What is Fundamental Right under Constitution of India?
The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India (Articles 12 to 35) represent the bedrock of individual liberty, dignity, and equality in the Indian constitutional order. However, what the framers of the Constitution provided in the text of Part III was never intended to be a closed or exhaustive catalogue. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India, through seven decades of transformative constitutional adjudication, has expanded the contours of these rights. Such expansion has been particularly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to encompass a vast array of rights that the original text does not expressly enumerate.
What is importance of Article 21
Article 21, which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”, has been described by Justice P.N. Bhagwati as embodying “a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.” Beginning with the watershed decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court departed from its earlier narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and held that the expression “life” in Article 21 does not mean mere animal existence but includes the right to live with human dignity. Since then, the Court has progressively read into Article 21 a constellation of derivative rights – from the right to livelihood and shelter to the right to privacy, clean environment, speedy trial, free legal aid, health, education, and the right to die with dignity etc.
Expansion of Fundamental Rights by Supreme Court
Further, the Supreme Court has expanded rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Expression, and other freedoms), Article 21 and other provisions by reading them together with the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV and international human rights conventions to which India is a party.
Fundamental Rights to Citizens and Non-Citizens
An important distinction that practitioners and students of constitutional law must bear in mind is the question of applicability to citizens and non-citizens. While certain fundamental rights (such as those under Articles 15, 16, and 19) are available exclusively to Indian citizens, Article 21 uses the expression “No person” — which extends its protection to every person within the territory of India, including foreign nationals. As held in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465, even a foreign national who is a victim of crime on Indian soil is entitled to the protection of Article 21.
Table of Fundamental Rights
The table below presents a comprehensive compilation of the fundamental rights — both those expressly provided by the Constitution and those judicially recognised and expanded by the Supreme Court — along with the source provision, the landmark judgment, citation details, the judges constituting the bench, and whether the right is available to citizens only, non-citizens, or both.
This compilation is designed to serve as a ready reference for practitioners appearing before the Supreme Court, law students, researchers, and citizens seeking to understand the full scope of fundamental rights protection in India.
For a detailed understanding of the enforcement mechanism for these rights, readers may refer to our comprehensive article on Article 32 and Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India.
Fundamental Rights Expressly Guaranteed by the Constitution
| Sl. No. | Fundamental Right | Source (Article) | Key Judgment / Citation / Judges | Available To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Right to Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Laws | Article 14 | E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Justices A.N. Ray (CJ), H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer (1974). Held: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness; equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. | Both (Citizens & Non-Citizens) |
| 2 | Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth | Article 15 | Constitutional provision. Read expansively in NALSA v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863; Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri (2014). “Sex” includes gender identity. | Citizens Only |
| 3 | Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment | Article 16 | Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477; 9-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice M.H. Kania (1992). Upheld OBC reservations with 50% ceiling. | Citizens Only |
| 4 | Abolition of Untouchability | Article 17 | Constitutional provision. Enforced through the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. | Both |
| 5 | Freedom of Speech and Expression | Article 19(1)(a) | Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594; Justices Patanjali Sastri, M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose (1950). | Citizens Only |
| 6 | Freedom of Assembly, Association, Movement, Residence, and Profession | Article 19(1)(b)–(g) | Constitutional provision. Subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)–(6). | Citizens Only |
| 7 | Protection in respect of Conviction for Offences (no ex post facto laws, no double jeopardy, no self-incrimination) | Article 20 | Constitutional provision. Cannot be suspended even during Emergency (44th Amendment, 1978). | Both |
