‘Foreign Nationals Also Possess the Right to Freedom under Article 21’: High Court

Concerning the Latest Decision

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stressed that foreigners possess the right to personal liberty, and extended detention without the chance to provide sureties would lead to “irreparable injustice.”

The term ‘person’ in Article 21 is sufficiently broad to include both citizens and foreigners.

The State must safeguard the freedom of these foreigners and guarantee that their freedom is not taken away unless it follows the procedure set by law.

It also recognized the challenges faced by undocumented migrants in providing sureties and stated that bail requirements should not be so severe that they essentially deny liberty.

Article 21 in the Constitution of India

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution assures the basic right to safeguard life and personal freedom, except through a procedure laid down by law.

It provides specific protections against unjust loss of life and freedom.

It safeguards the right to life, encompassing dignity in living, the right to earn a living, and a wholesome environment, along with personal freedom, including the ability to travel, live, and work legally.

Analysis of Article 21 through Supreme Court rulings

Initial Interpretation: In A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, the Supreme Court determined that personal liberty signifies the ‘liberty of the body,’ encompassing freedom from unlawful arrest and detention.

Expansion of Meaning: In R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the court determined that the term personal liberty encompasses not just Article 21 but also the six Fundamental Freedoms specified in Article 19 (1).

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 goes beyond mere survival and encompasses the right to live with dignity.

Right to Livelihood & Shelter: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the court acknowledged the right to livelihood as a vital component of the right to life under Article 21.

It stated that evicting pavement residents without offering alternative arrangements would infringe upon their right to life and personal freedom.

Right to Dignity & Safe Environment: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the court determined that the right to a secure and safe workplace is a fundamental right derived from Article 21.

Right to Privacy: In the judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right safeguarded by Article 21.

Right to Die with Dignity: In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the judiciary permitted passive euthanasia and acknowledged the right to die with dignity as an essential right under Article 21.