Introduction:
Human dignity means that human beings possess an intrinsic value to their humanity and as such are worthy of respect. Human dignity is enshrined under Article 21 of Indian Constitution which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. So Indian Constitution makes it clear that human dignity can be taken only under procedure established by the law. Main focus of this article will be on scope of Article 21 and comparison of the concept of human dignity with other countries.
Evolution Of Dignity:
Social, moral, and political theories suggest that there is only right to freedom which requires the duty of non-interference. H.L.A. Hart, a British legal philosopher, propounded the Will theory which treats a right as a power of waiver over someone else’s duty. The contemporary exponents of this theory share the view that all rights are derived from a basic right of equal liberty[1].Justice lies in giving each person his due. The dream visualized in the famous saying by Karl Marx-‘each according to his own ability, to each according to his need’represents the idea of equal distribution of resources and opportunities. This is broadly conceptualized as positive equality. The Constitution of India and the common law applicable in India, however, embody the first part of Marx’s formula- ‘for each according to his ability’, which upholds the value of the freedoms and liberties of the citizens and in turn forbid the State to encroach upon them except when mandated by law [2].
Scope of Article 21 of Indian Constitution:
Right to life is inclusive of all those aspects of human life which are sufficient to make it meaningful, complete, and worth living. Interpretations of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to shelter, growth, and nourishment as bare necessities or minimum and basic requirements that are essential and unavoidable for a person to avail the right to life[3]. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,[4] it was held by the apex court that the right to privacy does not come under right to life. Supreme Court is the guardian of Constitution. So it becomes the responsibility of Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights of citizens which are guaranteed under the Constitution. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[5]the Supreme Court gave a new direction to Article 21 and said that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes the right to live with sheer human dignity. The State and its citizens must take the responsibility of protecting the environment and they are obligated to keep it safe, clean, and pollution-free. In Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar,[6] it was held that right to enjoyment of a pollution-free environment along with clean air and water will be a fundamental right. The view of Maneka Gandhi case has been relied in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhiand Others[7] as follows:
“Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of Preventive Detention law must not only pass the test for Article 22, but also for Article 21.If the constitutional validity of any such law is challenged, the court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such law for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just[8].”
In Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,[9] it was held that just as a mala fide act does not have any value in the eyes of law even as unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. In Badhua Mukthi Morcha v. Union of India and Ors.,[10] the scope of Article 21 was expanded to bonded labour and weaker sections of the society.Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person. This should be more strictly ensured where the aggrieved belongs to a weaker section of the community or is financially or physically deficit in waging a legal battle against the exploitation[11]. Compliance of social welfare measures and labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity vis-à-vis the directive principles of the state policy should be done by both the Central and the State Governments[12]. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[13] the apex court laid down certain rights to be included under article 21 which were:
- Right to go abroad
- Right to privacy
- Right against solitary confinement
- Right against handcuffing
- Right against delayed execution
- Right to shelter
- Right against custodial death
- Right against public hanging
The apex court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India and Others[14] held that the expanded meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution is attributable to the duty of the State to create living conditions wherein people from different faiths, caste and creed live together. Their life, liberty, and dignity should not be jeopardized or endangered.While dealing with personal liberty, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in Javed and others v. State of Haryana [15]that:
“At the very outset we are constrained to observe that the law laid down by this court in the decisions relied on either being misread or read divorced of the context. The test of reasonableness is not a wholly subjective test and its contours are fairly indicated by the Constitution. The requirement of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights.”
International Conventions for Human Dignity:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. It was drafted by representatives from all regions of the world on 10 December 1948 in Paris. Dignity and justice for each and every human being is the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of dignity lies at the heart of human rights, as is mentioned in the first sentence of the Preamble to the Declaration, and which appears again in Article 1[16]. Governments must do this in law as well as in practice for individuals who make up communities, societies as well as nations. In fact the Declaration’s core values of non-discrimination and equality are ultimately a commitment to universal justice and to protect inherent human dignity. The environment is never specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet if you deliberately dump toxic waste in someone’s community or disproportionately exploit their natural resources without adequate consultation and compensation, clearly you are abusing their rights[17]. Gender equality is not a ‘women’s issue’ but refers to the equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women and men, girls and boys, and should concern and fully engage men as well as women. However, even after 72 years of its enforcement, it is clear that it is the human rights of women that we see most widely ignored around the world, from female infanticide, sexual slavery and rape as an act of war, to exclusion from education, health and the right to compete equally for jobs. The right to be free of discrimination on the grounds of sex is specifically embodied in Article 2 of the Declaration, but even a cursory reading of all 30 Articles is enough to remind us that in much of the world, the Declaration has yet to fulfill its promise to women.[18].
Countries with Worst Performance in Human Dignity:
According to The Independent, “there is a serious lack of clarity over whether women will be able to travel abroad independently[19]”, while Human Rights groups have also pointed to a crackdown over the last year on some of the country’s leading women’s rights activists. Many of these campaigned for the right to drive or gain equal rights to men.
Women still cannot marry or leave prison or a domestic violence shelter without the consent of their male guardians. This means “it is nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence to independently seek protection or obtain legal redress”, explains political scientist ElhamManea in an article for German newspaper Deutsche Welle[20]. Women are required to limit the time they spend with people to whom they are not related. The majority of public buildings have different entry gates for different sexes.
Conclusion:
Human dignity is one of the most important rights as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has mentioned. Human dignity has to be protected by mutual cooperation of individuals, society, community, and finally the State. However, it is only the Judiciary who is actively protecting it. Some philosophical problems might, however arise, when respect for persons is interpreted for embodying claims to positive social goods and services such food, clean air, an efficient transport and economic system, medical potable water, means of livelihood, adequate nutrition and so on.[21]
By-
Paras Dargarh
(Symbiosis Law School, Pune)
[1]H.L.A. Hart says: ‘ If there are any natural rights at all, it follows that there is one natural right, the equal right of man to be free’, 64 PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW 175, 189-91 (1955)
[2]Person Dignity: Tracing the role of judiciary in its interpretation, JaideepKharub, Legal Service India, available athttp://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l74-Personal-Dignity.html.
[3]Ambit of Article 21 under Indian Constitution, Shruti Singh, iPleaders, August 29, 2019, available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21-constitution/
[4]Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964 SCR (1) 332]
[5]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[1978 SCR (2) 621]
[6]Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar[AIR 1991 SC 420]
[7] Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi[1981 SCR (2) 516]
[8]Article 21 of the Constitution- Expanding Horizons, VidhanMaheshwari, Legal Service India, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/art222.htm
[9] Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[1985 SCC (3) 545]
[10]BadhuaMukthiMorcha v. Union of India and Ors. [1984 SCR (2) 67]
[11]Supra note 8
[12] Supra note 8
[13]Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1955 SCR (2) 589]
[14] SS. Ahuwalia v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 2006]
[15]Javed and others v. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 3057]
[16]United Nations Human Rights-Office of High Commissioner, available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/CrossCuttingThemes.aspx
[17]Supra note 12
[18]Supra note 12
[19] Saudi Arabia women’s rights reforms less extensive than they appear, campaigners warn, Maya Oppenheim, The Independent, 11th August, 2019, available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-women-rights-reforms-male-guardian-travel-passport-a9047431.html.
[20]What are women banned from doing in Saudi Arabia, The Week, Jan 23, 2020, available athttps://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/things-women-cant-do-in-saudi-arabia