INTRODUCTION
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of the right to life and personal liberty except by a procedure established by law. Over the years, Article 21 has been expanded by the courts to include many other rights within its ambit. Such Rights include the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial, Right to Education, Right to a Clean Environment, Right to Reputation, Right to Shelter, Right to Sleep etc. The courts have also included the Right to Sleep within the scope of Article 21. Every human being in this world requires adequate sleep for proper functioning of the mind and the body. In fact, this is true for animals as well. Lack of sleep could lead to various problems among people including anxiety, depression etc. Chronic sleep deprivation could increase the chances of developing Type 2 Diabetes, Heart disease, Vascular Disease, Stroke etc. The Supreme Court of India has also come up with various judgments which recognize the importance of sleep.
MAJOR CASE LAWS
The scope of Article 21 was expanded for the first time in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The court held that any procedural law that violates the right to life and liberty must pass the test of reasonability for it to be valid. The procedure needs to be fair, just and reasonable. Prior to this case, “procedure established by law” referred to any procedure prescribed by the legislature and it needn’t meet the criteria for being fair, just and reasonable. This was held by the court in the case of AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). After the passing of the 44th Amendment, Article 21 cannot be suspended during the period of emergency.
In the case of Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1997), the manufacture, sale, storage of firecrackers without any permission and the bursting of firecrackers without any restriction was challenged as they could negatively impact upon the health of the community and pollute the environment. Another petition was filed which challenged this particular petition stating that the former petition would violate the dealer’s right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that no fundamental right is absolute and that restrictions are important to ensure that the rights of other citizens are not violated. Furthermore, the court added that tremendous sound is not unacceptable to humans, but to animals as well and that people have the right to sleep and leisure. Article 51A was also highlighted by the court which imposes a duty to protect the natural environment and have compassion for all living creatures. The court ordered the Pollution Control Board to regulate the noise emanating from the fireworks to ensure that people can sleep peacefully.
In the case of Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), the petitioner was a cardiac patient, whose house was situated close to a place wherein religious functions were held and the place was often given on rent for marriages and other events. During such events, loudspeakers were often used to play loud music which caused problems to the petitioner as he was already a cardiac patient. Therefore, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution against the use of loudspeakers that were causing disturbances and affected public tranquility under the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The Court held that every citizen is entitled to a decent environment and the right to sleep peacefully at night. The court also observed that no citizen can be forced to suffer the side effects of sleep deprivation which includes digestive disorders, cardiovascular diseases etc.
In the Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary & Ors (2012), the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi was given on rent from 1st June 2011 to 20th June 2011 to Baba Ramdev for the conduct of Yoga activities. However, on 4th June 2011, Baba Ramdev started a hunger strike against corruption and black money and no Yoga activities took place on that day. The negotiations between Baba Ramdev and the Government collapsed. At around 12:30AM, the police entered the arena and started using teargas shells to disperse the protestors, who were mostly sleeping at that point of time. There were around fifty thousand people in the Ramlila Maidan at that point of time. Section 144 of the CRPC was also imposed which gave the Executive Magistrate the power to prohibit the assembly of four or more people. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of this incident. The Court declared that sleep is a basic necessity of life and not a luxury. When the police used force against protestors at 1 at night, it amounted to a violation of their right to sleep. Sleep was held to be an essential part of Article 21 as it forms a part of a peaceful life. It was also held that disturbing sleep would amount to torture.
In the recent case of Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the petitioner had joined the ED investigation on 7th August 2023 and his statements were being recorded from 10:30PM to 3:00AM. He was formally arrested at 5:30AM. The petitioner contended that recording of statements at odd hours amounted to a violation of his right to sleep. He was also a senior citizen and was suffering from medical issues. On the other side, the respondents contended that the petitioner had no objection to the recording of his statement at that period of time and hence the same was recorded. The Bombay High Court held that the recording of statements at unearthly hours results in the deprivation of sleep of the concerned individual and is a violation of basic human rights. Sleep deprivation could negatively impact upon the person’s health and cognitive skills etc. The statements need to be recorded within the earthly hours and not beyond that.
CONCLUSION
The scope of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty has been expanded to include the Right to Sleep by the courts in India. However, it is important to note that this right is not absolute like the rest of the fundamental rights in India. The reasonable restrictions in relation to the Right to Sleep may include the place, time etc. For example, one cannot sleep in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. The recognition of the Right to Sleep by the courts indicates the importance of peaceful sleep for an individual.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)