Critical Analysis On Article 21 Of Indian Constitution

 Critical Analysis On Article 21 Of Indian Constitution

Introduction
The term 'life' in Article 21 cannot be limited to only being physically alive or in a vegetative state, but must include a wide range of implied meanings. Life always means a dignified life, and it refers to anything and everything that is necessary or in line with a dignified life; everything that falls under the term 'life'.
“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or deceased or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor will the King pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” - English Magna Carta, 1215. According to the Oxford Dictionary, liberty is defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. Personal liberty, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is the freedom of an individual to act as he or she wishes. In India, the word "liberty" is qualified by the word "personal". Personal liberty is much broader than freedom or liberty of the arms and legs. The right to life and personal liberty is an essential component of human existence. In its broadest sense, it refers to all of life's necessities, without which one would perish.
The right to privacy is one of the implied rights recently made explicit by the Indian judiciary in the evolutionary landmark judgment. Implied fundamental rights are those fundamental rights that are seen as implicit in the express terminology used in the fundamental rights but are not explicitly provided in the text of the Constitution. After 40 years, the right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right for the first time by the lone dissenting judge H.R. Khanna, j. in the Habeas corpus case, which was later reiterated in the privacy judgment. "The right to life and liberty is not created by the constitution rather it is only declared and protected by it. This right exists simply because a person exists. Every naturally exiting person has complete control over his own self and it is a part of Article 21. This complete control over oneself is what guarantees his dignity and without privacy dignity cannot be guaranteed and therefore privacy is the fundamental right of an individual".

Meaning Of Article 21
Article 21 has long been considered the heart of our Constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. A cursory reading of this Article reveals that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". Article 21 protects two rights: the first is right to life, and the second is right to personal liberty. Except in accordance with the procedures established by law, both rights are protected by this Article.
Article 21 is an embodiment of constitutional values in a democratic society, according to Justice P.N Bhagwati, who defined it. It is the foundation upon which our society can move forward.
Article 21 appears to be a restraining clause. Thus, a person's life and personal liberty can be taken away in accordance with the legal procedure. Article 21 of the Constitution is written in negative language, but through a process of creative and innovative interpretation, Article 21 has today become the source of many positive rights through extraordinary interpretation of the expression of life, personal liberty, and procedure established by law that occurs in Article 21.
When the state or any of its representatives deprives an individual of his or her personal liberty, such action can only be justified if there is a law to support such actions and the procedures prescribed by the law have been thoroughly scrutinized. Article 21 requires that the term "law" be just, fair, and reasonable. The writ of habeas corpus is included in our Constitution to protect individuals from being deprived of their personal liberty.

Who Is Subject To The Article 21 restriction?
Unlike Article 14, this Article does not use the word "state." Article 21 only applies when a person is deprived of his "life" or "personal liberty" by the "State," as defined in Article 12.  However, this fundamental right will apply only to the state, and the state has a dual duty.

1. The state shall not deprive a person of his life or personal liberty through its actions.

2. The state shall also ensure that no private individual deprives another private individual of their life or personal liberty.

As a result, it does not directly apply to private individuals but only to the state, but it is implied that the state does not violate and also ensures that other people do not deprive other people of life and personal liberty. As a result, the state shall enact laws to prevent such depreciation by private individuals, and the state shall enforce these laws through its executive access. In this case, the remedy of the victim would be under Article 226 or under general law.

What Does The Term "Person" Mean?
According to this Article, the definition of a person does not apply only to citizens, but to all people, regardless of nationality or circumstances. It should be noted that Article 21 applies to both citizens and foreigners. Furthermore, the protection guaranteed by Art 21 extends even to people who are imprisoned.

What Does The Term "Deprived" Mean?

Article 21 enters the picture only when there is a loss of life or a person's personal liability. The literal meaning of the term "deprived" is to deprive someone of their legal right. The definition of Deprive was considered in the famous case of A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27). The Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 is only invoked in cases of "total loss" and that it has no application in cases of restrictions on the right to move freely. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to constitute ‘deprived’ there must be a direct and tangible act that threatens the feelings of life of a person or member of the community.

