Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 21 of the Constitution of India deals with protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Constitution came into force on 26 Jan 1950.
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 21, The Constitution of India.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this article, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this article.
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this article: Protects personal liberty and requires fair, just and reasonable procedure; applied to strike down Section 45 as violating due process
-
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Ex post facto environmental clearances are illegal. Industry that operated without prior EC is liable on polluter-pays principles under Environment (Protection) Act s.3 measures and s.15 penalties, read with Article 21. Use Judgement order-32.pdf (2020-04-01), not same-date order-33 ROP.
On this article: Ex post facto EC is incompatible with Article 21 environmental due process.
-
Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) (testimonial compulsion) and Article 21. Results of involuntary tests are inadmissible. Voluntary tests with safeguards may be conducted; derivative use of facts discovered is constrained by Evidence Act section 27 principles.
On this article: Forcible administration of these tests also violates personal liberty / mental privacy under Article 21.
-
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Grounds of arrest must be communicated as mandated by Article 22(1); chaining an accused to a hospital bed violates Article 21.
-
Common Cause v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Right to die with dignity is part of Article 21.
-
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Adults right to marry a person of choice is part of Article 21.
-
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and dignity, and the criminalization of consensual intimate acts between adults is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights. The State has no legitimate interest in criminalizing such conduct, and constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide interpretation. Section 377 is read down to exclude consensual acts between adults in private while remaining applicable to non-consensual acts, acts involving minors, and bestiality.
On this article: Right to life and personal liberty - encompasses right to privacy, dignity, autonomy, and sexual orientation; Section 377 violates this.
-
M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To protect the Great Indian Bustard, the Court directed restrictions on overhead power lines in priority GIB habitat, reading WLPA s.9 (prohibition of hunting/killing of a scheduled species) with Environment (Protection) Act s.3 measures and Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g). Teaching file is the 19 April 2021 Judgement (order-8.pdf), not later 2024 modification order-19.pdf and not same-date order-7 ROP.
On this article: Survival of a critically endangered species in its habitat is part of Article 21 environmental life.
-
Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil V. Tharthare
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
REPORTABLE Chandrachud J., 3 Dec 2019, CA 2435/2019. Use Judgement order-5.pdf, not same-date order-6 ROP. MCP flagged WRONG DOCUMENT but the body is this reportable EIA judgment (some secondary sources wrongly give 2021). Expansion of a building project still within the same EIA Notification Schedule entry requires a fresh Form 1 / SEAC appraisal under para 7(ii); an amendment of an existing EC is not a substitute where there is a change in the built-up area / environmental parameters. EPA s.3 and the EIA Notification are the source of that duty; Articles 21 and 48A inform the standard.
On this article: Informed EIA / public-participation duties for a built-up-area expansion are part of environmental rule of law under Article 21.
-
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Environmental clearance for the Goa Mopa airport was set aside because the EIA/EC process under Environment (Protection) Act s.3 and related EIA Notification duties was not a reasoned, full-disclosure exercise. Public participation and the duty to give reasons are part of environmental rule of law under Articles 21 and 48A. Use Judgement order-10.pdf (2019-03-29), not same-date order-9 ROP.
On this article: Environmental rule of law and informed public participation in EIA are part of Article 21.
-
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
NDPS Act s.50 is mandatory: search of a person must be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate (or with informed waiver). Independent witnesses and the accused's right to be searched before a gazetted officer are not empty formalities; non-compliance vitiates the search and the conviction. Use Judgement order-18.pdf (2018-04-27), not same-date order-17 ROP.
On this article: Person-search safeguards under NDPS s.50 are an aspect of personal liberty / due process under Article 21.
-
Independent Thought v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Exception 2 to section 375 IPC, which treated sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife aged 15-18 as not rape, is unconstitutional. Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 is rape even if she is married.
On this article: Bodily integrity of a girl under 18 is protected by Article 21 even within marriage.
