Francis Coralie Mullin v. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & [1981] INSC 12 (13 January 1981) unanimous decision of P.N. BHAGWATI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI,delivered by BHAGWATI.CITATION: 1981 AIR 746 1981 SCR (2) 516 1981 SCC (1) 608 1981 SCALE (1)79
Now what is the true scope and ambit of the right to life
guaranteed under this Article ? While arriving at the proper meaning and
content of the right to life, we must remember that it is a constitutional
provision which we are expounding and moreover it is a provision enacting a
Fundamental right and the attempt of the court should always be to expand the
reach and ambit of the Fundamental right rather than to attenuate its meaning
and content. The luminous guideline in the interpretation of a constitutional
provision is provided by the Supreme Court of United States in Weems v. U. S.
54 Lawyers Edition 801.
"Legislation, both statutory and constitutional is
enacted; it is true, from an experience of evils, but- its general language
should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had,
therefore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and
purposes. Therefore, a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider
application than mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of
constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments designed to meet passing occasions.
They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "designed to
approach immorality as nearly as human institutions can approach it" The
future is their care, and provisions for events of good and bad tendencies of
which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore,
our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be. Under
any other rule a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it
would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have
little value, and be converted by precedent into important and lifeless
formulas. Rights declared in the words might be lost in reality. And this has
been recognised. The meaning and vitality of the Constitution have developed
against narrow and restrictive construction." This principle of
interpretation which requires that a Constitutional provision must be
construed, not in a narrow and constricted sense but in a wide and liberal
manner so as to anticipate and take account of changing conditions and purposes
so that the Constitutional provision does not get atrophied or fossilized but
remains flexible enough to meet the newly emerging problems and challenges,
applies with greater force in relation to a fundamental right enacted by the
Constitution. The fundamental right to life which is the most precious human
right and which forms the ark of all other rights must therefore be interpreted
in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and
vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the
individual and the worth of the human person.
Now obviously, the
right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal
existence. It means something much more than just physical survival.