Model Answer

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Initially interpreted narrowly as protection against arbitrary executive action, Article 21 has, through judicial creativity, evolved into the heart of fundamental rights jurisprudence. In the contemporary digital era, courts have increasingly interpreted Article 21 not merely as a negative restraint on State power but as imposing positive obligations on the State to ensure dignity, accessibility, and substantive equality. Recent judicial pronouncements relating to digital access, privacy, health, and fair procedure exemplify this transformative constitutional shift.

Article 21: From Negative Liberty to Substantive Dignity

In its early phase, Article 21 functioned primarily as a negative right, protecting individuals from unlawful deprivation of life and liberty by the State. However, landmark judgments such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded its scope by reading due process, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness into “procedure established by law.” Subsequently, the Court interpreted “life” to mean life with dignity, encompassing a wide range of socio-economic and civil entitlements.

This evolution laid the foundation for recognising rights that require affirmative State action, including the right to livelihood, shelter, health, education, privacy, and a clean environment. In the digital age, this jurisprudence has naturally extended to questions of access, inclusion, and technological equity.

Digital Access as a Positive Obligation of the State

A significant recent development has been the Supreme Court’s affirmation that inclusive digital access to e-governance and welfare mechanisms forms part of Article 21. As governance, service delivery, and welfare distribution increasingly rely on digital platforms—such as online KYC, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), and e-governance portals—exclusion from digital systems can effectively deny individuals their right to live with dignity.

The Court recognised that marginalized communities, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and rural populations often face structural barriers in accessing digital infrastructure. In such circumstances, the State cannot remain a passive actor. Instead, Article 21 casts a positive duty on the State to design inclusive systems, provide offline alternatives, and ensure assistive technologies, thereby preventing indirect deprivation of life and liberty.

This marks a clear shift from the traditional understanding of rights as non-interference to a model of rights-based governance, where access itself becomes constitutionally protected.

Dignity, Health, and Bodily Autonomy

Recent judicial recognition of menstrual health as a fundamental right further demonstrates the expanding ambit of Article 21. By linking menstrual health to dignity, bodily autonomy, and equality, the Court elevated what was earlier treated as a welfare concern into a matter of constitutional entitlement.

This interpretation reinforces the idea that dignity under Article 21 is not abstract but deeply connected to lived experiences, especially of vulnerable groups. It also strengthens the interlinkage between Article 21 and Articles 14 and 15, emphasising that substantive equality requires the State to address structural disadvantages through affirmative measures.

Privacy and Digital Rights: Balancing, Not Absolutism

The recognition of the right to privacy as part of Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India marked another watershed moment. However, recent rulings relating to phone tapping and digital platforms underline that privacy, while fundamental, is not absolute.

Conflicting High Court judgments on phone tapping highlight the ongoing constitutional balancing between individual privacy and legitimate State interests such as national security and public order. Courts have reiterated that any infringement of privacy must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Similarly, the Supreme Court’s ruling that users do not have an absolute fundamental right to use specific private platforms like WhatsApp clarifies the vertical nature of fundamental rights. While digital expression is protected against State action, Article 21 does not compel private entities to act as constitutional duty-bearers. This nuanced approach prevents the over-extension of constitutional obligations while preserving individual liberty.

Fair Trial, Due Process, and Contextual Privacy

The admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between spouses, as upheld by the Supreme Court, further illustrates the contextual nature of Article 21. In matters of fair trial and justice delivery, the Court held that privacy claims may yield to the demands of truth and procedural fairness.

This reflects a mature constitutional approach where competing rights—privacy and fair trial—are balanced rather than hierarchically ranked. It underscores that Article 21 protects not only individual autonomy but also the integrity of the justice system. Equality, Non-Arbitrariness, and Administrative Justice

High Court rulings against arbitrary denial of career progression or No Objection Certificates by the State reinforce that Article 21, read with Article 14, prohibits administrative arbitrariness. Liberty under Article 21 includes the freedom to pursue one’s profession and career without unreasonable State interference.

Here again, the State’s obligation is not merely to abstain from illegal action but to ensure fair, transparent, and reasoned decision-making, highlighting the procedural dimension of dignity. Recent judicial pronouncements clearly demonstrate that in the digital age, Article 21 has evolved into a dynamic source of positive constitutional obligations. The right to life and personal liberty now encompasses dignity, digital access, health, privacy, and procedural fairness, requiring the State to act as a facilitator of inclusion rather than a mere non-interfering authority.

At the same time, courts have maintained constitutional balance by recognising legitimate State interests and the non-absolutist nature of rights. This evolving jurisprudence reflects a shift from formal equality to substantive justice, ensuring that constitutional guarantees remain meaningful in an increasingly digital and complex society.