JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE EXPANDING HORIZONSOF THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN INDIA

Abstract

The Constitution is the paramount piece of legislation in India. The objective is to guarantee equitable possibilities for engagement in political, social, and economic democracy. The founders of our nation guaranteed that all individuals aged 18 and older could participate in voting, rather than a privileged minority. The Indian Constitution is a dynamic document since it has evolved over the past 70 years. The paramount human right is the right to life. Article 21 of Part III of the Indian Constitution encompasses the rights to life and freedom of movement. The right to life constitutes the paramount provision of the Indian Constitution. This constitutes the fundamental principle behind the concept of a welfare state. A “welfare state” is a governmental system that aims to guarantee the well-being and health of its populace. The right to life was initially rigorously upheld by Indian courts. Consequently, they exhibited increased patience. The right to life presently includes the right to a clean environment, the right to education, the right to a prompt trial, and the right to life itself. Safeguarding the rights of its citizens is the paramount objective of a democracy. Although the United States is the oldest democracy globally, it is notorious for its elevated incarceration rates among people of color, especially Black individuals. All individuals must be accorded equal treatment in a society founded on the principle of the right to work. The Constitution has consistently aimed for equality. India is the preeminent nation globally. Although numerous challenges exist, there are also several commendable instances. The “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” provision will remain incomplete unless it fully rectifies the inequitable treatment of women, individuals from other castes, those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, and other forms of harm. To fulfill the aims established by the Constitution’s architects, we must abandon the dichotomy of “us” and “them.”