Article 21 of the constitution guarantees two types of rights:
1) Right to life and
2) Right to personal liberty.

Right To Life
The phrase "Right to life" refers to "the fullest opportunity to develop one's personality and potentiality to the highest level in the existing stages of our civilization." It implies that an individual must maintain a rational level of comfort and civility. The Allahabad court has banned and prohibited the use of Chinese manjha for flying kites as it causes serious harms to humans, birds, and other animals as the material used to make these is nylon and is coated with crushed glass, making it so sharp that it can cause dangerous harms to animals, birds, and us. By incorporating non-enforceable DPSP into enforceable fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has recognised and enforced various socioeconomic rights such as the right to food, health, education, and a means of livelihood, among others. 

Article 21 defines life as more than just the act of breathing or animal existence. It encompasses a much broader range of rights, such as the right to live with dignity, the right to a livelihood, the right to health, the right to clean air, and so on. This right gives a man's life meaning, completion, and value. Thus, from the core concept of the right to life, the bare necessities, minimum, and basic requirements for a person.
Related Case- Laws
1. The Supreme Court ruled in Sunil Batra v. Delhi administration that the term "right to life" includes the right to live a healthy life and enjoy all of the faculties of the human body in their prime condition. The term "right to life" includes the protection of a person's traditions, culture, heritage, and other things that give meaning to that person's life.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ruled in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that the term "life" refers to more than just animal existence. The prohibition against its deprivation extends to all limbs and faculties used to enjoy life. The provision prohibits body mutilation such as amputation of an armored leg or the removal of an eye, as well as the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outside world.

3. In Union of India v. Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), it was held that the right to live with human dignity free of abuse is given life by the given guidelines of State technique, for example, restorative administrations, enlightening workplaces, other cognizant working conditions, and maternity mitigation.

Right to Pollution Free Environment
Nature must be protected not only for our own eating, drinking, and breathing, but also to preserve the entire ecosystem that maintains Earth's ecological balance. Examine the cases below to learn about some of the decisions that have contributed to greater environmental protection.
Related case-laws

1. Subhash Kumar v. The State of Bihar (1991)
Facts
In this case, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against two iron and steel companies alleging that they were polluting the nearby river Bokaro by dumping waste into it. The petitioner pointed fingers at the State Pollution Control Board for failing to prevent this and offered to collect the waste and sludge himself.
Judgment
The Court stated that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to clean water and air for a healthy life. As a result of this case, the Court recognises the following environmental rights:

a. The right to a healthy environment is a component of the basic right to life.

b. Municipalities and a large number of other concerned governmental agencies have no content and have not implemented pollution abatement and prevention measures. The government may take some positive environmental measures.

2.  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Facts
In Calcutta, there is a company called Birla Textile. There were 2800 employees who had worked for the company for 30 years. The closure of the industry in Delhi put their services in jeopardy. They claimed that they were entitled to full back pay beginning December 1, 1996. They also claimed that they should receive a one-year bonus as a moving bonus.
Judgment
When workers claim a 30-year work period, the court grants the following relief:

1. Wage payments to employees

2. Consider all workers to be regular employees.

3. It also gives the order to pay a one-year wage as a relocation bonus.

3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Facts
In this case, large-scale pollution was being caused to the River Palar in Tamil Nadu as a result of untreated waste discharged into it by nearby industries. Furthermore, over 35,000 hectares of farmland had become unfit for cultivation. A Public Interest Litigation has been filed against it.
Judgment
The court acknowledged that, on the one hand, the industries contributed to development and provided employment for thousands of people, but that, on the other hand, they were the source of environmental degradation. As a result, it imposed a Rs. 10,000 fine on them and emphasised the establishment of a Green Bench in court to expedite the resolution of environmental cases.

4. Shanti Star Builders v. Narayan Totame
In this case, the supreme court held that the right to life is guaranteed in a civilized society, which includes the right to food, clothing, a decent environment, and a reasonable place to live.

