TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM IN INDIA: JUDICIAL CREATIVITY UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND EXPANDING HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

This article digs into how Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has gradually become the backbone of transformative constitutionalism in India.. The analysis follows a fascinating trajectory, from the framers’ conscious selection of “procedure established by law” instead of “due process,” a move specifically meant to keep courts from overstepping, all the way to the Supreme Court’s later, sweeping reinterpretation that pretty much brought substantive due process back through the side door. At first, Article 21 was hemmed in by a strict interpretation handed down in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).But everything changed with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): suddenly, Articles 14, 19 and 21 were woven together into a single tapestry of liberty, with fairness and reasonableness now required at every step along any legal procedure. Here’s where things really take off,the research tracks how this “right to life” ballooned outward, touching areas like socio-economic entitlements, protections within criminal justice processes, personal privacy rights, and even recognition for marginalized groups who’d long been left out in the cold.. Alongside this expansion comes a sharp look at how judges have wielded tools such as purposive interpretation (reading between legislative lines), public interest litigation (letting citizens bring issues directly before the court), and continuing mandamus (keeping cases open until orders are fully carried out). Of course, it isn’t all smooth sailing; real concerns crop up around potential judicial overreach, unpredictability in bail decisions, whether these rights apply across private actors (“horizontal application”), and, perhaps most frustratingly,the recurring chasm between what gets recognized on paper versus what people actually experience on the ground.