Topic
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, protecting individuals from arbitrary state action and recognizing evolving dimensions like dignity, privacy, and fair trial.
The Delhi High Court permitted Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for an academic conference despite pending UAPA charges, ruling that mere allegations cannot restrict her Article 21 right to travel abroad. The court imposed safeguards including a ₹1 lakh bond and undertakings to return, balancing personal liberty with investigative needs.
The Delhi High Court directed masking of identity markers in quashed criminal orders to shield the petitioner’s family from harassment, upholding a right to be forgotten under Article 21. This lets those with quashed criminal cases seek removal of personal details from public court records to prevent ongoing stigma.
The Delhi High Court allowed medical termination of pregnancy for a 16-year-old rape survivor at 31 weeks, ruling that her reproductive autonomy under Article 21 outweighs the 24-week ceiling in the MTP Act. The decision expands access to safe abortion for minor survivors of sexual violence facing grave mental injury.
Denying IVF solely because husband exceeds age limit under Section 21(g) of ART Act 2021 violates wife’s reproductive autonomy; age limits apply individually, allowing couples with one eligible partner to access assisted reproductive technology.
Delhi HC struck down trial court's prior permission condition for foreign travel, holding it cannot stand without bail, cognizance or summons; instead, two weeks' prior intimation suffices. This shields Article 21 travel rights for those not yet arrested or summoned.
The Uttarakhand HC held that adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to Article 21 protection and must register under Section 381(1) of the Uttarakhand UCC, 2024, while police assess threats and provide protection.
The Punjab and Haryana HC held that surrender of a passport under bail does not block its renewal, upholding Article 21 liberty. It directed the trial court to allow renewal with suitable safeguards, aiding those under similar bail conditions.
The Delhi High Court granted bail to two UAPA accused after nearly five years of pre-trial detention during which only 21 of 359 witnesses were examined, ruling that Article 21 constitutional protections prevail over Section 43D(5) statutory bail restrictions when trial delay is inordinate and the accused's role is peripheral. The decision reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress cannot be justified solely by the severity of UAPA allegations.
The Rajasthan High Court ordered the state to pay Rs 25 lakh to Lila’s family and directed immediate FIR registration, emphasizing the state’s Article 21 duty to protect life in detention. It also issued sweeping prison-reform directives, signalling stricter accountability for custodial deaths.
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL challenging hanging as the sole mode of execution, reaffirming the Constitution Bench ruling in Deena v. Union of India (1983) that Section 354(5) CrPC (now Section 393(5) BNSS) does not violate Article 21. The Court held that absent empirical evidence of botched executions or proven superiority of lethal injection, the legislative choice of execution method stands.
The court ruled that disclosure statements excluded by Section 23 BSA cannot sustain detention absent any recovery or FIR mention. Granting parity with bailed co-accused, it allowed regular bail under BNSS Section 483, stressing that indefinite pre-trial incarceration is impermissible at the early trial stage.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered regular bail for Gurkirpal Singh, holding that when the prosecution offers no independent evidence, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the stringent bail denial under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This establishes that speedy-trial rights can prevail over statutory bail restrictions, benefiting accused in drug cases lacking direct proof.
A three-month limit on departmental suspension without statutory review is mandatory; exceeding it infringes Article 21 and renders the suspension void. The ruling protects Nagaland government employees from indefinite ‘deemed suspension’ while investigations are pending.
The High Court held that detaining an NDPS accused while trial delays are caused by the prosecution breaches Article 21’s speedy-trial guarantee. It granted regular bail, noting that Section 37’s strict bail rules cannot override fundamental liberty. The ruling shields accused from prosecution-driven postponements.
Uttarakhand HC directs police to assess and provide protection to inter-faith live-in couples under Article 21 if genuine threats exist, citing Lata Singh v. State of U.P. to uphold personal liberty against interference.