Right to Life and Personal LibertyI would like to present a brief

statement how the Supreme court has crystallized, case after

case, variousrights while interpreting fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. Speedytrial,
right against illegal arrest, right to compensation in case of
custodial torture or death, rights of arrestees, right to consult a
lawyer, right to free legal aid, right to life and liberty, right to
live withhuman dignity, right to fair trial etc., are just a few
pointers in that directions, need not multiplyillustration. I have
tried to cover all these theories expounded by the
Supreme Court in various cases inthe light of Article 21.Article
21 of the Constitution of India forbids deprivation of personal
liberty except in accordance withthe procedure established by
law. It mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life
or personalliberty except according to procedure established
by law. While interpreting article 21 of theConstitution of
India, the Supreme Court has granted certain safeguards and
rights covered under rightto life and personal liberty. To find
out these rights and safeguards and to arranging, analyzing,
andproducing them in a systematic manner is the aim of this
work .Noteworthy contribution.Article 21 has become
the source of many important rights and procedural
safeguards to the people.The Supreme Court has adopted
new approach and granted various rights. These are right
to2fair trial, right to legal aid, right to speedy trial, and
declared procedural safeguards as to right againstbar-fetters,
right against custodial violence, right against delayed
execution, right against handcuffing,right against solitary
confinement, etc.Safeguarding against illegal ArrestArrest is
permissible under law but a person is said to be deprived of his
life or personal liberty if he isarrested or detained not in
accordance with the procedure established by law. In
Prem Shankar Shuklav. Delhi Admn., AIR 1980 SC 1535, the
Supreme Court has laid down that handcuffing of a
personwithout adequate reasons in writing has also been
found against article 21. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and
others (1994) 4 SCC 260, the Apex Court laid down certain
requirements for effectiveenforcement of the fundamental
rights inherent in Articles 21.It was emphasised that a person
shouldnot be arrested except for heinous offences and to have
some one informed of the arrest and to consultprivately with
lawyers is inherent in Article 21