CHASKALSON P with this approach the rights which are in issue in the present case must not be construed in isolation “. . . but in [their] context, which includes the history and background to the adoption of the Constitution, other provisions of the Constitution itself and, in particular, the provisions of [the bill of rights] of which [they are] part.”6 [17] The purposive approach will often be one which calls for a generous interpretation to be given to a right to ensure that individuals secure the full protection of the bill of rights, but this is not always the case, and the context may indicate that in order to give effect to the purpose of a particular provision ��a narrower or specific meaning” should be given to it. 7 [18] In developing his argument on the right to life counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others v State of West Bengal and another,8 where it was said: 6 Id at para 10. 7 Id at para 325. See also the analysis of the right to freedom and security of the person by the majority of the Court in Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); 1996 (1) BCLR 1 (CC), and Hogg Constitutional Law of Canada 3 ed (Carswell, Scarborough 1992) at para 33.7(c). 8 (1996) AIR SC 2426. 9