Article 21 of the Indian constitution: Euthanasia, Privacy, and the Due Process of Law

Introduction: The Heart of the Constitution

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar referred to Article 21 as the “heart of the Constitution,” which is a living provision that infuses life into the entire structure of Fundamental Rights. Article 21 is the most interpreted and judicially expanded article in Indian jurisprudence and affects every dimension of human existence, from cradle to grave, and from dignity to privacy.

As Justice P. N. Bhagwati aptly observed: “Article 21 stands for a constitutional value which is of the highest importance in a democratic society.” Through decades of judicial development, Article 21 has evolved from a limited procedural guarantee to the very foundation of human dignity, liberty and justice in India.

Text and Substance of Article 21

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law.”

At first glance, this line may seem uncomplicated; it holds the most profound ballast for the Constitution.

“Life” in Article 21 does not merely mean animal existence; it includes the right to live with dignity, to live in health, to breathe clean air, to live without loss of reputation, to live with privacy, and even, to die with dignity.

“Personal liberty” guarantees that every person is free to pursue choices about his or her own life, but it may be subject to a just and reasonable restriction.

“Procedure Established by Law” vs “Due Process of Law”

The term “procedure established by law” borrowed from the Japanese constitution to signify that a person can only be deprived of liberty if there exists a law made by parliament.

In contrast, the American concept of “due process of law” gives courts the power to review a law not only engagement the letter of law, but also if it is fair just and reasonable.

In truth India took the narrower view. However in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court interpreted the word “procedure” in its broader meaning to include the very essence of “due process” thereby establishing as hybrid version of legislative authority and judicial review.

Philosophical and Historical Roots

Ancient Indian Philosophers

Ancient Indian texts like the Manusmriti or Arthashastra addressed justice (Nyaya) as the sacred duty of the ruler — a divine responsibility to uphold liberty or life.

“Where there is Dharma, there is victory.”

As the principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) prescribes that life is sacred, and a life should not be taken unless justified under moral and legal standards; it created an early disposition to respect the sanctity of life having political, philosophical, or historical roots.

Medieval Insights

Sufi and Bhakti thinkers during the medieval period, including Kabir and Guru Nanak, emphasized inner freedom and the equality of all beings. These ideas resonate strongly with contemporary notions of liberty and dignity.

Recognizing the core value of freedom of conscience and respect for tolerance, Akbar’s policy of Sulh-i-Kul (universal peace) reflected respect for freedom, which has long been a tenet of Indian culture.

European Philosophical Influences

The Enlightenment era produced a cadre of thinkers in Europe who provided some of the intellectual basis for modern constitutional rights:

• John Locke: “Life, liberty, and property are natural rights of man.”
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Argued that liberty is the essence of the social contract, that it protects liberty, and that the state is justified existentially only to protect freedom.
• Immanuel Kant: Claimed that dignity exists in all human beings (it is not given by the state, but is recognized by the state).

These and consequent developments in constitutional liberalism, shaped the framers of the Indian Constitution when they placed life and liberty at its core.

Evolution Through the Constituent Assembly

On the occasion when the Constituent Assembly debated the drafting of Article 21, one of the significant deliberations revolved around a fateful decision of whether or not to adopt the American formulation of “Due Process of Law” or the Japanese and British formulation of “Procedure Established by Law.” ​

Legal stalwarts such as K.M. Munshi and B.N. Rau strongly favored the latter, arguing that parliamentary supremacy should not be fettered by excessive intervention by the judiciary. According to them, the legislature, being directly elected by the people, was best placed to decide what constitutes a “just law.” ​

However, the matter did not end there. The constitutional jurisprudence of India evolved over time into a hybrid model of constitutionalism incorporating British ideas concerning Parliamentary Sovereignty and the American spirit of Judicial Review as well. ​

This hybridization of principle came to a head in the judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) where the Supreme Court held that any “procedure established by law” must also be “just, fair and reasonable” – consequently formally incorporating due process into Indian law. ​
Thereby, Article 21 became the moral and judicial conscience of the Constitution.