| 8 | Protection of Life and Personal Liberty | Article 21 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; 7-Judge Bench: Justices M.H. Beg (CJ), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam (1978). Expanded “life” beyond mere existence. | Both |
| 9 | Right to Education (Ages 6–14) | Article 21A (86th Amendment, 2002) | Originally judicially recognised in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645; 5-Judge Bench: Justices L.M. Sharma (CJ), S.R. Pandian, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S. Mohan, S.P. Bharucha (1993). Subsequently constitutionalised by the 86th Amendment. | Citizens Only (as per Article 21A) |
| 10 | Protection against Arrest and Detention (Safeguards) | Article 22 | Constitutional provision. Right to be informed of grounds, right to consult a legal practitioner, production before Magistrate within 24 hours. | Both |
| 11 | Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour | Article 23 | People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473; Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Baharul Islam (1982). Non-payment of minimum wages = forced labour. | Both |
| 12 | Prohibition of Employment of Children (below 14 years) in Factories, Mines, etc. | Article 24 | M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756; Justice B.L. Hansaria (1996). Directions for rehabilitation of child labourers. | Both |
| 13 | Freedom of Conscience and Right to Profess, Practice, and Propagate Religion | Articles 25–28 | Constitutional provision. Subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III. | Both (Article 25); Citizens for some aspects |
| 14 | Cultural and Educational Rights of Minorities | Articles 29–30 | T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481; 11-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal (2002). | Citizens Only |
| 15 | Right to Constitutional Remedies | Article 32 | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261; 7-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Verma (1997). Part of basic structure of the Constitution. | Both |
Fundamental Rights Judicially Expanded and Recognised by the Supreme Court
The following rights have been read into the Constitution — primarily through an expansive interpretation of Article 21, and in some cases through Articles 14, 19, and other provisions — by the Supreme Court of India through landmark judgments.
| Sl. No. | Fundamental Right Recognised | Source Article | Landmark Judgment, Citation, Bench & Year | Available To |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Right to Live with Human Dignity | Article 21 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, (1978) 1 SCC 248 Bench: Justices M.H. Beg (CJ), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam Year: 1978 Held: “Life” means more than mere animal existence; includes right to live with human dignity. | Both (Citizens & Non-Citizens) |
| 2 | Right to Livelihood | Article 21 | Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545 Bench: 5-Judge Bench — Justices Y.V. Chandrachud (CJ), A.N. Sen, O. Chinnappa Reddy, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, Varadarajan Year: 1985 Held: Right to livelihood is an integral facet of right to life; eviction of pavement dwellers without alternatives violates Article 21. | Both |
| 3 | Right to Adequate Nutrition, Clothing, and Bare Necessities of Life | Article 21 | Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, (1981) 1 SCC 608 Bench: Justices P.N. Bhagwati, A.D. Koshal, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali Year: 1981 Held: Right to live includes the right to live with dignity — adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading and expression. | Both |
| 4 | Right to Shelter / Right to Reasonable Accommodation | Article 21 | Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549, AIR 1996 SC 1051 Bench: 3-Judge Bench — Justices K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria, G.T. Nanavati Year: 1996 Held: Right to shelter is a fundamental right; includes adequate living space, safe structure, clean surroundings, sanitation, and civic amenities. | Both |
| 5 | Right to Health and Emergency Medical Treatment | Article 21 | Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37, AIR 1996 SC 2426 Bench: Justices Kuldip Singh and B.L. Hansaria Year: 1996 Held: Denial of timely medical treatment in government hospitals violates Article 21; State is obligated to provide emergency medical care irrespective of financial constraints. | Both |
| 6 | Right to Emergency Medical Aid | Article 21 | Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039, (1989) 4 SCC 286 Bench: Justices Ranganath Misra and M.M. Dutt Year: 1989 Held: Every injured person brought to hospital must be given immediate medical aid regardless of medico-legal formalities; duty of every doctor. | Both |
| 7 | Right to Education (up to age 14) | Article 21 (read with Articles 41 & 45) | Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645, AIR 1993 SC 2178 Bench: 5-Judge Bench — Justices L.M. Sharma (CJ), S.R. Pandian, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S. Mohan, S.P. Bharucha Year: 1993 Held: Right to education for children up to 14 years flows from Article 21 read with Articles 41 and 45. Later constitutionalised as Article 21A (86th Amendment, 2002). | Citizens (constitutionalised under Article 21A) |
