"LIFE" AS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND EXPOUNDED BY COURTS -Justice Abhay Gohil Brevity is the soul of wit.

Articulation of Article 21 of the Constitution is its rare example and its expansion is a great are of judicial innovation. Perhaps it is not the end but it is the beginning of end. In the words of Anderson: "Every man's life is a fairy tale written by God's fingers. In fact, life is half spelt before one knows what life is". As per the philosophy of history, life has a value only when it has something valuable as its object. Life is a wonderful thing to talk about or to read about in history books but it is terrible when one has to live it. Jawaharlal Nehru once said "Life for me is real as I believe it to be a spark of the divine. The divine essence is the sum total of all life". (From selected work of Jawaharlal Nehru). The Constitution was framed under this ambition that "the ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us but as long as there are tears and sufferings, so long our task will not be attained". The four crucial expressions in Article 21 is the best example of brevity. The language used in Article 21 is "No person shall be deprived of his Life or Personal Liberty except according to procedure established by Law". Religiously, life is precious like a precious stone, which has to be served. Life has been interpreted by various prophets in various ways but as we know that life of a man is valuable, meaningful and creative. Hindu mythology believes in theory of rebirth of life or life after death. The Darwinian theory of evolution has given a different meaning to life but in the Constitution, the same has been interpreted in a different way. Here the word "Life" has been used to mean that under a democratic set up governed by Constitution, how the life should be protected. This is somewhat different from the religious meaning of life. During last 50 years of the enforcement of Constitution, Supreme Court has interpreted this word rather liberally and broadly. While Interpreting the word "Life", the Courts have often quoted the following observation of Field, J in Munn Vs. Illinois', an American case - "The term 'Life' used here is something more than mere animal existence The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed". In the case of Francis Coralie v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), P.N. Bhagwati, Justice has observed that "We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it namely the bare necessity of life 'such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over their head and facilities of reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings".

Pathak, C.J. in Vikaram Deo Singh v. State of Bihar (1988) observed: "We live in an age when this Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 2 1 of the Constitution, that every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human personality. The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen, so the State recognizes the need for whom, therefore, of necessity, provision must be made for their protection and welfare." Sawant, J in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress (1990) observed: "The right to life includes right to livelihood. It is all the more improper and undesirable to expose the precious rights like the rights of life, liberty and property to the vagaries of the individual whims and fancies. The employment is not a bounty from them, nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be mockery of them." In the case of Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Gotame (1996), the Apex Court has observed: "The right of life under Article 21 would include the right of food, clothing, decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal, it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being, it has to be suitable accommodation which allows him to grow in all aspects - physical, mental and intellectual". Now it appears that after the judicial pronouncements, this Article and meaning of life and personal liberty have not only become more meaningful, useful and purposeful but have also received greater importance for existence of human values. It has helped in improving the quality of life of every person. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997); the Court has expanded its interpretation and observed - "To live with human dignity, free from exploitation. It includes protection of health and strength of workers, men and women and of the tender age of the children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and human conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum conditions which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity. No government can take any action to deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic rights". Dignity of the human person is non-negotiable. Dr. Ambedkar once wrote: "The question is not whether a community lives or dies; the question is on what plane does it live ...this it a gulf between merely living and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode; to beat retreat, to surrender and to live the life of a captive is also a mode of survival."

This Article as well as the word "Life" has been interpreted keeping in view the preamble of the Constitution which says - "We the people of India ... to secure to all its citizens social, economic and political justice....". It the social, economic and political justice is to be secured, it would be necessary that the person's life should be protected and not only protected but should be developed and shaped in the manner in which it receives true meaning. "The right to live with human dignity should encompass within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of persons concerned" as observed by Supreme Court in the case of CERC v. Union of India. In the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1996), the Supreme Court has observed "In any organized society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is free from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guarantee in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society". Our Constitution provided a dream to all the persons to live with human dignity and under Article 38 of the Constitution, State is required to secure a social order for the promotion and welfare of people. In the light of preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, the Court, under Article 21 has protected not only the quality of life but has also provided right of livelihood which also includes employment and to prohibit backdoor entry in the employment is a part of protection. The protection of rights of slum dwellers, hawkers, fight of medical care, health of labour, care homes, right to shelter, hill roads, right to education, sexual harassment, right to privacy, protection of environment and ecology, medical rights have been included in the right to life by judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court has laid much emphasis on the concept of "welfare state," social justice, right to economic justice and right to economic equality. Economic empowerment of weaker sections of the Society constitutes Fundamental rights. The aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, political and economic equality as it is known that social justice and the concept of equality are complimentary to each other. After much struggle on the question of livelihood, from the case of Re Santrams, Nachane, Bapi Raju and ultimately in the case of Olga Tellis", Supreme Court has employed the right to livelihood under right to life. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Council (1985), pavement dwellers resisted eviction from their habitat by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Court has observed The question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to

