S

Lecture 11 Vocabulary Flashcards – Indian Constitution (Polity)

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

  • Not an absolute fundamental right. It can be curtailed if the state follows the procedure established by law.
    • Procedure established by law means the legislature enacts a law and the executive must strictly follow that law; interference with life must be justified by that law.
    • If the law justifies interference, a person can be arrested, imprisoned, or even executed.
  • Problem with procedure established by law: protects against arbitrary executive action but not arbitrary legislative action. Supreme Court as final interpreter of the Constitution has introduced due process of law (due process) to safeguard against arbitrariness by both executive and legislature.
    • The Court looks beyond mere compliance with the procedure to examine the fairness and the intention of the legislature. This is the basis of due process of law and natural justice.
  • Golden triangle: Article 14, 19, and 21
    • A law cannot be arbitrary (Art. 14) and must uphold the freedoms under Art. 19, and must follow fair procedure (Art. 21).
    • The combined impact: due process and natural justice govern the right to life and personal liberty.
  • Principles of natural justice under Art. 21: nobody shall be prosecuted without being heard; no one shall be a judge in his own case; authorities must act bona fide (in good faith).
  • Right to life and the question of dying with dignity:
    • Early view: right to life implied a corollary right to die; thus Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide) was considered unconstitutional at first.
    • Gyan Kaur (Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab): held that there is a right to life, but no right to die.
  • Euthanasia – key case developments:
    • Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug case (2011): Court grappled with euthanasia; judiciary cannot make a law (separation of powers) but can interpret the Constitution.
    • Active euthanasia cannot be allowed in absence of a law; passive euthanasia can be permitted under safeguards.
    • Passive euthanasia: withdrawal of life support (e.g., turning off ventilator) rather than actively causing death.
    • Conditions for allowing passive euthanasia case-by-case:
      • A panel of two doctors must certify permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
      • Family members must consent; their agreement is necessary.
      • The matter must go to the High Court for an order; without court approval, withdrawal could be murder.
    • Public outcome: right to life with dignity includes right to die with dignity, as clarified in subsequent cases.
  • Arunachalbagh (Aruna Shanbaug-like discussions) and dignity cases:
    • 2011: right to life with dignity recognized; yet, no universal right to die without further law.
    • Will discuss later: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and Living Will/Advanced Medical Directive.
  • Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Living will/Advanced Medical Directive recognized as a fundamental right under Art. 21.
    • Parliament and courts to address advance directives and end-of-life decisions.
    • Initially, the 2018 framework required certain conditions to be met for validity:
    • Written directive, witnessed; consent of family; medical board involvement; doctors with substantial experience; additional procedural steps (magistrate’s sign-off, etc.).
    • Practical difficulties: rural/remote areas lacked qualified physicians; experience requirements created implementation barriers.
  • 2023 reforms on Advanced Medical Directive (Living Will): simplified process to facilitate enforcement:
    • Living will can be created merely by signing in presence of two witnesses and obtaining a gazetted officer’s signature.
    • Hospital must set up a medical board; the board’s doctor experience requirement liberalized (less stringent than earlier guidance).
    • Living will must be documented and signed; ensures that the directive remains intact and enforceable.
  • Right to education as part of the right to life (in brief here, linked to Art. 21):
    • Unnikrishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983): right to education is a fundamental right under Art. 21.
    • After this, Constitution amended to insert Article 21A (2002) to explicitly include free and compulsory education for children aged
      6 \, \leq \text{age} \leq 14 years as a fundamental right.
    • Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) require the state to provide education; the amendment converts this into a Fundamental Right for enforceability.
    • Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009 enacted to implement this right; in force from 01/04/2010.
  • Right to education specifics under RTE Act (02/2009):
    • All children in India aged 6-14 are entitled to eight years of continuous, compulsory education in an age-appropriate classroom; education must be accessible in neighborhood schools.
    • No detention policy (later debated and partially modified by states).
    • 25% reservation of seats in private unaided schools for economically weaker sections (EWS) in the neighborhood.
    • Documentation requirements should not hinder enrollment; emphasis on education over documents for enrollment.
    • Age-appropriate classroom: ensure learners of different ages are taught with appropriate pedagogy, bridged to catch up where necessary.
    • Bridge courses, neighborhood enrollment, and local access to education are emphasized to improve enrollment and reduce dropout.
  • Practical issues with RTE and no detention:
    • No detention policy caused concerns about declining educational quality; implementation depended on teachers and CCE (Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation).
    • States initially kept the no detention policy; later many states rolled back the policy or allowed variations.
    • Emphasis on CCE rather than a single “high-stakes” final test; evaluation should be continuous, multi-faceted, and context-aware.
  • Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
    • Not a general right against arrest; it provides safeguards after arrest.
    • Core protections:
    • No person shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for arrest (in writing).
    • The person has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
    • Within 24 hours of arrest, the person must be produced before a magistrate for scrutiny of the grounds and detention status.
    • The golden rule: innocent until proven guilty; jail is an exception, bail is the norm.
    • Preserve the right to legal aid and counsel: if the person cannot afford counsel, the state must provide legal aid.
    • High-profile cases (illustrative):
    • NewsClick founder’s arrest under UAPA raised issues of grounds not being provided in writing and timely access to counsel; Supreme Court emphasized written grounds and right to counsel; led to release if grounds were not properly provided.
  • Exceptions and enhancements under Art. 22:
    • Not available to enemy aliens or those detained under preventive detention.
    • Special protections for women: as far as practicable, women should not be arrested after sunset and before sunrise; exceptions apply for threats, tampering with evidence, etc., and in presence of a woman constable (Art. 15(3)).
  • Preventive detention and related safeguards:
    • Preventive detention allows detention on grounds of suspicion of potential crime; not for ordinary arrests.
    • Initial preventive detention period is typically up to three months.
    • After three months, an Advisory Board (comprising high court judges) decides whether detention should continue for a further period (often up to six months), with grounds to be communicated to the detainee.
    • Public interest exceptions may limit disclosure of grounds in some cases, which has been criticized for potential misuse.
  • Summary implications for Article 22:
    • Right to information about grounds of arrest, right to counsel, and timely judicial review constrain arbitrary detention.
    • Bail is preferred where possible; the system is designed to avoid unnecessary prolonged detention.
    • The framework balances individual liberty with state security and law enforcement needs, particularly in cases of serious offences or preventive detention.
  • Article 15(3) and women/children protections:
    • The state may make special provisions for women and children; safeguards exist but are bounded by the phrase "as far as practicable".
  • Application examples and broader themes:
    • Balance between individual rights and public order, security, and public interest.
    • The need for clear statutory frameworks and judiciary to prevent abuse of preventive detention and ensure due process.
  • Right to privacy in Art. 21 (KS Puttaswamy):
    • Privacy is a fundamental right, intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Art. 21.
    • The right is protected as a core part of the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution; this right interacts with other freedoms under Part III.
  • Freedom of speech and expression (Art. 19(1)(a)) in relation to privacy and hate speech
    • Hate speech is not protected under Art. 19(1)(a) as it harms equal dignity and leads to discrimination.
    • Films and precensorship differ from print media due to their mass emotional impact; K.A. Abbas v. Union of India supports precensorship for cinema.
    • The line between free expression and restrictions (reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2)) includes sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, defamation, incitement, morality, etc.
  • Right to a safe environment and climate rights:
    • Right to a clean environment is a fundamental right under Arts. 14 and 21 (as interpreted by the Court).
    • In a public interest case by Ranjit Singh, concerns about endangered species (Great Indian Bustard, Lesser Florican) and energy infrastructure (wind turbines, overhead transmission lines) were considered.
    • The Court ordered underground transmission lines and limits on turbine heights to protect wildlife, balancing environmental protection with energy goals (clean energy targets for 2030).
    • The argument that such orders may be unimplementable is acknowledged; the Court later modified the orders to reflect practical constraints.
    • Climate and environmental rights especially affect the poor and vulnerable; the Court emphasized protection of the weak against disproportionate environmental harms.
    • Related critique: the need for a comprehensive environmental law with clear remedies (e.g., district-level relief) instead of relying solely on litigation.
  • Public health and stray dogs example:
    • The Court linked animal welfare and public health with environmental and ecological concerns.
    • Solutions such as sterilization and vaccination, with relocation to shelters, were discussed; the practical challenges (shelter availability, resources) were highlighted.
  • Constitutional design and federalism (briefly tied to Article 21 discussions):
    • The discussion touches on federal structure (Unnikrishnan, 21A, RTE) against a backdrop of Center-leaning federalism; centralization is a feature of Indian federalism but is balanced by constitutional limits.
  • Exam-oriented takeaways and study tips (from the lecturer):
    • Answer writing: show, don’t tell; quote constitutional experts and judicial pronouncements to support arguments.
    • In practice: provide a few well-chosen cases with precise citations rather than overloading with many cases.
    • For UPSC mains: prioritize structure, clarity, and the ability to apply concepts to hypothetical scenarios; practice with PYQs and structured model answers.
  • Summary connections across topics:
    • Article 21 is a dynamic, living-right that expands with judicial interpretation (due process, privacy, education, dying with dignity, living wills).
    • Art. 14, 19, 21 form a contextual triad governing the legitimacy of laws and state action affecting fundamental rights.
    • The environment, education, and health directives show the practical embedding of DPSPs into rights via due process and constitutional interpretation.