Another aspect of Article 21 is the prohibition of noise pollution.
Noise has become a major deterrent to a peaceful and healthy lifestyle in today's fast-paced, chaotic urban world. Massive public loudspeakers, loud firecrackers, and even the constant honking of vehicles on the road have become a source of great annoyance as well as serious health hazards. The court addressed the issue of noise pollution and took a step towards controlling it in the Re: Noise Pollution case (2005).
5. Re: Noise Pollution case (2005)

Facts
In this case, a petition was filed against the use of loudspeakers in religious congregations, political rallies, social occasions, and so on, as well as the use of firecrackers, which caused a lot of noise pollution and disturbance. This came after a thirteen-year-old rape victim's cries for help went unheard due to music blasting from loudspeakers in the area.
Judgment
The court acknowledged the serious negative effects of loud noise and issued specific directions to prevent it-

1. The use of loud firecrackers at night is prohibited.

2. Fixation of a cap on loudspeaker noise levels.

3. Vehicles must not honk in residential areas at night.

4. Raising awareness about the dangers of noise pollution.

5. Directing the state to seize loudspeakers that exceed permitted noise levels.

The environmental-pollution situation is probably on a better legal foundation than it was a few decades ago, but there is still a long way to go in terms of implementation if we want to save the Earth in the face of alarming climate change statistics.

Right To Live With Human Dignity
The term "Right to live" refers to the right to live with human dignity as well as the basic necessities for survival such as food, shelter, clothing, freedom of movement, and interaction and contact with other people.
Related Case-Laws
1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Facts
In this case, the petitioner NGO filed a Writ Petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalised homosexual acts between LGBT people, claiming that it violated fundamental rights.
Judgment

Applying the principle of human dignity, the court ruled that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by criminalising consensual sexual acts of adults (people over the age of 18 who are competent to consent) in private. As a result, sexual acts between LGBT adults conducted with the parties' free consent were declared legal.

2. Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India (2014)
Facts
In this case, a non-profit organisation filed a petition seeking guidelines for occupational safety and health conditions in various industries, particularly thermal power plants. This was due to the various skin diseases, lung abnormalities, and other illnesses suffered by their employees as a result of unsafe working conditions. It also called for compensation for victims of occupational health disorders.
Judgment
The court acknowledged the state's duty to protect workers from hazardous or unsanitary working conditions and remanded the case to various High Courts to investigate the issue of thermal power plants in their respective states.

3. The Supreme Court ruled in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India that failing to pay minimum wages to workers in various Asiad projects would be a violation of Article 21 of the constitution.

4. In Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad, it was stated that the right to life includes the pursuit of basic human virtues and decency.

Right To Livelihood
The term 'livelihood' refers to a method of providing for one's basic needs. Work is a person's primary source of income. According to Article 21, the right to a livelihood is an essential component of the right to life. If someone's right to a living is violated, it means we are violating that person's right to life. Initially, our courts held that the right to a livelihood was not covered by Article 21, but this was later changed.
Related Case- Laws
1. Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986)
Facts
The petitioners in this case were slum and pavement dwellers in Bombay. They filed a writ petition challenging the State of Maharashtra's and the Bombay Municipal Corporation's earlier decision to forcibly evict and deport residents, which resulted in the demolition of certain dwellings. They argued that evicting a person from his pavement dwelling or slum deprived him of his right to livelihood, which should be considered part of his constitutional right to life.
Judgment
The court concluded that, while the slum and pavement dwellers were denied their Right to Live, the government was justified in evicting them because they were using public property for private gain. They should not be considered trespassers, however, because they occupied the filthy places out of sheer helplessness. It was decided that any evictions would take place only after the approaching monsoon season, and that anyone who had been counted prior to 1976 would be eligible for resettlement.While the case did not result in successful resettlement for the dwellers and is sometimes cited as justification for State evictions, it did play a role in establishing the Right to Livelihood as part of the Fundamental Right to Life..

2. The Supreme Court ruled in Narendra Kumar Chandra v. State of Haryana that Article 21 protected the right to livelihood as an integral aspect of the right to life. As a result, if an employee is afflicted with a disease that prevents him from performing his job, the situation should be adjusted so that he can earn a living.

