---
type: faq
question: >-
  What is the Right to Life and Liberty? How has this Right evolved through the
  history of the Indian Constitution?
topic: constitutionalism
topic_title: India's Constitution
topic_url: 'https://liberty-lighthouse.vercel.app/topics/constitutionalism/'
canonical_url: >-
  https://liberty-lighthouse.vercel.app/topics/constitutionalism/faq/what-is-the-right-to-life-and-liberty-how-has-this-right-evolved-through-the-history-of-the-indian/
markdown_url: >-
  https://liberty-lighthouse.vercel.app/topics/constitutionalism/faq/what-is-the-right-to-life-and-liberty-how-has-this-right-evolved-through-the-history-of-the-indian.md
---
# What is the Right to Life and Liberty? How has this Right evolved through the history of the Indian Constitution?

**Article 21** enshrines a significant rule of law principle \- the right to life and liberty of every person (not only citizens) \- *“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”*. 

	The term **“due process of law”** used in the United States Constitution gives judges a wider role to interpret whether the violation of the right has happened because of the substantive law or it was due to procedural violations, that is, the way the law was applied. The framers of India’s Constitution deliberately chose the term “procedure established by law” to prevent our Judiciary from getting creative in interpreting what “life” or “personal liberty” means in real-life cases. Judiciary’s role thus becomes passive \- it follows the letter of the law so long as the law is not unconstitutional, even if the law is unfair or unjust. Courts would intervene only if the Executive has not applied the law in a fair, just, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner.

**Case:**	As we will see through the cases discussed, the right to life and personal liberty has moved from the intended narrow interpretation of Article 21’s “procedure established by law”, to the actual **“due process of law”** understanding of the rule of law principle. In *A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)*, the Supreme Court read Article 21 narrowly, limiting the term “procedure established by law” to mean that if there was a law authorising detention, it did not require a “fair trial” or “due process”. The case related to A.K. Gopalan, a Communist leader, who had been held in jail under various preventive detention laws without trial for several years. The Court ruled that the detention was lawful, even if the law itself was unfair and unreasonable. There was no attempt to harmonise the right to life and personal liberty with other Fundamental Rights of Equality and Freedom of Movement.    
	  
**Case:**	During the National Emergency between 1975-77, the government detained a large number of politicians, journalists, and activists under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, without providing any reasons for their arrests and held them without trial. All Fundamental Rights were suspended, including Article 21\. The Supreme Court, in a controversial ruling in *ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976),* said that the Writ of **Habeas Corpus** against a person’s unlawful detention can be suspended in the interest of the State. 

**Case:**	The transformation began with *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).* In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court interpreted “procedure established by law” to include two elements: i) the substantive law itself should not be arbitrary, unjust or oppressive. ii) procedural due process must ensure that legal proceedings against an individual are fair, transparent and unbiased, and introduced the rule of law principle of “due process” in its full meaning.

	The government had impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her any notice or reasons, relying on a procedure in the Passports Act 1967, which allowed the government to impound passports in “public interest”. While the Supreme Court did not strike down the procedure itself as unconstitutional, it laid down strict procedural safeguards. The Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of Article 21’s right to “personal liberty”. The mere existence of a legal procedure is not enough. Any curtailment of this right should follow procedures that are fair, just, and reasonable, and cannot be arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful. **Articles 14, 19, and 21** are an integrated web, not silos \- a law that passes the test of one Article must pass the tests of the others as well. The principles of natural justice, that is, right to notice, hearing, and opportunity to respond, are implicit in the “procedure” laid down in any law that deprives a person of life or liberty. The Court held that the procedure followed by the government in impounding Maneka Gandhi’s passport violated her fundamental rights.