Article 21 And Criminal Law
Article 21 and Criminal Law: Overview
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This article protects the right to life and personal liberty and is fundamental in criminal law because it governs how the state can lawfully deprive someone of liberty or life—key in arrest, trial, punishment, and detention.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively, incorporating principles of fair trial, due process, humane treatment, and right against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Case 1: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving reasons.
Issue:
Whether the procedure established by law must be “just, fair and reasonable” under Article 21.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must follow a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.
Significance:
This case expanded Article 21 to include procedural fairness in criminal law. It overturned the earlier narrow view and linked Article 21 to other fundamental rights, ensuring safeguards in criminal proceedings.
Case 2: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
There were widespread reports of custodial deaths and torture in West Bengal police custody.
Issue:
Whether custodial torture violates Article 21 and what safeguards are necessary.
Held:
The Court issued detailed guidelines for police custody, including mandatory police diaries, medical examination of arrested persons, informing relatives, and presence of independent witnesses.
Significance:
This case recognized custodial torture and death as a violation of the right to life under Article 21 and strengthened protections against police abuse in criminal law.
Case 3: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Facts:
The petitioner challenged inhuman treatment and harsh conditions in prisons.
Issue:
Whether prisoners retain rights under Article 21 despite incarceration.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights except those that are necessarily curtailed by imprisonment. Article 21 protects prisoners against inhuman treatment.
Significance:
This case reinforced that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, even for those accused or convicted under criminal law.
Case 4: Arms Act Case – Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Issue:
Whether the death penalty violates Article 21’s right to life.
Held:
The Court held that the death penalty is constitutional but must be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases after considering mitigating and aggravating factors.
Significance:
This judgment balanced the protection of life with the state's power of punishment under criminal law, laying down strict guidelines for capital punishment under Article 21.
Case 5: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts:
The petitioner was arrested and detained without being informed of grounds of arrest or rights.
Issue:
Whether arrest procedures violate Article 21.
Held:
The Court held that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a lawyer, and that arrest should not be used as routine police procedure.
Significance:
The case emphasized protection against arbitrary arrest and detention under Article 21, safeguarding personal liberty in criminal law.
Summary of Article 21 Principles in Criminal Law from These Cases:
Fair Procedure: Arrest, detention, trial, and punishment must be conducted fairly and reasonably (Maneka Gandhi).
Protection Against Custodial Torture: Torture and inhuman treatment violate Article 21 (D.K. Basu).
Rights of Prisoners: Even convicted persons retain fundamental rights, including humane treatment (Sunil Batra).
Limits on Death Penalty: Death penalty permissible only in rare cases with due consideration (Bachan Singh).
Right to Know Grounds of Arrest: Arrest procedures must respect rights to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty (Joginder Kumar).
RELATED Blog
comments