| 8 | Right to Pollution-Free Water and Air / Right to Clean Environment | Article 21 | Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598, AIR 1991 SC 420 Bench: Justices K.N. Singh and N.D. Ojha Year: 1991 Held: Right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. Also see: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086; Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra (1986). Absolute liability for hazardous industries; right to clean environment part of Article 21. | Both |
| 9 | Right to Speedy Trial | Article 21 | Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, (1980) 1 SCC 98 Bench: Justices P.N. Bhagwati, D.A. Desai, and A.D. Koshal Year: 1979 Held: Speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21; prolonged detention of under-trial prisoners without trial violates Article 21. | Both |
| 10 | Right to Free Legal Aid | Article 21 (read with Article 39A) | M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, and O. Chinnappa Reddy Year: 1978 Held: Free legal assistance is the State’s duty and forms part of fair procedure under Article 21. Also see: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) — free legal aid is an essential element of reasonable, fair, and just procedure. | Both |
| 11 | Right to Privacy | Article 21 (read with Articles 14 & 19) | Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 Bench: 9-Judge Constitution Bench — Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, S. Abdul Nazeer Year: 2017 Held unanimously: Right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution. Overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they held otherwise. | Both |
| 12 | Right to Die with Dignity / Right to Passive Euthanasia / Right to Make Advance Directives (Living Will) | Article 21 | Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 Bench: 5-Judge Constitution Bench — Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan Year: 2018 Held: Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. Passive euthanasia and advance directives (living wills) are lawful. | Both |
| 13 | Right against Custodial Torture and Custodial Violence / Guidelines for Arrest and Detention | Articles 21 & 22 | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, (1997) 1 SCC 416 Bench: Justices Kuldip Singh and A.S. Anand Year: 1997 Held: Custodial torture and inhuman treatment fall within the ambit of Article 21. Laid down 11 detailed guidelines for arrest and detention to be followed by central and state investigating agencies. | Both |
| 14 | Right against Solitary Confinement | Article 21 | Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675, (1978) 4 SCC 409 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, and O. Chinnappa Reddy Year: 1978 Held: Fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters prison; solitary confinement and handcuffing without justification violate Article 21. | Both |
| 15 | Right against Handcuffing | Article 21 | Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535, (1980) 3 SCC 526 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and R.S. Pathak Year: 1980 Held: Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman; it can only be resorted to if there is clear and present danger of escape or violence. | Both |
| 16 | Right against Delayed Execution of Death Sentence | Article 21 | T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 361, (1983) 2 SCC 68 Bench: Justices O. Chinnappa Reddy and R.B. Misra Year: 1983 Held: Prolonged delay in execution of death sentence entitles the condemned prisoner to commutation to life imprisonment. (Note: modified in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344). | Both |
| 17 | Right against Public Hanging / Barbaric Methods of Execution | Article 21 | Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467 Year: 1986 Held: Public hanging is unconstitutional and violates the right to dignity under Article 21. | Both |
| 18 | Right to Compensation for Illegal Detention / Custodial Death | Article 21 | Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086, (1983) 4 SCC 141 Bench: Justices Y.V. Chandrachud (CJ), A. Varadarajan, and D.P. Madon Year: 1983 Held: Compensation can be awarded under Articles 32 and 226 for established violation of Article 21. Petitioner detained 14 years after acquittal. Also see: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960; Justices J.S. Verma and Yogeshwar Dayal (1993). State liable to pay compensation for custodial death. | Both |
| 19 | Right to Travel Abroad | Article 21 | Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, APO, AIR 1967 SC 1836 Bench: 6-Judge Bench — Chief Justice K. Subba Rao and others Year: 1967 Held: Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. Reaffirmed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). | Both |
| 20 | Right to Fair Trial | Article 21 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (1978); Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 Bench (Zahira): Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia Year: 2006 Held: Fair trial includes the right to be heard, right to legal representation, right to present evidence, impartial tribunal, and presumption of innocence. | Both |
