Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Life, Liberty, and the Link to Fundamental Duties

Introduction

The Indian Constitution is often described as a living document, and nowhere is this more evident than in Article 21. Often termed the “heart of Fundamental Rights,” Article 21 guarantees the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty. For decades, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of this article from a mere guarantee of physical existence to a comprehensive right encompassing human dignity, privacy, health, and a speedy trial.

However, a critical question arises in modern constitutional jurisprudence: Is the Right to Liberty absolute, or is it contingent upon the performance of Fundamental Duties?

A landmark judgment delivered on December 2, 2025, by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mr. Afzal Basha vs. National Investigation Agency has reignited this debate. By linking the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to the adherence of Fundamental Duties (Article 51A), the Court has established a significant precedent regarding the balance between individual liberty and national security.

This article explores the depth of Article 21, its relationship with Article 20 and 21A, its evolution through case laws, and analyzes the recent Karnataka High Court ruling that places duties as a prerequisite for claiming rights.

Understanding Article 21: The Text and Meaning

The Constitutional Text

Article 21 states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Key Components

“No Person”: The right is available to every person within the territory of India, including foreigners, not just citizens.
“Life”: It is not merely animal existence. It includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it—nutrition, shelter, and reading/writing (as held in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi).
“Personal Liberty”: This term covers a wide variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man other than those dealt with in Article 19.
“Procedure Established by Law”: Originally interpreted narrowly, this phrase now implies a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or fanciful.

Evolution of Article 21: From Gopalan to Maneka to Puttaswamy

The journey of Article 21 reflects the maturation of Indian democracy.

1. The Restrictive Era: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

In the early years, the Supreme Court took a literal view. In A.K. Gopalan, the Court held that “Procedure Established by Law” meant any law enacted by the legislature, regardless of whether it was fair or not. The Court refused to import the American concept of “Due Process of Law.” It treated Article 19 (Freedoms) and Article 21 as mutually exclusive “watertight compartments.”

2. The Golden Triangle Era: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

This judgment completely overruled Gopalan. The Supreme Court held:

Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 (Life) are not mutually exclusive but interconnected. A law depriving a person of liberty must satisfy the requirements of Article 14 and Article 19 as well.
The “procedure” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
This effectively introduced “Due Process” into Indian Constitutional law.

3. The Privacy Era: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21. This judgment expanded Article 21 to cover data protection, sexual orientation, and reproductive rights.

Expanding the Horizons: Rights Implicit in Article 21

Over the years, the Judiciary has derived numerous rights from Article 21, making it an “Umbrella Right.”

Right to Health: Access to medical treatment is a fundamental right (Parmanand Katara v. Union of India).
Right to Livelihood: The right to live includes the means of livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp).
Right to a Speedy Trial: Delay in trial is a violation of Article 21 (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar).
Right to Clean Environment: Pollution-free water and air are essential for life (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India).
Right against Custodial Torture: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal laid down guidelines to prevent torture, grounding them in Article 21.

Article 20 and 21: The Shield Against Criminal Prosecution

While Article 21 provides the broad right to life, Article 20 provides specific safeguards to persons accused of crimes. These two articles often work in tandem.

Article 20(1) - Ex Post Facto Law: You cannot be punished for an act that was not a crime when you committed it.
Article 20(2) - Double Jeopardy: You cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offense twice.
Article 20(3) - Self-Incrimination: No one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

Crucial Distinction: Unlike other rights, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency (Article 359).

Article 21A: The Right to Education

Inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002), Article 21A states:

“The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.”

This amendment operationalized the judicial pronouncement in Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., which held that the right to education flows from the right to life.

IRAC Case Analysis: Mr. Afzal Basha vs. National Investigation Agency (2025)

To understand the modern application of Article 21, specifically regarding bail in terror-related cases and its link to Fundamental Duties, we analyze the Karnataka High Court judgment dated December 2, 2025.

I - Issue (The Legal Question)

Is the appellant, Mr. Afzal Basha (accused in the D.J. Halli mob violence case), entitled to bail under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act read with Section 483 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)? Specifically, does the long delay in trial (5 years in custody) violate his Article 21 right to liberty, overriding the statutory bar against bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA?

R - Rule (The Law)

Section 43D(5) of UAPA: Bars bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.
Article 21 (Speedy Trial): As per Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, constitutional courts can grant bail despite the UAPA bar if there is a violation of the right to a speedy trial.
Article 51A (Fundamental Duties): Specifically clauses (c), (e), and (i), which mandate citizens to uphold sovereignty, promote harmony, and safeguard public property and abjure violence.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali Case: The Supreme Court’s standard for establishing a prima facie case under UAPA.