Right to Personal Liberty
In India, the definition of personal liberty of  citizen has evolved and broadened. Prior to the Maneka Gandhi case, it had a much narrower scope, covering only some of a person's liberties. Personal liberty was first interpreted in the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which is discussed further below-
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts
The Petitioner, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 in this case. He claimed that such detention was illegal because it violated his freedom of movement, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution, and thus violated his personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21, because freedom of movement should be considered a component of a person's personal liberty.
Judgment
According to the court, personal liberty meant liberty of the physical body and thus did not include the rights guaranteed by Article 19.(1). As a result, personal liberty was thought to include some rights such as the right to sleep and eat, while the right to move freely was considered relatively minor and was not included in one's "personal" liberty.

2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1964)
Facts
The petitioner was charged with dacoity but was released due to a lack of evidence. The Uttar Pradesh Police then began surveillance on him, which included nighttime visits, periodic inquiries, movement verification, and other measures. The petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of the State action.
Judgment
It was held that the right to personal liberty includes not only the right to be free from restrictions on one's movements, but also the right to be free from intrusions into one's private life. Thus, personal liberty was defined as all of a person's residual liberties that were not covered by Article 19. (1).
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978)
Facts
The petitioner's passport was seized by the Central Government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967. In the interest of the general public, the GoI declined to provide reasons for its decision. The pet challenged the validity of the said order, claiming that it violated Article 21 because it did not follow the legal procedure. It was also challenged under Article 14 for conferring an arbitrary power because it did not provide the passport holder with a hearing. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (g) because it permitted the imposition of restrictions that were not provided for in clause (2) or (6) of Article 19.
Judgment
The court overturned Gopalan's narrow interpretation of "personal liberty." That was the case. Article 14 (reasonable classification), Article 19 (reasonable restrictions), and Article 21 (lawful procedure) were all interconnected. The decision was significant in that it established procedural due process by reading out Article 21 alongside the other two articles, laying the groundwork for procedural fairness. If a law takes away an individual's life or personal liberty, it must pass the 'reasonableness' test under Articles 14 and 19. The procedure must be equitable, just, and reasonable, rather than oppressive or arbitrary. Impounding her passport without a hearing is not legal procedure. By giving such a broad interpretation of the phrase, the court almost equated it with the concept of 'due process of law' in the United States.

Right to privacy
Right to privacy appears to be a very basic and obvious right to have, but it was not recognised as a distinct right by the government for a long time because it was not mentioned explicitly by the drafters of the Indian Constitution. Over time, there has been a growing recognition of a person's autonomy over his or her personal body, mind, and information, which has been emphasised by various court decisions.
Related Case- Laws
1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
Facts
In this case, a murderer wrote an autobiography in which he revealed his relationship with prison officials, some of whom were his criminal partners. His wife submitted it for publication to the Tamil magazine 'Nakkheeran,' but prison officials intervened. The editors of the magazine petitioned the government and the prison authorities to prevent the publication of the autobiography.
Judgment

The court ruled that the criminal Auto Shankar had the right to do whatever he wanted with his private information. As a result, the magazine could not be stopped from publishing the criminal's "autobiography." This case paved the way for future privacy judgements and paved the way for it to be established as a part of the Fundamental Rights granted under Part III of the Constitution.
Is Right to Privacy an absolute right?

Although the right to privacy is one of the most important human rights, particularly in a modern democracy, it is not an absolute and untouchable right. In certain circumstances, reasonable restrictions on a person's right can be imposed for the greater good.

One such example is the infamous case of Mr X v. Hospital Z.
2. Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998)
Facts
When the appellant's blood sample was tested, it was discovered that he was HIV(+). The Hospital disclosed this information to others without the appellant's express consent. The appellant's proposed marriage to Ms. Y was called off as a result of such disclosure, and he was shunned by society. The aggrieved party filed a complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, alleging a breach of confidentiality on the part of the Hospital, but his complaint was dismissed. The appellant then petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming that the medical professionals' Duty of Care and his Right to Privacy had been violated. Judgment The court ruled that Ms. Y's right to know such a material fact about the person she was about to marry outweighed the appellant's right to privacy because it was bound to affect her life as well. It was also determined that a medical professional's duty to maintain confidentiality could be violated in cases involving public interest.

