Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It raises a very interesting question in an appeal filed by the son of the parties through his maternal grandmother as a next friend.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel in his usual eloquence ventured to propagate the unique concept in relation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India imbibing within itself a right to life to extend to such a great height bestowing the power upon the individual (in this case minor son) to challenge the decree for dissolution of marriage granted by a competent Court in accordance with law. According to Mr. Mukherjee, right to life is an evolving concept encapsulating the various vagaries of meaningful life and cannot be restricted to a mere animal existence. Right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognizes the right to live with dignity and therefore, any action, be it executive or judicial, violating such right confers power upon a person to come within the definition of aggrieved person and consequently, have a right to challenge such action before the Court of law. According to Mr. Mukherjee the Courts in the country exercises apart from the other jurisdiction, the jurisdiction as parens patriae to protect the interest of the children of the sovereignty. He thus submits that the violation of any fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution applicable to all citizenry including the infants or children bestowed power upon the Court to protect the same and, therefore, there is no impediment on the part of such child as "person aggrieved" to assail the decree for divorce. To elaborate the aforesaid notion, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate submits that the right to life imbibed within itself not only a right to live with dignity but a right to have a company of the parents who have an obligation to nurture their children in a congenial atmosphere or in other words in an atmosphere which every children expect in his life.

It would be apposite to quote Article 21 of the Constitution of India which runs thus:

―No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.‖ Contextually the right to life is a basic fundamental right of all human being having somewhat linkage with the social human values as recognised in all civilised societies. The right to life is intricately related to a human life which any orderly society would preserve and therefore, is of a varied form. The discourse on the human right and its social values have been an epicentre of debate and expanded his horizon to a considerable height and not restricted to a mere animal existence. In other words it is a declaration and recognition of a deep faith and belief in a human right which is worth living with dignity.
In Chameli Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Anr. reported in (1996)

2 SCC 549, the Apex Court held that the right to life cannot be squeezed to a need of a human being for his survival but a repository of an assurances to be provided for his or her development which every human being is designed to achieve in the following:

―8. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secur ed only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air a nd water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessar y to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secur e it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the organised civic community one should have per manent shelter so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of p erson and right to live itself. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights.‖ The right to life is a core of a fabric of the human values in an evolving civilised society and therefore cannot be said to be a static concept. Any action inhibiting the growth of an individual have a resultant effect in impeding the growth of a society and shall tantamount to deprivation. The human right which is a core of a right to life on birth since the existence of a human being as a derivative of a natural law by virtue of being human provided it is rational, reasonable and develop the capacity to reasons. Every human being cherish to live not only with dignity in the society but expect to live to acquire reputation which is intricately related to a dignity and therefore right to reputation has also been a basic values of the human right and held to be a fabric of a social order in the perspective of a right to life.
―The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of an ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.‖
40. This Court also in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni has observed that right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.