that question namely that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 2 1 is wide and farreaching. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to the procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to live and equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living that is the means of livelihood. Otherwise it would mean deprivation of his right to life." Though Article 41 of the Constitution under Directive Principles makes provision for right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of old age, sickness, disablement but it is true that the country has so far not made the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. The right to work has also not yet been recognized as a fundamental right. In the case of DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (1991), the Supreme Court has observed - "income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental as others". The case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) , which is a medico legal case of accident, the Supreme Court found that generally doctors are refusing to give immediate aid to the victim till legal formalities are completed and in some cases the injured dies for want of medical aid. In this connection the Supreme Court has clarified that preservation of life is a paramount importance. Once the life is lost status quo ante cannot be restored. Therefore, it is the duty of the doctors to preserve life whether the concerned person is a criminal or an innocent person and the apex court directed that every doctor at a Government Hospital or otherwise has a professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. In several other cases of such kind, Supreme Court gave repeated directions about the same. In the ,case of Common Cause (1996), Apex Court highlighted the serious deficiencies and shortcomings in the matter of collection, storage and supply of blood through the various blood centers operating in the country especially in the context of incidence of HIV infected one. In case of Upendra Baxi (1987), the Supreme Court gave directions to the State Government for improvement of living conditions in the Government protective home at Agra and reiterated that the right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every citizen. In case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Umed Ram (1986), the Supreme Court was concerned with the importance of roads in the hilly areas for the enjoyment of life. It was considered that there should be road for communication in reasonable conditions and denial of that right would be denial of life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the constitution. Right to education has also been considered as a fundamental right under Article 2 1 because education promotes good and dignified life, see Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992). But on the other side the Court has said that the concept of "te lops" is contrary to the Constitutional scheme and is wholly abhorrent to the Indian culture and heritage. Restricting the

admission to non meritorious candidates belonging to richer sections of the society and denying the same to poor meritorious is wholly arbitrary and against constitutional scheme and the court has further declared charging of capitation fee by the State recognized educational institutes as wholly arbitrary. The Court has now limited the State obligation to provide educational facilities and has given right to free education until the age of 14 years and beyond that stage the State obligation is subject to limitations of economic capacity and development. The case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) is another protection provided by judicial pronouncements in the field of education and capitation fee. Sexual harassment of working women at her place of work has also been considered as violation of rights of gender equality, and right to live and liberty under Article 14, 15 and 2 1 of the Constitution. Sexual harassment also violates the victims fundamental right under Article 19(l)(g) to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business, see case of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997). In the case of Chopra, Supreme Court has observed that- "there is no gain saying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of fundamental right to gender equality and the rights of life and liberty. The gender equality includes prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those rights. In the case rape, it is considered a crime not only against a person of woman but a crime against entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Therefore it is the most hated crime." It is a crime against human right and is also violative of the victims most cherished rights namely right to live which includes right to live with human dignity as contained in Article 2 1. Right to privacy has also been included as the right to life and personal liberty. Right to privacy now has acquired constitutional status. It is a right to be let alone. A citizen has a right to safeguard privacy of his own family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. The right to reproductive autonomy, right to use condoms, right of woman to abort, all these fall within the ambit of right to privacy. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardika (1991), Supreme Court has protected the right to privacy of a prostitute and held that "even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to her privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes." Now the right to privacy has become established in India as a part of Article 2 1 under right of personal liberty. In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), Supreme Court has laid down certain the propositions defining the right to privacy which has been recognized as a new fundamental right. The right to hold a telephonic conversation is also covered under the right of privacy. The question of protection environment was equal to the protection of natural rights of persons. Nature has provided water, air, soil, sunlight and environment with ecology to preserve the life. It is considered that if the natural rights are polluted they will directly affect the right to life. Therefore it was incumbent on the courts to protect the basic environment elements namely soil, air and water and to remove all hazardous

