Violation Of Article 21

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held that cruelty, neglect, or abandonment of aged parents by their children constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950(COI) and the moral and legal duty of children to ensure their care and well-being. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Ram Dular Gupta v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Ram Dular Gupta v. State of U.P. And 2 Others, Case ? 

• The petitioner, Ram Dular Gupta, a 75-year-old senior citizen, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents for release of compensation amount quantified at Rs. 21,17,758/- through payment notice dated 16th January, 2025. 
• The compensation pertained to the acquisition of the petitioner's land and superstructure by the competent authorities under land acquisition proceedings. 
• Despite the compensation being duly assessed and payment notice being issued, the disbursal remained pending due to a dispute raised by the petitioner's two sons, namely Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Gupta. 
• The sons claimed co-ownership rights in the superstructure and argued that they had contributed to its construction, thereby seeking entitlement to a portion of the compensation amount. 
• The petitioner contended that the entire superstructure was constructed using his own resources and financial contributions, with no monetary input from his sons. 
• The petitioner alleged that upon announcement of the compensation, his sons subjected him to severe mental and physical abuse, causing him grievous injuries. 
• The petitioner was compelled to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against his sons due to the atrocities and aggressive conduct perpetrated upon him. 
• Both sons were residing outside the family residence, being settled in Surat and Mumbai respectively for their livelihood purposes. 
• The matter involved an inter se dispute between the father and his sons regarding the rightful recipient of the compensation amount. 
• The sons subsequently moved an impleadment application through their counsel seeking to be made parties to the proceedings. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court expressed deep anguish at the sheer apathy and misconduct displayed by the children towards their elderly father, observing that there exists no greater societal failure than when a civilised society turns away from the silent suffering of its elders. 
• The Court observed that parents dedicate the most vital years of their lives for their children's welfare, and to repay them in the winter of their lives with cruelty, neglect, or abandonment constitutes not merely a moral disgrace but also a legal violation. 
• The Court firmly asserted that it is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation incumbent upon children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents, who seek not charity but security, empathy, and companionship. 
• The Court categorically held that neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the COI, which guarantees the fundamental right to life with dignity. 
• The Bench declared that a home which has turned hostile for an ageing parent ceases to be a sanctuary and transforms into a site of injustice, and courts must not permit such silent suffering to continue under the garb of 'family privacy'. 
• The Court held that when filial duty collapses, courts must rise as the last bastion of compassion to protect vulnerable elders, ensuring they live not merely in sustenance but with complete dignity. 
• The Court warned that should the sons cause any future interference, stringent orders would be passed without hesitation, while noting the sons' unconditional apology and assurance of reformed conduct. 

What is Article 21 of COI ? 

About 

• Article 21 of COI guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, including both citizens and foreigners alike, without any discrimination. 
• Article 21 provides two distinct rights:  
  • The right to life and  
  • The right to personal liberty,  
  • both of which are protected against state action. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described Article 21 as the 'heart of fundamental rights', its paramount importance in the constitutional framework. 
• The state, for the purposes of Article 21, includes not just the government but also government departments, local bodies, legislatures, and other state agencies. 
• The right to life under Article 21 encompasses not merely the right to survive but also the right to live a complete life with dignity and meaning. 
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21, making it one of the most fundamental and wide-reaching rights in the Constitution. 

Violations of Article 21 of COI 

• Arbitrary Deprivation of Life constitutes a violation when the state engages in acts that result in arbitrary or extrajudicial killing of a person without due process. 
• Violation of Personal Liberty occurs through illegal detention, wrongful imprisonment, or arrest without following the due process of law. 
• Denial of Fair Trial violates Article 21 when someone is denied legal representation or when there are undue delays or biases in judicial proceedings. 
• Torture and Inhuman Treatment by law enforcement agencies violate the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21. 
• Breach of Right to Privacy, as recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), through surveillance or unauthorised use of personal data constitutes violation. 
• Denial of Right to Livelihood through arbitrary eviction, wrongful termination of employment, or destruction of livelihood means can constitute grounds for violation. 
• Violation of Right to Shelter occurs when people are denied access to basic housing or are forcefully evicted without proper rehabilitation. 
• Denial of Right to Health through inadequate healthcare facilities, denial of emergency medical services, or negligence in providing essential medicines violates Article 21. 
• Environmental violations occur when pollution, deforestation, and other environmental hazards impact health and life, constituting a breach of the right to clean the environment. 
• Denial of Right to Education, especially for children under the Right to Education Act, can be challenged as a violation of Article 21. 
• Violation of Right to Die with Dignity occurs when individuals are denied the right to passive euthanasia as recognised by the Supreme Court in cases like Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011). 

Case Laws 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court initially held that Article 21 embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American 'due process', giving it a narrow interpretation where 'procedure established by law' meant any law validly enacted. 
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case overturned the Gopalan judgement and revolutionized the interpretation of Article 21 by establishing that personal liberty has wide scope including many rights embodied under Article 19. 
  • The Maneka Gandhi case established that any procedure under law for deprivation of life or liberty must not be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary, thereby introducing the concept of substantive due process. 
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right forming part of Article 21, establishing that any breach of individual privacy through surveillance or unauthorised data use violates this right. 
• Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): The Supreme Court recognised passive euthanasia under the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, allowing withdrawal of life support in certain circumstances.