The Right to Live with dignity
has been recognized as a part of Article 21 and the matter has been dealt with
in Francis Coralie Mullin v.
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 608 wherein
the Court observed:
But
the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to
protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more.
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 necessaries of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing
and expressing one-self in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and
commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of
the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic
development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the
right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such
functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the
human-self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would
constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be
in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which
stands the test of other fundamental rights. Now obviously, any form of torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity
and constitute an inroad into this right to live and it would, on this view, be
prohibited by Article 21 unless it is in accordance with procedure prescribed
by law, but no law which authorises and no procedure which leads to such
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment can ever stand the test of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness: it would plainly be unconstitutional and
void as being violative of Articles 14 and 21.”
No comments:
Post a Comment