Yet, nearly eight
decades after Independence and over seventy-five years after the Constitution
came into force, a troubling question remains:
Are
these rights truly rights that citizens possess, or are they benefits that
citizens must continuously seek, demand, and hope to receive?
I ask this
question not as a constitutional expert, but as an ordinary citizen.
For the last three
years, my wife and I have travelled daily through a roughly 2.5-kilometre
stretch between Hero Honda Chowk and Umang Bhardwaj Chowk in Gurugram. Calling
the condition of this road "poor" would be an understatement. The
reality is far worse.
Every day,
thousands of commuters struggle on this stretch. During the monsoon, it becomes
a nightmare. Traffic crawls for kilometers. Travel times become unpredictable.
Vehicles suffer excessive wear and tear. People experience frustration,
anxiety, and mental stress before they even reach their workplaces.
The most
astonishing part is that this situation is not new. Complaints have been raised
repeatedly. Social media is filled with posts, photographs, and appeals.
Residents have voiced their concerns countless times.
Yet the condition
remains largely unchanged.
This led me to
consider three possibilities.
Are
Rights Bought Through Taxes?
Let us assume that
access to safe roads is effectively purchased through the taxes we pay.
If that were true,
this particular stretch should be among the best in the region.
One side of this
corridor is connected to Sector 37, a major industrial area contributing
significantly to economic activity and tax revenues. The other side serves
densely populated residential sectors such as 9, 10, and 10A, while also
carrying traffic from residents using the Dwarka Expressway.
Income tax, road
tax, vehicle registration charges, property taxes, fuel taxes, and numerous
other levies flow from these areas. By any reasonable measure, there is no
shortage of taxpayers using this road.
Yet the road
remains in a miserable state.
If taxes are the
price citizens pay for basic infrastructure, then the return on investment
appears absent.
This explanation
fails.
Is
the State Protecting This Right?
The second
possibility is that the State, recognizing safe mobility as part of the Right
to Life, proactively ensures that citizens can travel safely and with dignity.
If that were the
case, corrective action would have been taken long ago.
Three years have
passed since I personally began witnessing these conditions. Residents who have
lived here longer suggest that the deterioration predates even that.
If authorities
genuinely considered safe roads an essential component of Article 21, prolonged
neglect of such a vital commuter corridor would be difficult to explain.
The conclusion
becomes uncomfortable but unavoidable.
While Article 21
exists in our Constitution, its practical implementation often appears far
weaker than its constitutional promise.
Must
Citizens Beg for Their Rights?
The third
possibility is that citizens must actively pursue their rights by raising
complaints and drawing attention to problems.
At first glance,
this seems plausible.
After all,
residents have done exactly that.
Complaints have
been filed. Requests have been submitted. Social media campaigns have been
launched. Public representatives have been tagged repeatedly. Discussions occur
regularly across community groups.
Yet little has
changed.
This raises a
deeper constitutional question:
At
what point does a citizen stop being a rights-holder and become merely a
petitioner?
A right should not
require endless pleading.
A right should not
depend on how loudly citizens shout.
A right should not
depend upon whether a complaint goes viral.
The
VIP Test
There is a simple
thought experiment.
Imagine that a
senior minister or a high-ranking dignitary were scheduled to travel through
this very stretch tomorrow.
How many of us
believe the road would remain in its current condition?
Most citizens
already know the answer.
Tenders would
move.
Funds would
appear.
Repairs would
begin.
The road could
become dramatically better within days, if not hours.
That reality
exposes the central problem.
The issue is not
always a lack of funds, technology, or engineering capability.
The issue is that
we live on mercy of state, not guided by constitution of India.
When ordinary
citizens suffer, action can take years.
When influential
people are affected, action often becomes immediate.
That is not how
rights are supposed to work.
Rights are meant
to protect the ordinary citizen precisely because he possesses no special
influence.
When
Rights Feel Like Favours
After much
reflection, I arrived at a disturbing conclusion.
The problem is not
with Article 21 itself. The Constitution remains one of our nation's greatest
achievements.
The problem lies
in the gap between constitutional promise and administrative reality.
A right that
cannot be claimed, enforced, or delivered begins to feel less like a right and
more like a favour.
A favour depends
on the discretion of the giver.
A right does not.
Today, many
citizens feel that basic public amenities, including safe roads, are not
guaranteed entitlements but discretionary services provided when authorities
choose to act.
That perception
should concern all of us.
A
Constitutional Question We Must Answer
A citizen leaving
home should not fear a fatal accident caused by a pothole.
A citizen should
not bear avoidable vehicle repair expenses because basic maintenance was
ignored.
A patient inside
an ambulance should not wonder whether a 2.5-kilometre stretch will consume
forty-five precious minutes.
An employee should
not live with uncertainty about reaching work on time because road conditions
make traffic movement unpredictable.
If the Right to
Life truly includes the right to live with dignity and safety, then surely it
must include the right to travel on roads that do not endanger life.
The question,
therefore, is not whether Article 21 guarantees such protection.
The real question
is whether we, as a nation, are prepared to honour that guarantee in practice.
Because if a
fundamental right remains inaccessible despite years of complaints, public
suffering, and administrative awareness, then citizens are entitled to ask:
Is
it truly a right, or is it merely a promise waiting to be fulfilled?
@ Ankur Upadhyay
Disclaimer:
Copyright of the material published under this article is vested in the author. The creator of this blog does not necessarily agree with the content of this article. This article is published here honorary to further inspire and encourage the author towards writing.
