Previous Year Question

Under Article 21, no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Right to Life broadly, extending it beyond mere physical existence to several rights connected with a life of dignity.

Option (a) falls within the scope of Article 21. In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, immediate medical aid was linked with the protection of life. The Supreme Court emphasised that saving the life of an injured person must receive priority and procedural formalities should not obstruct necessary medical treatment.

Option (b) is also related to Article 21. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, Sexual Harassment of women at the workplace was treated as violating constitutional rights associated with Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and the Vishaka Guidelines were laid down to protect women's dignity and provide a safe workplace.

Option (c) also falls within the expanded scope of Article 21. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court linked the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air with the Right to Life under Article 21. Thus, a clean environment and quality water are associated with the protection of life.

Capital punishment is not included in this question as a positive right derived from Article 21. However, an important nuance is that the constitutional safeguard of Article 21 does apply to the death penalty—a person may be deprived of life only under a valid law and through a fair, just and reasonable procedure. In Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of the death penalty within this framework.