Identify the incorrect statement regarding Judicial Interpretation of Article 21 after Supreme Court’s verdict in Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978.
- (1)The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the procedure established by law which deprives him of his life or personal liberty is arbitrary.
- (2)‘Procedure established by law’ is by and large synonymous with the ‘Procedural due process’ as prevalent in the U.S.A.
- (3)Articles 21, 19 and 14 are not mutually exclusive.
- (4)‘The Right to Life’ includes ‘The Right to Live with Dignity’.
Answer
Why
Correct — option (1), The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the procedure established by law which deprives him of his life or personal liberty is arbitrary.
The stem asks for the incorrect statement. Article 21 says no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty "except according to procedure established by law".
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, decided on 25 January 1978, the Supreme Court held that writing a procedure into a law is not enough. Justice Chandrachud put it this way: "The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary."
Option (1) says the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the procedure arbitrary. RPSC's key marks this as the incorrect statement.
The burden-on-the-State reasoning quoted here is from a dissent. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (reported in 1982), Justice P.N. Bhagwati wrote that wherever life or personal liberty is taken away, "the burden must rest on the State" to show the procedure "is not arbitrary but is reasonable, fair and just".
He also recalled the Court's consistent position in habeas corpus petitions: the burden of proving that a detention is legal "always rests on the State".
The majority in the same case, deciding in 1980 and discussing onus under Article 19, said that "no hard and fast rule of universal application in all situations" on onus can be deduced from the decided cases.
Justice Bhagwati's Bachan Singh dissent, drawing on the habeas corpus rule, puts the burden on the State; it is not the majority's holding.
The other three statements hold. Option (2) describes the fair-procedure requirement, option (3) the reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 together, and option (4) the right to live with dignity read into Article 21.
Why the others are wrong
- (2)‘Procedure established by law’ is by and large synonymous with the ‘Procedural due process’ as prevalent in the U.S.A. — This statement is correct, so it is not the answer. After Maneka Gandhi, a law that takes away personal liberty must lay down a procedure that is itself fair, just and reasonable, which is close to what procedural due process asks for in the United States.
"By and large" leaves room for difference. Justice Chandrachud's opinion in Maneka noted that the due process clause makes "significant difference" to how American judges approach constitutional guarantees, and that the Indian Constitution "studiously avoided" that expression.
- (3)Articles 21, 19 and 14 are not mutually exclusive. — This statement is correct. Justice Bhagwati reasoned in Maneka Gandhi that a law depriving a person of personal liberty which has to meet Article 19 "must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14".
He relied on R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, a full-Court decision, under which the fundamental rights in Part III are not distinct and mutually exclusive rights. The three Articles are read together, not in separate compartments.
- (4)‘The Right to Life’ includes ‘The Right to Live with Dignity’. — This statement is correct. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (13 January 1981), the Supreme Court said: "We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it".
The Court listed the bare necessaries of life — adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter — among the things that go along with it. The case came three years after Maneka Gandhi and built on its fair-procedure reading.
Concept
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, but only against deprivation that is not "according to procedure established by law". Read literally, any procedure written into a valid law would do.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) closed that reading. The petitioner's passport had been impounded under section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. Justice Chandrachud wrote that "the mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot ever meet the mandate of article 21".
Among the ideas that came out of the case: the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable; a law touching personal liberty must also satisfy Articles 14 and 19; and "personal liberty" is, in Justice Bhagwati's words, "of the widest amplitude".
Later judgments built on this base. Francis Coralie Mullin (1981) read the right to live with human dignity into the right to life.
RPSC's syllabus for Indian Constitution, Political System & Governance lists "Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties." Article 21 is a Fundamental Right in Part III.
The eighteen words of Article 21 carry no amendment. What changed is how the Supreme Court reads "procedure established by law", and Maneka Gandhi (1978) is where that reading changed.
The case links three Fundamental Rights: Article 14, which in Justice Bhagwati's words "strikes at arbitrariness in State action"; Article 19, the freedoms; and Article 21, life and personal liberty.
Later rights read into Article 21, such as living with human dignity (1981), build on this fair-procedure reading.
Key facts
- Article 21: no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India was decided by a seven-judge bench on 25 January 1978.
- Maneka Gandhi: the procedure under Article 21 has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.
- Maneka Gandhi: a law depriving personal liberty that must meet Article 19 must also be tested against Article 14.
- Francis Coralie Mullin (13 January 1981): the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity.
RPSC's key marks statement (1) as the incorrect one.
Study next
Common traps
- Reading "procedure established by law" as any procedure a law lays down. After Maneka Gandhi the procedure itself must be fair, just and reasonable.
- Putting the burden on the person deprived of liberty. Justice Bhagwati's Bachan Singh dissent places it on the State, citing the habeas corpus cases where the State must prove a detention legal.
- Crediting Maneka Gandhi with the phrase "right to live with human dignity". Those words come from Francis Coralie Mullin (1981), a later case.
A question can give statements about Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi and ask for the incorrect one, as here.
A question can also match cases with the idea each added to Article 21, or ask which Articles a law restricting personal liberty must satisfy.
Related PYQs
UnlockIAS will link similar questions from RAS Pre 2013 here once that paper is published on this site.
Practice
- practice — not a real PYQ
In which case did the Supreme Court say that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter?
- (a)A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
- (b)Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
- (c)Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
- (d)Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Answer(2) — Francis Coralie Mullin (13 January 1981) used these words. A.K. Gopalan (1) is the 1950 case whose view of rights as mutually exclusive was later displaced. Kesavananda Bharati (3) is the 1973 basic-structure case. Minerva Mills (4) dealt with the balance between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. - practice — not a real PYQ
After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), a procedure that deprives a person of personal liberty under Article 21 must be:
- (a)any procedure laid down in a law made by the legislature
- (b)fair, just and reasonable
- (c)approved by the President before it is applied
- (d)the same as the safeguards in Article 22
Answer(2) — the procedure has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. Option (1) is the literal reading the case rejected. Option (3) is no part of Article 21. Option (4) confuses Article 21 with Article 22, which deals with arrest and detention.