Judicial Expansion: From Procedure to Substance

Landmark Cases:

The Right to Die with Dignity

The evolution of the Right to Life under Article 21 has a natural and deeper limb; the Right to Die. ​
Indian Courts have provided a response to this issue through a remarkable judicial saga:

• P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court found that the right to life encompasses the Right to Die, characterizing suicide as an issue of personal liberty.
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): This reversed P. Rathinam and held that the right to life does not include the right to die, upholding Section 309 IPC (the criminalization of suicide) .
• Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): The court held that passive euthanasia (conducting life-support) is permissible under strict supervision by the courts, and it marked a humane turn .
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The court expanded Article 21 to include the Right to Die with Dignity , and introduced Advance Medical Directives or Living Wills ( whereby an individual in advance can make medical decisions at the end of life).

Summary of the Common Cause (2018) decision:

• Includes Right to Die with Dignity
• Permits Passive Euthanasia with court monitored safeguards
• Determine Advance Medical Directives (or Living Wills) as legally sound
• Must be executed in the presence of two independent witnesses and signed by a magistrate.

Current Legal Landscape

Mental Health Care Act, 2017: Decriminalized suicide largely. Under the premise that a individual is suffering from mental illness unless to the contrary shown, Section 115 of this Act has decriminalized suicide to a large extent.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Removed section 309 IPC, except in the case of suicide attempts utilitarian in causing or obstructing a public servant.

NCRB data (2022) indicated that suicide among youth (18-30) in India has grown considerably – and the Supreme Court advised society and parents to moderate their expectations and equilibrium and mental well-being.

Privacy: The Modern Dimension of Freedom

With the modern era we live in, the notion of freedom has expanded beyond the physical, now acknowledging privacy as an intrinsic component of dignity inherent in human beings.

Landmark Case:

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Riv.) – a nine judge bench stated unanimously that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right in Article 21.
This landmark decision naturally overruled the previous decisions made in M.P. Sharma (1958) and Kharak Singh (1962) declaring privacy to not be a constitutional right or right to privacy.

The Puttaswamy decision has since been the cornerstone of progressive rights:

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India – Declared section 377 IPC to have decriminalized homosexuality.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India – Decriminalized adultery– to the rationale of affirming individual agency in private life.

Reasonable Restrictions on Privacy

The Supreme Court clarified that the Right to Privacy, while basic, is not absolute. It is subject to limitation if:

• It is endorsed by legislation
• The limitation is in pursuance of a legitimate state aim
• It passes the reasonable balancing test — balancing individual right to privacy with public benefit.

Current Relevance: Data Privacy in the Digital Age

With an explosion of digital data, Article 21 protections have grown to encompass new horizons — cyberspace of identity, consent, and surveillance.

Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023

The DPDP Act, 2023 is India’s first robust and comprehensive data privacy legislation. It is advanced as compliant with international norms and varies between regions. For example, the EU’s GDPR.

The DPDP Act outlines the minimum protections required so that citizen’s digital identities are protected while also being process lawfully and transparently.

Key Features:

• Defines Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries.
• Mandates consent-based data processing, data minimization and purpose limitation.
• Imposes financial penalties for data breach and/or misuse.
• Seeks a balance between individual rights, nation interests and innovation.

Ultimately, Article 21 is alive and continues to develop — from the Right to Life to the Right to Die with Dignity, from physical freedom to digital privacy — demonstrating that the Constitution is not a stagnant document, but a living promise of human dignity.

Article 21 in the 21st Century: New Dimensions

1. Environmental Justice: Extending “Life” Beyond Humans

• The Supreme Court, in a series of M.C. Mehta cases, recognized that the Right to Life in Article 21 includes the Right to a pollution-free environment.
• Judgments like in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996) held that the right to clean air and water, and the right to a balanced environment is the core of a dignified way of life.
• Environmental protection thus transitioned from remedial policy choice into constitutional obligation — melding Article 21 with Article 48A (Directive Principles) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties).

Judicial Quote

“The right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.” — Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

2. Technology & AI: Liberty in the Digital Era

While we live in an era of massive artificial intelligence, surveillance and algorithmic governance, the meaning of liberty has expanded to include elements of informational autonomy.