hurdles and to maintain hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance, to provide protection to the forest and other valuable natural assets. The Courts have shown their anxiety and had issued various directions under various environmental laws in several cases. The quality of life cannot be maintained without pollution free water and air. General public is the beneficiary of all natural resources. In the case of AP Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1989), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) and in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), Court has issued various directions for the protection of environment and forest of the country. Supreme Court has ordered closure of tanneries which were polluting water, rivers, canals, underground water and agricultural land and has issued guidelines and directions for the protection of Taj Mahal and ancient monuments and for protection of rapidly deteriorating quality of air and directed that entire fleet of public transport buses be run on CNG and not on diesel and ban has been put on the use of diesel in the city of Delhi. In the case of Vincent Vs. Union of India(1987), the Supreme Court has emphasized that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities and there was prohibition of drugs injurious to health and directed that injurious drugs should be totally eliminated from the market. "Polluter pays principle" has also been put on trial. The question of further protection of "life" and "dignified life" still continues still there are many more dimensions which are to be explored by the courts. The question of flowing dead bodies, animal bodies, ashes and hazardous material into the rivers is to be banned. Rivers are also to be protected from sentimental and religious use. Ingenuity-of the courts has not come to an end. Another aspect of life, which includes "personal liberty", is also equally important. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. the expression "procedure established by law" introduced in our Constitution is basically an American concept of procedural due process which enables the courts to see whether the law fulfils the requisite elements of reasonable procedure, The expression of personal liberty used in Article 21 has also been given an elaborate interpretation. It does not merely mean liberty of the body, freedom from physical restraint freedom from confinement within the bounds of a prison, freedom from arrest or detention or false imprisonment or wrongful confinement but it means much more than that. Immediately, after the constitution came in force, the question of interpretation of these words arose in the' famous case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and the procedure as laid down in an enacted law." Fazal Ali, J disagreeing with the majority view held that principle of natural justice that no matter shall be condemned unheard was a part of general law and it should accordingly be read into Article 2 1. U.S. Constitution lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life-or property without due process of law and the words "due process" means just, proper or reasonable".

As per Gopalan's case, the legislature was free to lay down any procedure but later in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case shifted the chain and practically over-ruled Gopalan's case and it was held that -"No person, can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to procedure established by law" and the right to travel abroad was treated as right under Article 2 1 and the Court gave new orientation to this expression. It has created multi dimensional impact on development of Constitutional law. Bhagwati, J observed in Maneka Gandhi's cases "The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 2 1 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19." After Maneka Gandhi's case, its impact on the administration of criminal justice in India is beneficial. The questions of arrest, fair trial, speedy trial, long pre-trial confinement, bail, more criminal courts, right of appeal, legal aid, hand-cuffing offender trials, police torture, prisoner's administration, prisoner's grievances, awarding of damages to victims, custodial violence are the important questions which are governed under the Personal Liberty Jurisprudence. Series of cases are available in which the right of life enshrined in Article 21 has been elaborately interpreted and this includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. They are all extended dimensions which have made the Indian Constitution as a living Constitution to make the life on the lines of Human Rights Jurisprudence. It is said that "generation after generation man is born new. Each generation gives rise to new questions for fulfillment of new aspirations in life and new standards of thought and action". The whole purpose of life is to guide activity in an evolutionary direction of time. It is a very bondable purpose and the aspiration of every law is to save the man from pitfalls. For all this innovation and expansion of the scope of interpretation of constitution with revolutionary vision, Legal fraternity has paid rich tributes to the courts especially to Supreme Court of India saying that "it is a light house whose benignant rays of liberty and justice illumine the troubled surface of water". Krishna Iyer, J reminded that "Law is not omnipotent in the sky, but it is an instrument of social justice". Though framers of the constitution had not conceived the Indian judiciary as an instrument of peaceful resolution, but, by the passage of time judiciary became a centre of reverence to the people of this country. Albert Einstien used to say: "Try not to be a man of success but rather try to be a man of value". Our values should be: "We cannot help ourselves without helping others, we cannot enrich our lives without enriching others, we cannot prosper without bringing prosperity to others" (Jennete Cole).

In the end, I will conclude this with the saying of Mahatapasvi Jain Saint of this Century Acharya Shri Vidyasagarji: "Human life is very precious and above all it is full of principles of values. It has to be lived with full devotion, magnanimity and qualities of unlimited treasure of knowledge of universal acceptance, which can take him to Moksh Marg and ultimate salvation, therefore the importance of life is to be judged on this angle and should be lived on these principles and should not be allowed to be wasted". As per oriental saying: Where the vision is for one year, Cultivate flowers; Where the vision is for ten years, Cultivate trees; Where the vision is for eternity Cultivate people.