Published Paper Details:

This research analyses survey data from 384 respondents to understand perceptions of the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, examining differences based on gender, age, professional background, and experience. Key findings reveal significant variations across demographic groups. For instance, 57 males and 45 females strongly agreed that the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment expanded Article 21's scope. Respondents under 20 years old showed 18 agreements and 15 strong agreements on the alignment with international norms, while the 20-30 age group had 25 strong disagreements, indicating mixed views within this age group. The right to privacy was deemed the most significant judicial development under Article 21, with law students (25), academics (25), and legal researchers (33) predominantly agreeing on its importance. The influence of international norms on Article 21 was strongly agreed upon by 24 law students and 18 practicing lawyers. The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case was notably recognized by 20 respondents with over 10 years of experience as a key instance of judicial independence. Recent judgments on Article 21 have greatly influenced Indian jurisprudence, with males showing 51 agreements and 41 strong agreements, while females displayed 40 agreements and 40 strong agreements. Public interest litigation was highly regarded by respondents under 20 years old, with 19 strongly agreeing on its significance. This study highlights the diverse perspectives on the judiciary's role in shaping the interpretation and enforcement of Article 21 across different demographic groups.