Inclusion of Right to Political Association

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Vikas Pundhir v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026), observed that the right to associate with political parties and being actively involved in politics is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and directed the Delhi Police to provide necessary protection to an advocate facing continuous threats from his political rivals.

What was the Background of Vikas Pundhir v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by an advocate (the petitioner) who alleged continuous and recurring threats to his life from his political rivals. 
• Threats were first extended to the petitioner in 2016, following which a case was registered at Harsh Vihar Police Station. 
• The matter was initially settled after assurances from the accused persons, but the threats allegedly resumed in 2022 after one of the accused was released from jail. 
• The petitioner received a WhatsApp call threatening to kill him if he did not withdraw from politics. 
• An FIR was registered under the Arms Act after rival party members continued to intimidate him by posting photographs and videos on social media showing them firing guns. 
• The petitioner also raised concerns over suspicious persons surveying his residence late at night in December 2025. 
• Granting relief, the Court affirmed the constitutional protection of political participation under Article 21 and directed the concerned police authorities to provide all necessary assistance and protection to the petitioner.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that Article 21 not only protects life and personal liberty but also includes the autonomy to make personal choices, such as the right to associate with a political party and participate in political activities. 
• Justice Banerjee observed: "Any form of interference and/or coercion from/by anyone with those, strikes at the core of individual liberty and safety." 
• The Court affirmed that the petitioner was "well and truly entitled for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 
• The Court directed the SHO and the Beat Constable of Police Station Harsh Vihar to remain available and provide all necessary assistance and protection to the petitioner as and when required, in accordance with law. 
• The Court further clarified that if the petitioner shifts residence to another police station's jurisdiction, he must inform the concerned SHO, who would then be obligated to extend similar protection.

What is Article 21 of the COI?  

About:  

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. 
• Article 21 secures two rights: 
  • Right to life 
  • Right to personal liberty 
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.  
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike. 
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.  
• This right has been provided against the State only. 

Rights under Article 21: 

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:  
  • Right to privacy  
  • Right to go abroad  
  • Right to shelter  
  • Right against solitary confinement  
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment  
  • Right against handcuffing  
  • Right against custodial death  
  • Right against delayed execution  
  • Doctors’ assistance 10. Right against public hanging  
  • Protection of cultural heritage  
  • Right to pollution-free water and air  
  • Right of every child to a full development  
  • Right to health and medical aid  
  • Right to education  
  • Protection of under-trials 

Case Laws:  

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.  
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.