By Sarvesh Kumar Shabhi, Asst. Professor, Amity Law School, Lucknow
The state of sleep has been described by Homer in the famous epic Iliad as “sleep is the twin of death”. Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher has said that all men are alike when asleep.
Sleep is a biological and essential ingredient of the basic necessities of life. If sleep is disturbed, the mind gets disoriented and it disrupts the health cycle. Sleep, therefore, is a self rejuvenating element of our life cycle and is, therefore, part and parcel of human life. The state of sleeping is assumed by an individual when he is in a safe atmosphere. It is for this reason that this natural system has been inbuilt by our creator to provide relaxation to a human being.
Every citizen is entitled under Article 21 of the Constitution to live in a decent environment where he can breathe, play, sleep and do follow normal routine of life for the healthy growth and existence without any interference to his rights. A natural process which is inherent in a human being, if disturbed, obviously affects basic life.
It is for this reason that Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012 SC) case propounded that if a person is deprived of sleep, the effect thereof, is treated to be torturous.
Sleep as a fundamental right is crucial to life which is at par with right to privacy and right to life. The question of Right to Sleep as a fundamental right is not a new question that the country needed answer for. The similar question had arrived in case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 but the decision of both the case is parallel to each other.
The Supreme Court has broadened the ambit of right of life to bring in a citizen’s right to sleep peacefully under it in the Ramlila Maidan’s case. The court terming it as a basic human right said that “Sleep is essential for a human being to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival. Sleep is, therefore, a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itself would be in peril”.
If we look upon the relevancy of discussion on giving citizens the legal right to claim their sleeping rights under Indian Law, we should first go through other international provisions mentioning the significance of this right. As far as international scenario is concerned, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) refers to privacy and it states:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Further, Article 17 of United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference and attacks.” Finally, Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in 1950 says that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.
As far as international judicial approach regarding right to sleep is concerned, the first case that discussed about protesters right to sleep was Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1982), a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the National Park Service’s regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall.
The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) group had planned to hold a demonstration on the National Mall and Lafayette Park where they would erect tent cities to raise awareness of the situation of the homeless. The group obtained the correct permits for a seven-day demonstration starting on the first day of winter. The Park Service however denied the request that participants be able to sleep in the tents. The CCNV challenged this regulation on the basis that it violated their First Amendment right.
Further, in the case of Varga and Others v. Hungary [2015] ECHR 422, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court concluded that the limited personal space available to all six detainees in this case, aggravated by a lack of privacy when using the lavatory, inadequate sleeping arrangements, insect infestation, poor ventilation and restrictions on showers or time spent away from their cells, had amounted to degrading treatment.
In study after study, sleep researchers have found that good sleep sets up the brain for positive feelings. When we don’t have enough sleep, we have a sour view of circumstances: We are more easily frustrated, less happy, and short tempered, less vital.
The effect of bad night sleep includes mood change, reduced cardiovascular performance and poor performance at intellectual and mechanical tasks and it was further observed, a recent review of research into noise and sleep recommends that sound at night in sleeping quarters should not exceed 45 dB(A).
Interference with rest or sleep and the factors associated with it include lack of concentration, irritability, reduced efficiency and is one of the most obvious and annoying effects of noise. Sleep is a physiological necessity and therefore, health may be adversely affected by insufficient sleep. Apart from health, apart from deafness it affects the digestive system, cardiovascular disturbance in cardiovascular system etc.
Thus, it is evident that right of privacy and the right to sleep have always been treated to be a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution like a right to breathe, to eat, to drink, to blink, etc.