Access to the internet is an independent right under Article 21 of the Constitution
Let us consider the argument of recognising the right to internet access as an independent right, within Article 21. One argument could be to recognise it as an independent right linked to Article 21, like the right to education, recognised under Article 21A. If we look at the journey of this right, from Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka, to Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, two things stand out. Firstly, how the court has relied on specific directive principles, such as Articles 38, 39, 41 and 45 to conclude that the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens, under Article 21 and 19, cannot be realised without ensuring the right to education. The courts in India have consistently interpreted Article 21 to be a broad right, which comprises numerous unenumerated rights which are located within 21 if they can be seen as an essential part of life. With internet access affecting each and every aspect of an individual’s life, as well as becoming a condition precedent for the application of numerous directive principles related to social and economic welfare, it can be postulated that the right to internet access can be recognised as a human right within the Indian constitutional system.
Importance of livelihood vs. Importance of Culture under Article 21 of the Constitution
Article 21 occupies a place of pride in the Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. India, being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 compels Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to be interpreted in conformity with international law. The State has an obligation to preserve the life and livelihood of every person, which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to life. Thus electricity must be produced to save the lives of people and provide employment opportunities. The state is duty bound to provide employment opportunities and economic empowerment for its citizens. The mining projects in various states not only solve the power crisis, it helps in the development of the economy as well. Built with the view of protecting the livelihood of people, the construction and maintenance of the wall also serves to secure employment opportunities for the indigenous people as well the people living in the villages in and around the forests of Swadeshi. The Principle of Sustainable Development is adhered to in the Construction Project
Right to Sustainable Development is a fundamental right under Article 21
The principle of sustainable development has been strictly observed in framing of the policy uranium mining. The Courts have balanced priorities while deciding environmental matters in the past. As India is a developing country, certain ecological sacrifices are deemed necessary to ensure the benefit of future generations. This ethical mix is termed sustainable development. Therefore, the respondent humbly submits that the policy of the government does not violate Article 14 or Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here
The establishment and development of the mining facilities in the forests is based on strict reason. The large scale electricity crisis has disabled the country and its people from following with their daily activities. India now depends heavily on this uranium mining project so as to relatively bridge the gap. It is also submitted that the fundamental rights of the indigenous tribal communities have not been violated. No violation of the fundamental rights has taken place because there will never be a situation of forced assimilation. The fundamental rights of the indigenous people have not been violated by the order of the government since
[1] No special right is guaranteed to them under the Constitution;
[2] No violation of Article 19;
[3] Article 21 of the Constitution of India and;
[4] No violation of fundamental rights because of forced assimilation or isolation, therefore, no rehabilitation is required.
It is submitted that both the Supreme Court as well the Government have time and again made it clear that they are not against mining per se but only against mining projects that are in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
To establish the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19. The respondent has only followed the said order. Hence, it is submitted that there has been no violation as such on the part of the government. It was a duty of the State to provide indigenous people who would be displaced with accommodation and basic standard of living guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since, Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality of life 60, and therefore, State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public interest, guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.The onerous duty lies upon the State under the concept of 'sustainable development' recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 to keep in mind the "principle of proportionality" so as to ensure protection of environment on the one hand and to undertake necessary development measures on the other hand, since, the economic development cannot be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology but the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments, which includes generation of revenue and public interest. Hence, despite the fact that life of the indigenous people is dependent on the forest, the Government not only has to consider the necessity to preserve the ecology, while allowing deforestation, but also has to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people and the revenue generated from such projects. Therefore, it was a duty of the State to provide people with accommodation and basic standard of living guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since, Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality of life, and therefore, State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public interest, guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the fact that the new buildings or permanent structures are to be constructed by deforestation in some area of reserved forest cannot be considered to be violation of Article 21 as it is protecting the right to shelter of the Indigenous people and generates revenue and electricity which will further provide aid to the government in countering the present energy crisis. Also, the fact that the indigenous people were not relocated, except for those displaced within the mining area, from the reserved forest considering their importance to environment shows that the Government had indeed taken into account the needs and rights of the indigenous population and thus, it cannot be said that the Government violated the same. Therefore, the government has struck a balance to protect the fundamental right of all the citizens including indigenous population, so it cannot be considered that there is violation of Article 21 especially the right to life of indigenous people, since; the action of the government is guided by public interest.
About Author
Dr. Smruti Smita Mohapatra is a veterinary physiologist and research scholar. A veterinarian by profession, she personifies compassion, kindness and affection. She is a strong advocate of animal welfare issues, agriculture policies, UN Sustainable Development Goals and global climate change. She is a science writer. Her writing on social issues has been featured on reputed media websites and blogs. She has her own blog – ‘Smruti Way!’ where she writes on ‘Can we talk?’ and invites guest posts. Apart from her current academic pursuits in PhD studies, she is the mentor of the underprivileged girl children under The Call & Connect India initiative during the pandemic. She has been covered and interviewed under ‘Women in Science and the Pandemic’ – an initiative by UNESCO considering her active engagement in STEM.
0 Comments