A - Analysis (The Court’s Reasoning)

The Division Bench, comprising Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T, rejected the bail application on the following grounds:

Prima Facie Case: The prosecution provided call detail records (CDRs), tower locations placing the accused at the scene (D.J. Halli Police Station), and witness statements describing the accused instigating the mob to burn vehicles. This satisfied the Watali test for a prima facie case.
Self-Inflicted Delay: The defense argued a violation of Article 21 due to 5 years of incarceration without trial. However, the Court noted that the accused and his co-accused had filed over 130 interlocutory applications and multiple discharge petitions, consecutively rather than collectively. The Court distinguished this from K.A. Najeeb, ruling that the delay was a strategic ploy by the accused, not negligence by the prosecution.
The “Rights vs. Duties” Doctrine: In a significant interpretation, the Court linked Article 21 to Article 51A. Citing Mahatma Gandhi (“The true source of rights is duty”), the Court observed:
- The appellant participated in a violent mob that attacked a police station and destroyed public property.
- This action violated Article 51A(i) (safeguarding public property).
- The Court held: “He gets that right [liberty under Art 21] when he adheres to his fundamental duties encapsulated in Article 51A.”
- The Court reasoned that one cannot seek the benefit of Article 21 (Liberty) after actively violating the Fundamental Duties that secure the nation’s harmony and property.

C - Conclusion (The Verdict)

The Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the rejection of bail was sustainable because there was prima facie evidence of terrorism/unlawful activity, the delay in trial was attributable to the accused, and the violation of fundamental duties by the accused weighed against the equitable relief of bail.

The Intersection of Rights and Duties: A New Precedent?

The Afzal Basha judgment (2025) marks a pivotal moment in criminal jurisprudence. Traditionally, Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) were considered non-justiciable—meaning a citizen could not be punished simply for not performing them, nor were they usually conditions precedent for Fundamental Rights.

However, this judgment suggests that in the context of equitable relief (like bail) under stringent laws like UAPA, the conduct of the accused regarding Fundamental Duties matters.

The Court’s Logic Breakdown:

Article 21 is not a license to destroy: Liberty cannot be used to destroy the liberty of others or the property of the State.
Reciprocity: The Court implies a social contract where the protection of the Constitution is reciprocal to the respect shown for its ideals (Article 51A(a)) and property (Article 51A(i)).
Strategic Delay: By using the legal system (filing endless applications) to stall the trial, and then claiming “delay” as a ground for bail, the accused attempted to abuse the process of law.

FAQs regarding Article 21 and the New Ruling

1. What is the “Golden Triangle” of the Indian Constitution?

The Golden Triangle refers to Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 (Life and Liberty). The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi ruled that a law must satisfy the tests of all three articles to be valid. You cannot deprive liberty (Art 21) via a law that is arbitrary (violates Art 14) or restricts speech unreasonably (violates Art 19).

2. Can Bail be denied under UAPA?

Yes. Section 43D(5) of UAPA restricts bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. This is a much higher bar than ordinary criminal law. However, Constitutional Courts can still grant bail if there is a gross violation of fundamental rights (like indefinite delay), as seen in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.

3. Does the 2025 Karnataka HC judgment overrule K.A. Najeeb?

No, it distinguishes it. In K.A. Najeeb, the delay was due to the system/prosecution. In Afzal Basha (2025), the High Court found that the accused themselves caused the delay by filing hundreds of applications. Therefore, they could not claim the benefit of their own wrong.

4. Are Fundamental Duties mandatory for claiming Fundamental Rights?

Constitutionally, rights are not explicitly conditional on duties. However, courts are increasingly using Article 51A to interpret statutes and rights. The Afzal Basha judgment implies that when seeking discretionary relief (like bail) in serious offenses against the State, a disregard for Fundamental Duties (violence, destruction of property) can be a valid ground for denial.

5. What is the difference between CrPC and BNSS?

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is the new procedural code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Afzal Basha case was filed under Section 483 of BNSS, indicating the procedural transition in India’s legal landscape by 2025.

6. What is the significance of the “Procedure Established by Law” vs. “Due Process of Law”?

Procedure Established by Law: Strictly follows the letter of the written law. If the law says “arrest X,” and the procedure is followed, it is valid.
Due Process of Law: Checks if the law itself is fair. Is it just to arrest X?
India started with the former but, through Article 21 interpretations, has effectively adopted the latter.

Conclusion

Article 21 remains the most dynamic provision of the Indian Constitution. It serves as the bedrock of democracy, ensuring that the State cannot arbitrarily interfere with the life and liberty of an individual.

However, the December 2025 verdict in Mr. Afzal Basha vs. NIA serves as a stark reminder: Liberty is not anarchy. The judiciary is signaling that the Right to Life includes the responsibility to respect the lives and property of others. As the Karnataka High Court noted, relying on Article 21 while simultaneously violating the Fundamental Duties of safeguarding public property and abjuring violence presents a legal contradiction that the courts are no longer willing to overlook.

For law aspirants and citizens alike, understanding Article 21 now requires looking beyond just “Rights”—it requires understanding the delicate balance between the Liberty of the Individual and the Security of the State, held together by the thread of Fundamental Duties.