Question

Which among the following is not a fundamental right under Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

• A. Right to decent environment
• B. Right against public hanging
• C. Right to reputation
• D. Right to solitary confinement

Hint:

Article 21 is the most evolved article in the Constitution. If a right sounds like it promotes Dignity or Health, it’s probably covered under Article 21. Solitary confinement is a restriction on liberty, not a right.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Concept: Article 21 states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Supreme Court, through cases like *Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India*, has transformed this into a "reservoir" of rights that guarantee a life with dignity.

Step 1: Liberal Interpretation.
The Judiciary has ruled that "Life" is not just animal existence but includes everything that makes life meaningful. This has led to the inclusion of the Right to a decent environment (*MC Mehta* cases), the Right to health, and even the Right to Reputation (*Subramanian Swamy* case).

Step 2: Rights for Prisoners.
In the context of criminal justice, the Court has ruled that punishment must not be cruel or degrading. In cases like *Atticus Hoskot* and *Sunil Batra*, the Court recognized the Right against public hanging as a part of human dignity.

Step 3: Identifying the Exception.
While the Court protects prisoners, "Solitary Confinement" is generally viewed as a harsh punishment that infringes upon a person's mental well-being. Therefore, the Court has ruled against the arbitrary use of solitary confinement. You do not have a "right TO" be in solitary confinement; rather, you have a right against it unless it is strictly necessary by law.