Telephone-Tapping: An invasion of Right to Privacy In the 1990s, the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India raised the issue of the state's telephone tapping of private conversations (1997). Let us examine the facts of the case- 3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) Facts In this case, the petitioner, a non-profit organisation, challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which authorised the Central or State governments or their authorized officers to intercept and record messages in the event of a public emergency or in the public interest. This followed the release of a report on phone tapping of politicians, which revealed that many interceptions were not supported by proper authorizations and, in many cases, no proper records or logs of the same were kept.

Judgment
The court ruled that interception can be conducted only by specific top government officials, only when necessary, and for no more than six months. When copies of intercepted messages are no longer useful, they should be destroyed. Recognizing a person's right to privacy, it directed the formation of a Review Committee to ensure that such interception did not violate Section 5(2), and that if it did, the messages be destroyed immediately.

Right to Privacy and Aadhaar Card
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2015)
Facts
A retired Karnataka High Court Justice brought the case before a nine-judge Constitutional bench, questioning the government's plan to make the Aadhaar card (a uniform system of biometrics-based identity cards) available to all citizens. He claimed that it was a violation of the Right to Privacy, and that because India lacked strict data protection laws, people's personal information could be misused. According to the Attorney General, the Constitution does not guarantee a separate right to privacy.
Judgment
The bench unanimously held that the right to privacy was a component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21, and that it included the right to keep personal information private. While it upheld the Aadhaar Card's constitutional validity, it overturned certain provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016.

Right To Reputation
To the inherent and inseparable content of Article 21. Every individual works his or her entire life to establish his or her reputation in society. Is one of the finer graces of human civilisation that makes life worthwhile. In State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust, it was determined that a good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, along with the right to enjoy life, liberty, and property. If a person's reputation is harmed in any way, "he is half-dead," and it is also correct to say that "reputation is an inseparable facet of human life."

Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace
According to our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishakha v. the State of Rajasthan, sexual harassment of women at work is a violation of our most cherished Article 21 of the constitution. Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees a safe environment for all members of society to live in and enjoy. The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual harassment of women violates one of the most cherished fundamental rights, the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21.

Right to Health
In the case of  Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors, The petitioner is prosecuted for failing to remove garbage from society. Because garbage can spread diseases that affect all state residents. However, the petitioner has filed the plea claiming that we lack funds. However, the petition of the petitioner was denied by the Supreme Court. And make the decision in favor of the defendant that steps must be taken to improve public health. It is critical for public safety.

Right To Shelter
The right to shelter has been recognised as a fundamental right arising from the right to residence guaranteed by Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The right to shelter is one of the most basic and essential needs of an individual in order to grow and develop mentally, physically, and spiritually. A safe living environment, space, and a clean hygienic place to live, such as proper sanitation, drainage system, water, and so on, are all part of the right to shelter.
Related Case- Laws

Chameli v. State Of UP
Facts
In this case, the land which the petitioner owned is not the agriculture land and it is not amended by the U.P state legislation who provides power to take possession of the case lands and wastelands or arable lands where the land is acquired for the sanitary improvements for the development of society in a planned manner. The state government is empowered to give the possession of the land to the Dalits, building houses. The appellant has challenged the validity. Judgment
The division bench made three arguments. The first is that our land is not a waste of arable land, and the second is that there is no urgency for the Dalits to take possession of the land. The third point is that property is their sole source of income. They have no other means of subsisting.

Right To Education
Education is one of the most important aspects of human life and the development of society.The number of educated people in a country can be used to assess its development; the more educated the people, the more developed the country. Education is the foundation of a country's development.

Article 21A-The State shall provide compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14 in such subjects as the State may determine by law.  Added by the 86th Amendment to the Constitution in 2002. It imposes a duty on a state to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14.
Related Case-laws

1. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858)
The Supreme Court ruled sweepingly that the right to education for all is included within Article 21. However, the Supreme Court's zeal in Mohini Jain was all too impractical, and making the right to education an enforceable right for all people in India would require innumerable resources that the state does not have. Recognizing the impracticability of the case's proposition, the later constitutional bench in Unni Krishnan limited the scope of the right to fourteen years.
2. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

According to the Supreme Court, the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to primary education. The court relied on Articles 41 and 45 to rule that it is past time for the state to comply with Article 45 and provide "free and compulsory education for all children until they reach the age of fourteen."

