Which of the following statements regarding Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is or are correct? 1. Article 21 is violated when under trial prisoners are detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period without trial. 2. The right to life is one of the basic human rights and not even the State has the authority to arbitrarily violate that right. 3. Under Article 21, the right of a woman to make reproductive choices is not considered a dimension of personal liberty. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over time, the Supreme Court has given Article 21 a very wide and dynamic interpretation, including fair trial rights, human dignity, and reproductive choices. To answer correctly, you must know how judicial decisions have expanded the meaning of life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement 1 refers to under trial prisoners being detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period and treats such detention as a violation of Article 21.
Statement 2 describes the right to life as a basic human right that even the State cannot arbitrarily violate.
Statement 3 asserts that the right of a woman to make reproductive choices is not a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21.
We have to decide which statements are consistent with constitutional law and Supreme Court judgments on Article 21.

Concept / Approach:
Article 21 has been interpreted to include not just physical existence but the right to live with human dignity. Prolonged and unjustified detention of under trial prisoners has been held by the courts to violate the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court also consistently emphasises that the State cannot arbitrarily deprive a person of this right; deprivation must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure. In later decisions, the Court has recognised that a woman's right to make reproductive choices, including decisions regarding pregnancy, is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. Therefore, we can evaluate each statement in light of this expansive jurisprudence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that keeping under trial prisoners in custody for excessively long periods without speedy trial is unfair and violates Article 21, which includes the right to a fair and reasonable procedure. Therefore indefinite detention of under trials is inconsistent with Article 21, making Statement 1 correct.Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2. The right to life under Article 21 is often described as a basic human right and the most important fundamental right. The State cannot arbitrarily take away life or personal liberty; any restriction must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. Thus the general statement that even the State does not have authority to arbitrarily violate this right is correct, so Statement 2 is correct.Step 3: Evaluate Statement 3. The Supreme Court has recognised that the right of a woman to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty protected by Article 21. This includes decisions regarding whether to conceive, carry a pregnancy to term, or terminate it within the limits of law. Therefore saying that reproductive choice is not a dimension of personal liberty is directly contrary to judicial interpretation, so Statement 3 is incorrect.Step 4: Combine the results. Statements 1 and 2 are correct, while Statement 3 is incorrect, so the correct answer is the combination 1 and 2 only.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, you can recall cases where the Court ordered release of under trial prisoners who had been detained for long periods without trial, linking such detention to violation of Article 21. You can also remember landmark judgments that describe the right to life as encompassing human dignity, livelihood, health, and personal autonomy, and insist that State action restricting life or liberty must pass tests of fairness. Finally, more recent decisions specifically mention reproductive choice of women as a facet of personal liberty under Article 21. These judicial trends confirm that the first two statements reflect correct constitutional understanding, while the third one does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option 1, 2 and 3 is wrong because it treats Statement 3 as correct, even though the Supreme Court has clearly recognised reproductive choice as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

Option 1 and 3 only is incorrect because it wrongly includes Statement 3 and excludes Statement 2, despite Statement 2 accurately describing the basic human rights nature of the right to life.
Option 2 only is incorrect because it ignores Statement 1, even though prolonged detention of under trial prisoners without trial is a clear violation of the right to life and personal liberty.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates think of Article 21 in a narrow sense, limiting it to protection from arbitrary killing or imprisonment, and may not be aware of the expanded interpretation that includes speedy trial and reproductive rights. Others may not have followed recent case law on women's autonomy and may assume that reproductive decisions are purely matters of personal morality rather than constitutional liberty. To avoid such mistakes, it is essential to remember that Article 21 is a living provision that has evolved through judicial decisions to cover a wide range of rights related to dignity and personal autonomy.

Final Answer:
Only Statements 1 and 2 are correct, so the right answer is 1 and 2 only.