| 21 | Right against Sexual Harassment at Workplace | Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 | Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, (1997) 6 SCC 241 Bench: Justices J.S. Verma (CJ), Sujata V. Manohar, and B.N. Kirpal Year: 1997 Held: Sexual harassment at workplace violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. Laid down the Vishaka Guidelines (later codified in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013). | Both |
| 22 | Right to Gender Identity and Self-Identification / Rights of Transgender Persons | Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a), 21 | National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863, (2014) 5 SCC 438 Bench: Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri Year: 2014 Held: Right to choose one’s gender identity is integral to the right to dignity under Article 21; transgender persons recognised as “third gender” entitled to all fundamental rights. | Both |
| 23 | Right to Sexual Orientation and Consensual Same-Sex Relations / Decriminalisation of Section 377 IPC | Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 | Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 Bench: 5-Judge Constitution Bench — Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra Year: 2018 Held: Section 377 IPC insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults is unconstitutional; sexual orientation is protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. | Both |
| 24 | Right to Sustainable Development / Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle | Article 21 (read with Article 48A) | Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, (1996) 5 SCC 647 Bench: Justices Kuldip Singh, Faizan Uddin, and K. Venkataswami Year: 1996 Held: Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are part of Indian environmental law; environmental protection is integral to right to life. | Both |
| 25 | Right against Bonded Labour | Articles 21 & 23 | Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, (1984) 3 SCC 161 Bench: Justices P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Pathak, and Amarendra Nath Sen Year: 1984 Held: Bonded labour violates Article 21 and Article 23; the State has an affirmative obligation to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded labourers. | Both |
| 26 | Right against Custodial Rape / Rape as Violation of Right to Life | Article 21 | State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 421 Year: 2004 Held: Rape is a violation of the victim’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Also see: Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465; Justices R.P. Sethi and S.S.M. Quadri (2000). Even a Bangladeshi national (victim of rape) entitled to Article 21 protection — “person” includes foreign nationals. | Both (including foreign nationals) |
| 27 | Right to Know / Right to Information | Article 19(1)(a) (read with Article 21) | Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, (1988) 4 SCC 592 Year: 1988 Held: Right to know is an essential ingredient of participatory democracy and flows from freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Also see: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (First Judges Case) — right to know about functioning of government. | Citizens |
| 28 | Right of Prisoners to have Necessities of Life and Humane Treatment | Article 21 | Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1978 SC 1514, (1978) 4 SCC 104 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, and O. Chinnappa Reddy Year: 1978 Held: Prisoners are not stripped of their fundamental rights upon conviction; they retain Article 21 protections including the right to humane conditions. | Both |
| 29 | Right to Bail / Against Arbitrary Denial of Bail | Article 21 | Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh Year: 2022 Held: Liberty under Article 21 mandates that bail is the rule, jail the exception. Arbitrary denial of bail violates Article 21. | Both |
| 30 | Right to Reputation | Article 21 | Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 Bench: Justices Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant Year: 2016 Held: Right to reputation is an inseparable facet of the right to life under Article 21. Criminal defamation (Sections 499 and 500 IPC) upheld as constitutionally valid. | Both |
| 31 | Right to Food | Article 21 | PUCL v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 (Right to Food Case) Bench: Justices B.N. Kirpal and Arijit Pasayat Year: 2001 (ongoing directions till 2004) Held: Right to food is derived from the right to life under Article 21. Directions issued for mid-day meal scheme, implementation of PDS, and nutrition programmes. | Both |
| 32 | Right to Sleep | Article 21 | Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 Bench: Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar Year: 2012 Held: Sleep is essential for a human being and is a fundamental, basic, and natural requirement; right to sleep is a fundamental right under Article 21. | Both |
| 33 | Right against Noise Pollution | Article 21 | In Re: Noise Pollution, (2005) 5 SCC 733 Year: 2005 Held: Right to live in a noise-free environment is part of the right to life under Article 21; restrictions on use of loudspeakers and firecrackers. | Both |
| 34 | Right against Smoking in Public Places / Right to Clean Air | Article 21 | Murali S. Deora v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 765 Bench: Justices B.N. Kirpal and Brijesh Kumar Year: 2001 Held: Smoking in public places deprives non-smokers of their right to life under Article 21; banned smoking in public places. | Both |
