馃攳
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution | With Important Case Laws In Hindi - YouTube
Channel: Finology Legal
[0]
Hey everybody. I am Priya and welcome back to my channel Finology Legal.
[4]
If there is an article in the whole constitution that is
[7]
Interpreted most time is article 21.
[10]
Why? Because logically speaking, a constitution has to survive
[14]
For decades but as time changes, society's thinking also changes.
[19]
That's why the meaning and purpose of article 21 have been interpreted as time passed.
[24]
From life to death,alongside food, clothing and shelter,
[28]
There are more basic necessities like freedom, dignity, pollution-free environment
[32]
And others more like these are all discussed in article 21.
[36]
So by discussing article 21, lets understand how
[42]
Meaning of life and person liberty has evolved on a case-by-case basis.
[46]
Article 21 is available to both citizens and noncitizens states that
[51]
No one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty
[55]
Except according to procedure established by law.
[59]
Article 21 has these three keywords. If we understand
[63]
With these three keywords, we will automatically understand article 21.
[66]
Let's get started with "Procedure established by law".
[69]
Article 21 is mainly inspired by American constitution.
[72]
Their provision states that no person is deprived of life and
[76]
Personal liberty except according to due process of law.
[80]
This means that courts have the power to question
[84]
To control the actions of both legislative and executive.
[88]
Meaning, those substantive laws that define what should be the laws?
[92]
Can be questioned. Alongside it, procedural laws that define
[96]
How will these laws be implemented and followed? Can also be questioned.
[101]
So, whichever countries have due process of law
[104]
Their courts have the power to ask two questions from their legislature.
[108]
First, do you have the power to create this law?
[112]
Second, do these laws comply with the principles of natural justice?
[116]
If the answer to both these questions is negative
[120]
Then the court has the power to declare that part of the law invalid.
[124]
That's why Dr. B.R Ambedkar wanted article 21 of the Indian constitution
[128]
Should use this phrase. But Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyer
[132]
Said that if we want to bring new social legislation in future
[136]
Then this part here will create problems.
[140]
That's why we used procedure established by law
[144]
Which only focuses on these. So finally, article 21 used a procedure established by law.
[149]
That's why up till 1978, we
[153]
Only got protection from arbitrary executive action. Meaning
[157]
Only those executive actions that were not just,fair or reasonable
[161]
Could be challenged.
[163]
But, arbitrary legislative action still did not grant us any protection. But all this talk
[169]
Were up till 1978. Why? Because in 1978,
[173]
Maneka Gandhi case arose. This case further elaborated
[177]
The scope of article 21. So, this was a procedure established by law.
[180]
Now, let's understand life and personal liberty.
[183]
We will understand personal liberty through two very important case laws.
[187]
First, A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras. In this case, what happened was
[191]
That A.K Gopalan was detained through preventive detention act
[196]
So he challenged the act and said that this act
[200]
Infringes personal liberty. The Supreme court said that
[204]
Personal liberty is only infringed in two cases.
[207]
First, if there is a physical restraint, and secondly, in case of coercion.
[212]
If the case is neither one of these, then your personal liberty
[215]
Is not being infringed. Isn't it a very narrow interpretation? Yes
[219]
In this case, personal liberty was very narrowly interpreted.
[223]
After this, a very important case was "Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India".
[227]
In this case, the passport of Maneka Gandhi
[231]
Was impound or ceased by the government without giving any reason.
[235]
Maneka Gandhi challenged this government action in the supreme court and said that
[239]
This is an infringement in my personal liberty.
[243]
In this case, the supreme court said that personal liberty is a very wide concept.
[247]
It is only infringed by physical restraint and coercion, which is absolutely not the case.
[251]
So in this case, A.K Gopalan's narrow view was overruled
[255]
And from here we got a wider definition of personal liberty.
[259]
Now the supreme court says that if any procedure or
[263]
Law which curtails personal liberty, that law
[267]
Should be passed by "Test of reasonable". Meaning
[271]
That procedure must have to be just, fair and reasonable.
[275]
This case is also important because after this case, due process of law
[279]
And procedure established by law had no differences remaining.
[283]
Both were being included in article 21.
[286]
Now, let's talk about "Life". In this single keyword,
[290]
There are many human rights included like environment, health, dignity
[294]
Livelihood and education. At least 14 to 15 human rights are included in life.
[301]
In today's video, we will learn about some important case laws that
[305]
Will help us understand how the supreme court interprets life?
[309]
Generally, people think that if they have the right to do a certain thing
[313]
Then they also have the right to deny it.
[316]
Meaning, if I have the right to live then I also have the right not to live.
[320]
Meaning the right to die. So, is that right? The very same question was discussed
[324]
In P. Rathinam vs union of india case.
[327]
In this case what was that petitioners were
[331]
About to be punished in IPC under section 309. Because they attempted
[335]
To commit suicide. They challenged section 309 and said that
[339]
Article 21 also gives us the right to die.
[342]
That's why section 309 should be rendered invalid.
[346]
Supreme court said that yes, article 21 gives the right to die
[350]
That's why it should be rendered invalid. But in today's date, the law being followed
[354]
Was given to us by the Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab case.
[358]
In this case, the supreme court said that the Indian constitution
[362]
Does not allow to weaver from fundamental rights.
[365]
So if you have the right to life you can not give it away.
[369]
Meaning the right to die is not protected in article 21
[373]
And section 309 will be valid.
[375]
After this comes the "Right to privacy". This does not exist as a separate fundamental right
[380]
And we always infer it inside article 21
[384]
The first important case of this was Kharak Singh vs the State of UP.
[388]
The Supreme court said that the right to life does not merely mean animal existence.
[393]
If there is any unauthorized disturbance then it is a violation of privacy.
[398]
After this, PUCL vs union of india case arose.
[401]
It is also known as the "Telephone tapping case". The supreme court clearly said that
[405]
Right to privacy is a part of right to life
[408]
And unless there is a public emergency or a case of public safety
[412]
Then you cannot infringe anyone's right to privacy.
[415]
Next in article 21 is right to "Get pollution-free water and air".
[420]
It's a very interesting case is RLEK vs the State of UP.
[423]
What happened, in this case, was, Masoorie and Dehradun belt
[427]
Were being extensively mined illegally and unauthorized. So, RLEK
[431]
Wrote a letter to the supreme court stating all of this.
[434]
Supreme court treated this as a writ petition.
[437]
And by environment protection act ordered all of the illegal mining and excavation
[443]
To be halted at once.
[445]
After RLEK case, M.C. Mehta case and finally t Damodar Rao case,
[449]
The Supreme court finally said that right to live in a healthy environment
[454]
Is a part of article 21. Now, let's talk about the impact of emergencies on
[458]
Article 21. So listen, article 359
[462]
Gives president the power to suspend article 21.
[466]
That's why a total of three times, during Chinese attack, Pakistan attack
[470]
And internal emergency, article 21 was suspended.
[474]
In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case supreme court said that
[478]
During emergency, article 21 can be suspended.
[482]
But then came amendment 44th, which amended article 359.
[486]
And finally current law is that even in emergency
[490]
Article 21 can not just me suspended.
[493]
I hope this topic of article 21 is clear to you now.
[496]
Do let me know in the comment section how was my video?
[500]
For now, see you in the next video. Bye-bye.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage