Source: The Hindu
In a ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to life and liberty includes meaningful and inclusive digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery systems.
The state has a duty to give the disadvantaged, vulnerable, disabled, and historically excluded segments of society access to an inclusive digital ecosystem. One important question that is frequently disregarded in India’s “wave of digital progress” is whether or not this technology is indeed inclusive.
The state must actively create and execute inclusive digital ecosystems to benefit both the rich and the underprivileged, as the right to digital access becomes an inalienable part of the right to life and liberty.
The Supreme Court ruled that the digital transition must be equitable and inclusive, citing the “principle of substantive equality.” Due to a dearth of accessible websites, programs, and assistive technology, people with disabilities face particular obstacles when trying to access online services. Similar to this, rural Indians are essentially denied significant access to e-governance and welfare programs due to inadequate connectivity and a lack of material in regional languages.
Model Question:
“The Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 has evolved from a narrow interpretation to an expansive and purposive one.” Discuss with the help of important Supreme Court judgments.
Model Answer:
The Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Initially, this right was interpreted narrowly, but over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has adopted a liberal and expansive approach, making it the cornerstone of fundamental rights.
Evolution Through Judicial Interpretation:
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): The Court took a literal interpretation, stating that “procedure established by law” need not be just, fair, or reasonable.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case revolutionized Article 21, holding that the procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, integrating Article 14 and 19 with Article 21. It marked the shift to a human-centric jurisprudence.
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981): The Court held that life does not mean mere animal existence, but includes dignity, health, education, and livelihood.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized right to livelihood as part of the right to life.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Declared the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21.
- Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Recognized the right to die with dignity, thereby allowing passive euthanasia under strict safeguards.
The expansion of Article 21 reflects the Court’s commitment to constitutional morality and human dignity. It now encompasses a wide range of rights—privacy, education, health, clean environment, and even digital freedom—making it the bedrock of human rights jurisprudence in India.