| 35 | Right of Women to be Treated with Decency and Dignity | Articles 15 & 21 | Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378 Bench: Justices P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Pathak Year: 1983 Held: Women prisoners have the right to be treated with dignity; female suspects must be kept in separate lock-ups and interrogated only in the presence of female police officers. | Both |
| 36 | Right to Right to Electricity | Article 21 | State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, AIR 1993 SC 1126 Year: 1993 Right to electricity recognised as part of the right to life in the context of denial of civic amenities to Dalits. | Both |
| 37 | Right to Appeal from a Judgment of Conviction | Article 21 | M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, and O. Chinnappa Reddy Year: 1978 Held: Right to appeal from a judgment of conviction, along with the right to free legal aid for the appeal, is part of fair procedure under Article 21. | Both |
| 38 | Right against Narco-Analysis, Polygraph, and Brain Mapping without Consent | Articles 20(3) & 21 | Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 Bench: Justices K.G. Balakrishnan (CJ), R.V. Raveendran, and J.M. Panchal Year: 2010 Held: Involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-electrical oscillation profiling violates Articles 20(3) and 21. Such tests require free and informed consent. | Both |
| 39 | Right to Internet Access | Article 19(1)(a) (read with Article 21) | Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 Bench: Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai Year: 2020 Held: Freedom of speech and expression through the internet is a fundamental right; internet shutdown must pass the test of proportionality and cannot be indefinite. | Citizens (Article 19 rights); Article 21 protections apply to Both |
| 40 | Right to Silently Sit / Protest / Peaceful Demonstration | Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) | Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 Bench: Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar Year: 2012 Held: Citizens have a fundamental right to peaceful assembly and demonstration; police action at midnight against peacefully sleeping demonstrators violates Articles 19 and 21. | Citizens |
| 41 | Right to Workers’ Dignity / Minimum Wages as Part of Right to Life | Articles 21 & 23 | People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers Case), AIR 1982 SC 1473 Bench: Justices P.N. Bhagwati and Baharul Islam Year: 1982 Held: Non-payment of minimum wages denies the right to live with basic human dignity under Article 21 and amounts to forced labour under Article 23. | Both |
| 42 | Right to Social Security and Protection of the Family | Article 21 | Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 Bench: Justices K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria, and S.B. Majmudar Year: 1995 Held: Right to health and medical aid, along with rights to social security, are facets of right to life under Article 21 with dignity. | Both |
| 43 | Right against Honour Killing | Article 21 | Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 Bench: Justices Dipak Misra (CJ) and A.M. Khanwilkar Year: 2018 Held: Honour killings violate Articles 14 and 21; directions issued to States to take preventive steps to combat honour crimes. | Both |
| 44 | Right to Clean Drinking Water | Article 21 | Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751, (2000) 10 SCC 664 Bench: Justices B.N. Kirpal, S.P. Bharucha, and S. Rajendra Babu Year: 2000 Held: Access to drinking water is a fundamental right under Article 21. Environmental protection must be balanced with developmental needs. | Both |
| 45 | Right to Reproductive Choice and Personal Autonomy of Women | Articles 14 & 21 | Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 Bench: Justices K.G. Balakrishnan (CJ), P. Sathasivam, and J.M. Panchal Year: 2009 Held: A woman’s right to make reproductive choices is part of personal liberty under Article 21; consent of a mentally challenged woman is paramount. | Both |
| 46 | Right to be Forgotten | Article 21 | K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Privacy judgment — referenced right to be forgotten as part of informational privacy). Year: 2017 Also recognised in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. M/s Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (Delhi HC) — exercised under right to privacy and dignity. | Both |
| 47 | Right to Accused’s Silence during Trial | Articles 20(3) & 21 | Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025, (1978) 2 SCC 424 Bench: Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali Year: 1978 Held: The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) extends to the investigation stage; an accused has the right to remain silent. | Both |
| 48 | Right of Accused to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest | Articles 21 & 22 | Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260 Bench: Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah (CJ) and S. Mohan Year: 1994 Held: Arrest cannot be routine or mechanical; the arrested person must be informed of grounds and has the right to have someone informed of the arrest. | Both |