-
Muslim Women's Quest For Equality vs Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi cannot be definitively extracted from this procedural order as the matter remained part-heard. However, the Court's decision to constitute a five-judge bench and hear extensive arguments from diverse stakeholders suggests that the Court recognized the need to comprehensively address the constitutional validity of instant triple talaq and the scope of personal law under the Indian Constitution.
On this article: Right to life and personal liberty
-
Vanashakti vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prior environmental clearance regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory and gives expression to the precautionary principle. While breach of this regime attracts civil penalties under Section 15 of the 1986 Act and by necessary implication leads to restoration of status quo ante including closure, demolition, remediation and recovery of costs, the Central Government possesses power under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to issue a narrowly tailored, time-bound, delegated legislation carving an exception to the prior EC requirement in appropriate cases where a supervening public interest justifies controlled continuance subject to stringent appraisal, damage assessment, remediation, compensatory liability and future compliance. Such an exception must satisfy the constitutional tests of reasonable classification under Article 14 and proportionality under Article 21. However, an administrative instruction cannot supplant the 2006 Notification or create a perpetual amnesty regime applicable to all permissible projects without intelligible differentia bearing rational nexus to supervening public interest. The 2017 Notification is valid as such a narrowly tailored exception, but the 2021 Office Memorandum is invalid as it fails the proportionality test by being unlimited in time and class.
On this article: Right to life; interpreted to include right to clean and healthy environment; applied to test proportionality of environmental enforcement measures
-
Vijaybhai Kantibhai Gameti vs The State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal bail applications, the court must balance the accused's constitutional right to liberty (Article 21) with the state's interest in ensuring trial completion. Bail is not a punishment but a mechanism to secure the accused's presence during trial. When the offences charged do not fall within the most serious categories under Section 437 CrPC, and when appropriate bail conditions can adequately protect the state's interests, bail should be granted. The gravity of the offence and the prescribed punishment are relevant considerations, but indefinite detention without trial is unconstitutional.
On this article: Right to life and personal liberty; the court referenced this to emphasize that indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional rights
-
Gulfisha Fatima vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While dealing with UAPA offences, the court must balance the strict requirements of Section 43D(5) against the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and long incarceration without trial is a decisive factor in favour of granting bail.
On this article: Right to personal liberty and speedy trial used to balance stringent statutory bail restrictions.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this article
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this article is quoted.
-
… These difficulties arise primarily because digital KYC / e-KYC / video KYC[3]( page-4-1) norms are not designed keeping in view the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities. Thus, the digital KYC process that excludes persons with disabilities is a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>[<sup>3</sup>]( page-4-0) Hereinafter shortly referred to as "digital KYC" 5. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide RBI Master Direction, 2016, the digital KYC process has been …
-
… These difficulties arise primarily because digital KYC / e-KYC / video KYC[3]( page-4-1) norms are not designed keeping in view the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities. Thus, the digital KYC process that excludes persons with disabilities is a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>[<sup>3</sup>]( page-4-0) Hereinafter shortly referred to as "digital KYC" 5. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide RBI Master Direction, 2016, the digital KYC process has been …
-
… discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail…. 70. ………………………………. 71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. "…except according to …
Questions about Article 21
What have the courts held on Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue (23 Nov 2017) is the leading judgment on this article among those set out below: Protects personal liberty and requires fair, just and reasonable procedure; applied to strike down Section 45 as violating due process. Another 15 judgments on this article are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
In judgments and charge sheets this article is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Article 21, Art. 21, article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this article are set out on this page, beginning with Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue (23 Nov 2017).
When did Article 21 of the Constitution of India come into force?
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, commonly called right to life, right to privacy or personal liberty, and cited as Article 21, came into force on 26 Jan 1950, having been enacted on 26 Nov 1949. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other articles of the Constitution
- 371D. Special provisions with respect to [the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana1292 words
- 366. Definitions1280 words
- 371A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland1245 words
- 371F. Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim1039 words
- 239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi1001 words
- 352. Proclamation of Emergency897 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from The Constitution of India in English 2026, the consolidated text published by India Code (item 544213ec-4072-44b2-a6fc-69fb84df2001). English only: the official translations are not reproduced here. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.