INTRODUCTION
When I first encountered the term “right to sleep,” my natural inclination was scepticism. After all, sleep is something that everyone does regardless of whether he or she is an animal, a child, or an insect. Why should there be a need for such a right to be included in the Constitution? It is only when one ponders on the matter for a while that the answer becomes obvious – rights are guaranteed not because they are uncommon, but because they can be violated. It turns out that people can have their sleep violated in many ways and in many situations.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.[1] At first blush, the above appears to be an extremely narrow clause. However, in interpreting this article over a number of decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that “life” in Article 21 does not merely imply physical existence. It implies dignified life – life with meaning. The importance of sleep cannot be understated in relation to dignified life. It forms the very basis for such dignified life since without adequate sleep, the body and mind degenerate and become incapable of exercising all other rights.
The blog post outlines the steps taken by the Indian judiciary towards establishing the right to sleep as a fundamental right, the crucial milestones, and the reasons for the gap in the framework, which is nonetheless an important one.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: EXPANDING ARTICLE 21
The right to sleep has developed against the backdrop of the entire development process of Article 21. Until the 1980s, Article 21 was narrowly interpreted. It was in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)[2], that the Supreme Court decided that any procedure that results in deprivation of life or personal liberty cannot just be a mere procedure under the law but must be a fair and reasonable procedure as well. This change in interpretation of Article 21 made it a substantive right, leading to the development of several implied rights.
However, the Court ruled in Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981),[3] that the right to life also implies the right to live with human dignity, which includes provisions such as adequate food, clothes, housing and, by logical inference, everything necessary for sustaining life. If dignity is the benchmark, then all that is necessary to sustain a dignified life comes under Article 21, and there can be no more convincing argument about sleep than that.
The groundwork set by these decisions ensured that the eventual recognition of the right to sleep was both legally sound and virtually inevitable.
THE RAMLILA MAIDAN CASE: WHEN THE COURT NAMED THE RIGHT
The clear acceptance came in In re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012).[4] In June 2011, the Delhi police resorted to midnight lathi charge in order to forcibly disperse the protestors who were sleeping on the Ramlila Maidan premises in protest against corruption. The people were fast asleep.
The court held in no uncertain terms that sleep is the right that is available to every individual and which comes within the purview of Article 21 of the constitution. Sleep is as essential as breathing, eating and drinking. It cannot be presumed that the person who is sleeping is up to some mischievous business. As stated by Justice B S Chauhan, it would tantamount to “entering into the dreams of that person.” In other words, it was violative of Article 21 because it amounted to an arbitrary and excessive intrusion into one’s right to sleep without giving sufficient notice or even a chance to depart from the premises.
In addition to the recognition of the right per se, what is analytically important in this decision is the manner in which this right is analyzed within the context of the principle of proportionality. Despite the presence of a legitimate governmental interest in dispersing the crowd, the use of force against sleeping citizens exceeded constitutional boundaries. Therefore, the right to sleep became part of the wider principle of liberty, rather than a mere curiosity.
It is important to note that the intellectual forerunner of this rationale is Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1963),[5] In that case, the Court found that any unauthorised domiciliary search conducted during nighttime and interfering with the individual’s sleep amounted to violation of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
LEGAL ADVANCES: WHERE THE RIGHT HAS BEEN APPLIED
After Ramlila Maidan, the right to sleep has come up in a variety of contexts, each quite different from one another:
- Right in Custody: In Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra (1983),[6] the Court had considered the rights of women in custody. Rest was held to be an aspect of the dignity of all individuals, including those in custody, protected by Article 21. Custody restricts the freedom of movement but not the constitutional guarantee itself.
- Noise and Environment: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Sayeed Maqsood Ali v State of Madhya Pradesh (2001),[7] ruled that each citizen has the right to have a good sleep during nights pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling was later reiterated at the Supreme Court in In re Noise Pollution (2005),[8] where the Court said that noise levels beyond the limit of comfort constitute violation of the right to sleep.
- Environmental Degradation: In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996),[9] the Court declared that ecological degradation is a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. This right would apply to industrial noise, pollution and urban congestion causing deprivation of rest.
- Privacy and Bodily Autonomy: The landmark Puttaswamy judgment (2017)[10] stated that the right to physical integrity and personal autonomy falls within the ambit of Article 21. Sleep is the most basic bodily function that needs to be protected in order to ensure bodily integrity.
LEGAL CHALLENGES: GAPS THAT REMAIN
Although the judiciary acknowledges and upholds the right to sleep, its execution remains an issue.
- Lack of Statutory Law: There is no statutory law passed in India that recognizes the right to sleep and puts in place standards for protecting the same. This right is merely an exercise in judicial interpretation and requires litigation to execute which is impossible for migrants, slum dwellers, prisoners and bonded labourers.
- Noise Regulation Failures: As per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000[11] the use of loudspeakers is restricted between 10 pm and 6 am without obtaining consent. However, the execution is highly inconsistent. There are instances of urban noise pollution during festivals, religious functions, and construction activities, which have violated the set guidelines.
- Custodial Conditions: The prison facilities in India are often found to be overcrowded, with occupancy percentages always more than 100 percent. Although there is an established concept of dignity of Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)[12] and Sheela Barse,[13] there have been minimal efforts for prison reforms in relation to rest.
- Unregulated Work and Rest: Gig economy workers and night shift workers lack rest due to inadequate protection provided by labour law under the Articles 39(e) and 42 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The right to sleep is one of those laws which at first appears to be a bit strange, but once the purpose behind such a law is understood, it all falls into place. This is about the duties of the State not to arbitrarily disrupt the sleeping of a person or not to ensure conditions that prevent a person from fulfilling his/her basic human need.
The constitutional framework was put in place by Maneka Gandhi; the right was named explicitly in Ramlila Maidan. The judicial structure has been built through Kharak Singh, Sheela Barse, and Puttaswamy cases. What is required is a legislative framework that would enable proactive application of the right instead of retrospective litigation.
“A Right to Rest Act” — specifying mandatory rest times for workers, penalising noise at night time, and sleep norms in custody – would bridge the gap between judicial acknowledgement and implementation. Until that happens, the right to sleep will continue to be a paper right for those who need it the most.
Author(s) Name: Ayesha Firdosi (Smt.Velagapudi Durgamba Siddhartha Law College)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[2] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
[3] Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors (1981) 1 SCC 608
[4] Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary, Union of India and Ors (2012) 5 SCC 1 [318]
[5] Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors AIR 1963 SC 1295
[6] Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378
[7] Sayeed Maqsood Ali v State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors AIR 2001 MP 220
[8] In re Noise Pollution (2005) 5 SCC 733
[9] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors (1996) 5 SCC 647
[10] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr v Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1
[11] Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000, r 5
[12] Olga Tellis and Ors v Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors (1985) 3 SCC 545
[13] Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378