State PCS - Chhattisgarh (CGPSC)

• 01 Apr 2025

Violation of Article 21

Why in News? 

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that no one can force a woman to undergo a virginity test, as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees her fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity. 

 Key Points 

• Background of the Case: 
  • A petitioner sought a virginity test for his wife, alleging she was in an illicit relationship. 
  • He challenged a family court order which had rejected his request. 
• Court’s Stand on the Virginity Test: 
  • The High Court ruled that no woman can be forced to undergo a virginity test. 
  • It stated that such a test violates Article 21, which guarantees dignity and personal liberty. 
    • Allowing a virginity test would violate fundamental rights, natural justice, and a woman's dignity. 
  • The High Court reaffirmed that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is absolute and non-derogable. 

 Article 21- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty 

• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• Article 21 provides two rights: 
  • Right to life 
  • Right to personal liberty 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only. 
  • The state here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the legislatures, etc. 
  • The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning. 
• Case Laws: 
  • AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution, has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’. 
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well. 
  • That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary.