as Taj Trapezium case. In this particular case, a petition was filed to take action against the environmental pollution which caused the ‘yellowing’ of the historical monument, the Taj Mahal. The Court ordered an inquiry into the matter which led the court to direct 292 industries to operate using safe fuels such as propane instead of coke/coal, failure to do so, they would have to relocate.

In another MC Mehta v UOI case, several units Sri Ram Food and Fertilizer were petitioned for closure as they were deemed hazardous for the community owing to the leakage of Oleum gas (a heavy oily and strongly corrosive solution of sulphur trioxide in anhydrous sulphuric acid), which had resulted in death of many people. The court again laid emphasis on the right to clean and healthy environment incorporated under Article 21 and asked for proper compensation paid to the people affected by the leakage.

In the MC Mehta v Kamal Nath & Ors. Case, the SC beautifully construed the concept of ‘public trust doctrine’, and the ‘polluters pay’ making this case the turning point in the environmental jurisprudence in India. Taking public health in to consideration SC in Murli S. Deora v State of Rajasthan, held that smoking in public places is injurious to the health of non-smokers and directed the state and union government to ban smoking in public places like auditorium, cinema halls, educational institutions, health institutions, libraries, public conveyances such as railways, courts etc.

In the case involving Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. V Proprietors of Indian Express newspaper, the court held that the ‘right to know’ falls under the ambit of Article 21, and is essential for participatory democracy thereby ensuring the strength and vitality of a healthy democracy. The SC has been instrumental in protecting of the right to privacy of the people.

In landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India and others, a nine-judge constitutional bench unanimously held that ‘right to privacy’ is a fundamental right protected under the constitution.  In Vishakha v State of Rajasthan, the court declared that the harassment of working women in workplaces amounts to violation of Article 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Court also provided the guidelines to protect the rights of women in their workplaces. This judgement is also responsible for the passing of Sexual Harassment of Women at their workplaces (prevention, prohibition and redress) Act 2013. The SC of India played a highly remarkable role in protecting the right to education, linking it with right to live with dignity through its landmark judgements.

One such case was that of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka. In this case, apetition was filed against the notification of the Karnataka Government, which allowed the private medical colleges to charge higher fees from students who were not allocated with seats in the government medical colleges, in the name of capitation fees. The court held that even, albeit the right to education was not explicitly guaranteed under the constitution as a fundamental right, it is an essential and vital tool to the fulfilment of the fundamental right to life and human dignity under Article 21 of the constitution. The supreme court also held that charging of this ‘capitation fee’ by private educational institutions, violated the right to education as inferred from right to life and human dignity, and the right to equal protection of the law under article 21 and 14 of the constitution, respectively.

Therefore, it will not be wrong to say that the Apex court of India has been an active facilitator of human rights in India and that, it had achieved that by constantly expanding and stretching the limits of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Apoorva Pathak

(Apoorva Pathak is a doctoral candidate at Faculty of Legal studies, South Asian University, New Delhi. She has done her LLM with specialization in intellectual property rights laws at Gujarat National Law University, and completed her BALLB (Hons) at Maharaja Saiyajirao University of Baroda, India. Her interest area for research is human rights laws, international environment laws, conflict of laws.)