Answer

The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a critical role in upholding its ethical spirit. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has undergone transformational judicial interpretations, expanding its scope from mere physical survival to encompassing dignity, privacy, and quality of life.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

The Judiciary’s Role in Upholding the Constitution’s Ethical Spirit

• Guarding Fundamental Rights Against Executive Excesses : The judiciary acts as the custodian of the Constitution by striking down arbitrary executive actions that violate fundamental rights.
  For example: In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court introduced the Basic structure doctrine, safeguarding constitutional values like personal liberty from arbitrary amendments.
• Balancing Security and Liberty: Courts ensure a balance between national security and individual freedoms by scrutinizing preventive detention laws for constitutional compliance.
  For example: In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on personal liberty, stating that laws must pass the test of fairness and reasonableness.
• Interpreting the Constitution as a Living Document: Judicial interpretations have expanded the scope of rights by considering evolving societal needs, keeping constitutional values relevant.
  For example: In the Navtej Singh Johar case (2018), the Court read down Section 377 IPC, reinforcing personal liberty in alignment with contemporary ethics.
• Safeguarding Dissent as a Constitutional Value: The judiciary has reinforced dissent as an essential aspect of democracy, protecting individuals against the criminalization of political views.
  For example: The Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, upholding freedom of speech and dissent.
• Ensuring Judicial Accountability and Independence: Courts have upheld their independence to ensure that constitutional ethics are not compromised by external pressures.
  For example: In the NJAC case (2015), the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission unconstitutional to preserve judicial autonomy.

Evolution of Judicial Interpretations of Article 21

• From Narrow to Expansive Interpretation: Initially limited to physical liberty, Article 21 evolved to include the right to dignity, privacy, and environmental protection.
  For example: In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Court declared that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable (Due process of law doctrine).
• Recognition of the Right to Privacy: The judiciary acknowledged privacy as an intrinsic aspect of personal liberty, reinforcing the ethical spirit of individual dignity.
  For example: In the Puttaswamy case (2017), the Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
• Right to Livelihood and Shelter: Courts expanded Article 21 to include rights essential for a dignified existence, such as livelihood and housing.
  For example: In the Olga Tellis case (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers violated their right to livelihood.
• Prohibition of Arbitrary Arrests and Detention: Judicial scrutiny has ensured that preventive detention laws are applied sparingly and with procedural safeguards.
  For example: In the DK Basu case (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest and custodial rights to protect personal liberty.
• Reinforcing Rights of Marginalized Groups:Judicial interpretation has protected vulnerable sections of society, ensuring equitable access to constitutional safeguards.
  For example: In the Vishaka case (1997), the Supreme Court upheld women’s dignity by establishing guidelines for preventing workplace harassment.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

The judiciary’s dynamic interpretation of Article 21 has significantly expanded the scope of the right to life and personal liberty, embracing dignity, privacy, and environmental rights. To further strengthen this, technological integration, judicial accountability, and proactive reforms are essential, ensuring equitable and accessible justice for a progressive and inclusive India.

DOWNLOAD PDF