Delhi High Court Expands Scope of Article 21 to Include Religious and Personal Duties
In a notable interpretation of constitutional rights, the Delhi High Court has observed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses within its scope the right to live with dignity and observe one’s religious duties and personal obligations.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while granting custody parole to Shahid Nasir, an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), to allow him to attend a religious ceremony for his deceased mother-in-law.
“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and to observe one’s religious duties and personal obligations,” Justice Dudeja stated.
Custody Parole Granted to UAPA Accused for Religious Ceremony
Nasir, currently lodged in Tihar Jail as an undertrial, sought custody parole for three days to participate in the Fathiha ceremony—a religious observance held in memory of the deceased.
His application had earlier been rejected by the trial court, which noted that the death of his mother-in-law had occurred nearly two years earlier and that no evidence was presented to show his presence was indispensable for the ceremony.
Before the High Court, Nasir argued that his right to perform religious rites and fulfill familial obligations was protected under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, which safeguard the right to life and freedom of religion. Denial of permission, he contended, would cause emotional distress to him and his family and amount to an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental rights.
NIA Opposes Plea, Cites Role in Banned Organization
Opposing the plea, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) contended that Nasir had been charged with serious offences under the UAPA, including conspiracy, fund-raising, and channelizing money for unlawful and terrorist activities as the Treasurer of the Karnataka unit of the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI).
The agency argued that granting custody parole could compromise security and affect the integrity of ongoing proceedings.
Court Balances Human Dignity with Security Considerations
After hearing both sides, the Court granted Nasir custody parole for two days, observing that prisoners—whether convicted or undertrial—continue to enjoy constitutional rights, including those under Article 21, except to the extent restricted by lawful detention.
“Custody parole is a temporary, humane measure that allows prisoners to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations such as funerals, last rites, or significant family functions, under the supervision of authorities,” the Court explained.
Justice Dudeja cited Rule 1203 of the Delhi Jail Manual, 2018, which governs the grant of custody parole in specific humanitarian circumstances, emphasizing that the measure is designed to balance justice with compassion.
No Misuse of Parole or Security Concerns Found
The Court further noted that there was no record indicating that Nasir had previously misused bail or parole concessions, nor any material to suggest that he posed a security risk if escorted under proper supervision.
Recognizing the religious and cultural significance of Nasir’s request, and the limited duration sought, the Court found the plea reasonable and bona fide, concluding that granting parole would not prejudice the ongoing case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shahid Nasir v. National Investigation Agency & Anr.
- Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Statutes Involved: Article 21, Article 25 of the Constitution of India; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Rule 1203 of Delhi Jail Manual, 2018