After K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), Courts have started looking into the dangers of:

• Mass surveillance and facial recognition technology.
• Algorithmic bias in government decision making (like predictive policing and automated welfare).

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 seeks to balance technological developments with privacy, consent and accountability — giving constitutional life to digital liberty.

Constitutional Observation

“Technology cannot be employed to remove human dignity, autonomous agency, and choice as provided by the Constitution.”

3. Reproductive Rights: Personal Autonomy and Dignity

The Right to Reproductive Choice has become an integral part of Article 21 in the Constitution.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, along with subsequent Supreme Court cases in 2023, articulated:

• Women — in a marital or unmarried context — cannot be treated unequally with respect to reproductive choice.
• A state-mandated moral or familial obligation to independence cannot be imposed upon them.
• The Court also reiterated that reproductive freedom is part of personal liberty and bodily integrity, similar to certain international conventions — including CEDAW.

Judicial Observation:

“A woman’s right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21.” — Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009)

4. Digital Freedom: Issues on Speech and Safety

Freedoms of speech and privacy have now converged and co-existed with the internet. The Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act to protect free speech in the online space.

However, new concerns related to the internet (hate speech, misinformation, and cyberbullying) will require appropriate regulatory measures.

The task, at hand, is to ensure that online safety does not come at the expense of digital liberty in satisfying the provision for “reasonable restriction” in Articles 19 and 21.

5. Mental Health: From Criminalization to Compassionate Care

Before, Section 309 IPC punished attempted suicide; a violation of Article 21. The Mental Health Care Act, 2017 sought to reform this approach:

• Identified suicide as a mental health issue, not a crime.
• All persons had a right to mental health care and dignity.

The shift from punishment to protection shows the gradual evolution of Indian jurisprudence — a right to life means a right to live with mental well-being and self-respect.

Comparative Insights

Philosophical Reflection

Mahatma Gandhi: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

Article 21 embodies this spirit by protecting even persons who are presently on the margins of society: prisoners, the poor, minorities, voiceless persons.

Swami Vivekananda: “Liberty is the first condition of growth.”

His concept fits with the progressive interpretation of Article 21 that personal liberty would allow every person to grow and develop, ultimately to the growth of the nation.

Justice H.R. Khanna: “The spirit of the Constitution must not be just a living force in its application.”

UPSC & Governance Relevance

Together, these ideas transform Article 21 into a moral compass — encouraging the state to ensure that laws upholds human dignity, not authority.

Conclusion: From ‘Living’ to ‘Living with Dignity’

Article 21 is a living provision — it evolves with civilization and science and morality.
It defends not merely life but the ability to lead a meaningful life — a life which includes the environment, the right to privacy, mental health, identity on the internet, and so on.

From Maneka Gandhi’s progressive and transformative right (1978) to Common Cause (2018), it is a journey that shows the transformation from life to life with dignity — reflecting the soul of India’s Constitution.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s words will be eternity rich:

“The procedure must be right, just and fair and, therefore, not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive.”

Thus, Article 21 is not just a right — it is India’s moral promise of humanity, liberty, and justice.

FAQs on Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

1. What does Article 21 guarantee?
It protects every person’s right to live with dignity, covering life, liberty, privacy, health, environment, and a dignified death.

2. How is “Procedure Established by Law” different from “Due Process of Law”?
India’s Procedure Established by Law ensures legality, while the U.S. Due Process ensures fairness and justice.
Post Maneka Gandhi (1978), India adopted a blend of both.

3. How has the Supreme Court expanded Article 21?
It now includes:

• Health – Parmanand Katara (1989)
• Environment – M.C. Mehta (1987)
• Speedy Trial – Hussainara Khatoon (1979)
• Privacy – K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
• Dignified Death – Common Cause (2018)

4. What’s the legal status of euthanasia and suicide?

• Passive euthanasia and living wills are legal (Common Cause, 2018).
• Suicide is decriminalized under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) retains it only for limited cases.

5. Why is Article 21 vital in the digital age?
It protects digital privacy, data, and autonomy under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, ensuring freedom from misuse or surveillance.