| 49 | Right against Marital Rape of Minors | Article 21 (read with Article 15(3)) | Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800 Bench: Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta Year: 2017 Held: Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (permitting marital intercourse with wife aged 15-18) read down as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21; child marriage does not legitimise sexual intercourse with a minor wife. | Both |
| 50 | Right to Choose One’s Own Partner / Right against Interference in Marriage | Article 21 | Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case), (2018) 16 SCC 368 Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud Year: 2018 Held: The right of an adult to choose a partner is part of personal liberty under Article 21; the High Court’s annulment of marriage was set aside. | Both |
Important Notes
1. Citizen vs. Non-Citizen Distinction:
Article 21 uses the expression “No person” — not “No citizen.” Therefore, the rights derived from Article 21 are available to every person within the territory of India, including foreign nationals, refugees, and stateless persons. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000), where a Bangladeshi victim of rape was held entitled to compensation under Article 21.
However, rights under Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30 are available exclusively to citizens. Rights under Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are available to both citizens and non-citizens.
2. Article 21 and the Basic Structure:
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a 7-Judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 — the enforcement mechanism for fundamental rights including Article 21 — forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abridged or taken away.
3. Non-Suspension During Emergency:
Following the dark precedent of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) ensured that the rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency proclaimed under Article 352.
4. Evolving Nature:
The above table is not exhaustive. Article 21 has been described as an “inexhaustible source” of rights and the Constituion of India as “a living document” by the Supreme Court, and new rights continue to be recognised with the evolving needs of society. Practitioners should keep abreast of the latest case law to ensure their petitions reflect the current state of jurisprudence.
For a understanding of how to enforce these fundamental rights through writ petitions under Article 32 in the Supreme Court, please refer to our detailed article: Article 32 and Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India: Law, Procedure, and Complete Guide.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What are Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India?
Fundamental Rights are basic rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India (Articles 12–35). They protect liberty, equality, and dignity of individuals against arbitrary State action and are enforceable before courts.
2. Which Articles contain Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India?
Fundamental Rights are contained in Articles 12 to 35 of the Constitution. These include the right to equality (Articles 14–18), freedom (Articles 19–22), protection against exploitation (Articles 23–24), freedom of religion (Articles 25–28), cultural and educational rights (Articles 29–30), and the right to constitutional remedies (Article 32).
3. Which Fundamental Right has been most expanded by the Supreme Court?
Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been most extensively expanded by the Supreme Court. Through judicial interpretation, it now includes rights such as privacy, livelihood, clean environment, legal aid, dignity, and fair trial.
4. Can Fundamental Rights be enforced directly in the Supreme Court?
Yes. Article 32 of the Constitution allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights through writ petitions such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
5. Are Fundamental Rights available to non-citizens in India?
Some Fundamental Rights apply to all persons, including foreigners. These include Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. However, certain rights such as those under Article 19 are available only to citizens of India.
6. Can Fundamental Rights be suspended during a national emergency?
After the 44th Constitutional Amendment, the rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during a national emergency declared under Article 352.
7. What is the difference between Article 21 and Article 21A?
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. Article 21A, inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment, specifically guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years.
8. What is the importance of Article 32 in protecting Fundamental Rights?
Article 32 is known as the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” It empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly when their Fundamental Rights are violated.
9. What are some important Supreme Court cases expanding Fundamental Rights?
Important cases include Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
10. Are Fundamental Rights absolute in India?
No. Fundamental Rights are not absolute. The Constitution allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, security of the State, and other constitutional considerations.