Right To Die
The Right to Life grants a person the right to live a full life and states that the State may not interfere with this right except through legal means. But what if a person decides to end his or her own life? Is he allowed to interfere with his own Right to Life?

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes attempting suicide a crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, a fine, or both.

Meanwhile, Section 306 criminalises abetment to suicide, which is defined as assisting another person in the process of committing suicide.
Related Case Laws
1. P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
Facts
Two petitions were filed in this case challenging Section 309 of the IPC on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment
Keeping Article 21 as well as the principles of natural justice in mind, the two-judge bench ruled that Right to Life also included the right to not live a forced life. Therefore, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was declared void.
However, in the subsequent case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the court reversed its position (1996).
2. Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

Facts
In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for aiding and abetting Kulwant Kaur's suicide. Sections 306 and 309's constitutionality was then challenged.
Judgment
In this case, the decision in the previous case was overturned, and it was determined that Section 309 of the IPC was not unconstitutional and that Section 306, which criminalises aiding and abetting suicide, was constitutional. The court concluded that suicide, as an unnatural termination of life, violated the concept of the Right to Life.

Euthanasia

The term euthanasia is derived from two Greek words: eu, which means "good," and thantos, which means "death." As a result, it essentially means "good death." It is the practise of ending a person's life who is suffering from an incurable disease but is still breathing, causing great agony and distress. It enables him or her to die in a gentle and painless manner, as a result of an act or omission on his or her body. As a result, it is also known as "mercy killing" or "assisted suicide."

There may be two types of euthanasia- active and passive.

1. Active Euthanasia involves doing something to a patient to end his or her life, with their consent. For eg. giving an injection.

2. Passive Euthanasia involves withdrawing medical services with the intention to end the patient’s life. In other words, it means not doing something to a patient, which if done would have saved his or her life. For eg. stop feeding the patient.

However, the landmark case in this matter was Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), which legalised passive euthanasia.
3. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union Of India (2018)
Facts
The petitioner has filed a case under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to legalise the living will. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the Ministry of Law and Justice about the issue of the living will. However, the petitioner has received no response from the Government of India on this matter.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to die is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held some regard for the patient, stating that medical treatment is required for any of the ill-treatment before contemplating death. Because euthanasia suicide is illegal in India, you cannot commit suicide as a result of any ill-treatment.

Conclusion
The Right to Life and Personal Liberty has a broad scope that is only expanding over time. There is a growing awareness of the various aspects of a person's life that he or she has the right to control and that can thus help to improve the quality of his or her life. The Supreme Court has described this right as the "heart and soul" of the Indian Constitution, and it certainly proves to be so, representing the very basic necessities of human life.
The drafters of the Indian constitution drafted this Article in such a way that no provision is made mandatory, nor does it exempt any individual from fundamental duties that all citizens of the country must follow. This Article has paid such close attention to the socioeconomic structures of the countries that no rights or duties have been overlooked. This may be the most distinguishing feature of our constitution that distinguishes it from the rest of the world's constitutions.

References
1. Jn Pandey - The Constitutional law of India
2. Dr. Narender Kumar- Constitutional Law of India (10th edition)
3. Lawrence W. Reed- Why is Liberty so Important?
4. Louis Henkin- "Privacy and Autonomy",' Columbia Law Review, Vol.74, 1974.
5. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberty
6. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/personal_liberty
7. https://legalstudymaterial.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Article-21.pdf
8.https://rshrc.rajasthan.gov.in/writereaddata/Publications/202208290143461701052HUMAN-RIGHTS-ARTICLE-21.pdf
9. https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/

AUTHOR CREDENTIALS
NAME: FARJANA AKTER
COURSE: LL.B
UNIVERSITY: LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12202691
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: NEHA GADGALA