Article 21 Interpretation: Identifying Non-Fundamental Rights

This question asks to identify which option is NOT considered a fundamental right under the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the 'Protection of life and personal liberty'.

Understanding Article 21 Scope

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively to include various rights essential for a meaningful life and dignity. These are often referred to as negative rights (rights against certain actions) or positive rights (entitlements). Some key rights recognised include:

• Right to life, including a dignified life.
• Right to personal liberty.
• Right to health and medical care.
• Right to decent environment.
• Right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
• Right to reputation.

Analyzing Options under Article 21

Let's examine each option in light of the liberal interpretation of Article 21:

• Right to decent environment: Recognized by the Supreme Court as a vital part of the right to life under Article 21.
• Right against public hanging: Considered violative of human dignity and thus falling under the protection of Article 21.
• Right to reputation: Held by the Supreme Court to be an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
• Right to solitary confinement: This is not recognised as a fundamental right. While the right *against* cruel and unusual punishment is protected under Article 21, a positive 'right *to* solitary confinement' is not an established fundamental right. It is typically a form of punishment or restriction, not an entitlement.

Conclusion

Based on the established jurisprudence surrounding Article 21, the 'Right to solitary confinement' is the option that is not considered a fundamental right under its liberal interpretation.