Key cases and acts to remember

  • Unnikrishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) – right to education is a fundamental right under Art. 21.
  • 2002 Amendment: Article 21A inserted – right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6 \, \leq \, age \, \leq \, 14 years.
  • Right to Education Act (RTE) 2009 – implement the 21A provisions; in force from 01/04/2010.
  • KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – right to privacy as a fundamental right under Art. 21.
  • Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab – right to life does not automatically include a right to die; no general right to die.
  • Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug (Common Cause v. Union of India) – active euthanasia not allowed; passive euthanasia permitted under safeguards.
  • Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) – living will/advanced medical directive recognized as a fundamental right under Art. 21; outlines procedural safeguards.
  • K. Abbas v. Union of India – precensorship of films (mass impact) leading to film censorship norms.
  • Ranjit Singh (climate/environment cases) – right to a clean environment, protection of endangered species; underground cabling and wind-energy considerations; balancing with energy targets (2030).
  • NewsClick case (Article 22 grounds) – issues around arrest, grounds in writing, and right to counsel; statutory protections under UAPA.

Quick reference: key figures and numbers

  • Age for Right to Education: 6 \,\leq \, age \, \leq \, 14
  • RTE reservation: 25% seats in private unaided schools for EWS within the neighborhood
  • Living will requirements (2018 framework, initially): two witnesses + magistrate + doctors with substantial experience; later reforms (2023): two witnesses + gazetted officer; medical board; lower experience requirements
  • Detention timelines in Art. 22 preventive detention: initial up to 3 months; advisory board decides continuation up to further months
  • 24-hour production before magistrate after arrest; bail as norm; jail as exception; grounds of arrest in writing
  • Environmental law considerations: energy targets (2030), underground cabling, wildlife protections