Article 21

TRANSGENDER AMENDMENT BILL 2026 EXPLAINED

The 2026 Bill replaces self-identification with medical verification, sparking a constitutional clash. While the state aims to regulate welfare and prevent abuse, critics argue this violates the NALSA judgment and the fundamental right to personal autonomy under Article 21. 

SUPREME COURT DIRECTS 'NO-FAULT' COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS

The Supreme Court directed the Centre to create a no-fault compensation policy for severe COVID-19 vaccine injuries under Article 21. This framework bypasses litigation, providing swift redressal through a Vaccine Injury Trust Fund. It ensures a socio-economic safety net, maintains public trust, and strengthens future pandemic preparedness. 

MENSTRUAL LEAVE POLICY: A RIGHT OR A RISK FOR INDIAN WOMEN?

The Supreme Court warned that mandatory paid menstrual leave, though supporting women’s dignity under Article 21, may discourage hiring and worsen India’s low female workforce participation. A balanced approach with flexible work, stronger leave policies, and destigmatization is considered more practical than a rigid law.

EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY IN INDIA

The Supreme Court's Harish Rana judgment confirmed the legality of passive euthanasia and the constitutional Right to Die with Dignity (Article 21). The ruling simplified the procedure for implementing a living will and emphasized the urgent need for Parliament to enact comprehensive end-of-life legislation to ensure ethical clarity, and balance individual autonomy.

Look Out Circulars (LOCs): New Rules and its Impact on Fundamental Rights

The Ministry of Home Affairs revised Look Out Circulars guidelines, requiring statutory bodies like National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women to route law-enforcement agencies, preventing misuse and protecting the Article 21-based right to travel abroad.requests through 

BULLDOZER JUSTICE: THE THREAT TO DUE PROCESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Ensuring equality through menstrual health

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India recognises access to menstrual hygiene as part of fundamental rights, linking it to equality, dignity, privacy, and the right to education. The Court held that lack of sanitary products and proper school facilities forces many girls to miss classes, which amounts to structural discrimination under Article 14 and a violation of dignity under Article 21. It directed governments to provide free sanitary napkins, functional and private toilets, safe disposal systems, menstrual hygiene support spaces, and awareness through school curricula, making menstrual health a legal and educational priority rather than a welfare issue.

DISASTER JUSTICE: MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE, CHALLENGES, WAY FORWARD

Kerala’s decision to waive ₹18.75 crore in loans for Wayanad landslide survivors signals a shift toward financial rehabilitation. It addresses post-disaster debt traps, contrasts State welfare with rigid national frameworks, and highlights the need for catastrophe insurance and reforms to strengthen disaster justice and recovery systems.

Menstrual Health as a Fundamental Right: Supreme Court Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that menstrual health and hygiene in schools is part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. It linked poor MHM to inequality and school dropouts, directing schools to provide free sanitary pads, proper toilets, and awareness education to remove stigma.

RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT: MEANING, CHALLENGES, WAY FORWARD

India’s environmental crisis, seen in Delhi’s chronic smog, exposes constitutional gaps. Though courts read a healthy environment into Article 21 using principles like Polluter Pays and Public Trust, weak enforcement persists. An explicit constitutional amendment would convert this implied right into a clear, enforceable fundamental guarantee, strengthening accountability and citizen protection.

MARITAL RAPE EXCEPTION IN CRIMINAL LAW IS A COLONIAL RELIC

The debate on criminalising marital rape has sharpened as the Supreme Court examines petitions against the marital rape exception retained in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Critics argue it violates Articles 14 and 21 by denying married women equal protection. Despite government resistance, expert bodies like the Justice J.S. Verma Committee have urged its abolition.

FORCED NARCO TESTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: SC UPHOLDS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Supreme Court's 2025 Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar ruling upheld the Selvi precedent: forced narco-analysis violates Articles 20(3) and 21. While test results are inadmissible, evidence discovered through the test may be admissible, emphasizing mental privacy and adherence to rights.