The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly stressed that Article 21 protects every person’s dignity, liberty, and humanity, and over the years it has expanded this right to include fair procedures, humane treatment, and safeguards against abuse. As a result, the constitutional vision expects a criminal justice system that treats the accused with respect and delivers justice through due process. However, the lived reality for many, especially the poor and marginalized, remains very different, as the system often creates fear instead of protection, delay instead of justice, and punishment instead of fairness. This study examines this persistent gap by focusing on structural problems that weaken the actual implementation of Article 21. Although courts have attempted to curb torture, custodial violence, and long delays in trials. But, these protections often remain confined to judicial pronouncements and fail to reach police stations, courtrooms, and prisons. Consequently, the central question becomes how failures in accountability, socioeconomic bias in pre-trial detention, and recent changes in criminal laws collectively undermine the right to life and liberty. Using a socio-legal approach, the researcher connects constitutional ideals with empirical data from bodies such as the National Crime Bureau (NCRB) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), showing how everyday practices diverge from judicial standards and why reforms frequently fail to create meaningful change.
Chanchal Baliyan (Fri,) studied this question.