Article 13 • Key Elements: includes excess of initial

jurisdiction; loss of jurisdiction mid-

Judicial Review proceeding; mala fide intention or improper
• Justiciability: (Art. 32) (Art. 226) to strike motive; and consideration of irrelevant factors
down both pre- and post-Consti laws • Application: Holds subordinate legislation and
• Horizontal Application: covers State‐made executive actions to the limits of enabling
law; any executive decree or subordinate statutes; breaches Article 13(2) if a state law
legislation abridges Fundamental Rights.
Pre-Constitutional Laws (Art. 13(1)) Doctrine of Eclipse
• Void ab initio only to the extent of • Definition: Pre-Constitutional laws
inconsistency; remainder survives. inconsistent with Part III rights are not
• No Retrospective Effect: from 26 Jan 1950 obliterated but become “eclipsed” (dormant)
onward but do not revive past convictions. against citizens; they remain operative against
• Landmark Case non-citizens until the inconsistency is removed
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1950): • Revival Mechanism: An eclipsed law
pre-Constitution press law - held inconsistent with Art. automatically revives when the conflicting
19, void on commencement of the Constitution Fundamental Right is suitably amended or
Post-Constitutional Laws (Art. 13(2)) repealed.
• Void ab initio if abridge or take away FR Doctrine of Severability
• Doctrine of Constitutional Amendment vs. • Definition: When only part of a statute
“Law” contravenes Fundamental Rights, that invalid
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Held that a portion is severed, preserving the
Constitutional Amendment under Art. 368 is not a remainder—so long as the valid sections can
“law” under Art. 13(3), and thus may validly abridge stand independently and reflect legislative
Fundamental Rights intent.
Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959): Confirmed that • Severability Test:
ordinary statutes inconsistent with Part III are void 1. Can the legislature have enacted the
from inception, whereas pre-Constitution statutes— valid portion alone?
valid when enacted—remain “eclipsed” only for 2. Does the remainder form a complete
citizens code independent of the invalid part?
Significance of Article 13 3. Is the statute’s object and structure
• Supremacy of Part III: Ensures no law, preserved after severance?.
whether old or new, can trench upon Doctrine of Waiver
Fundamental Rights. • Definition: While individuals may waive many
• Landing-Pad for Doctrines: Lays the legal rights knowingly and voluntarily,
foundation for doctrines (eclipse, severability, Fundamental Rights—being public policy—
waiver) which govern how “invalid” laws cannot be waived by private agreement and
interact with Part III rights. remain enforceable against the State.
• Constitutional Morality: Acts as a bulwark • Limitation: No estoppel can operate to bar
against arbitrary State action and upholds enforcement of Fundamental Rights; any
individual dignity by subjecting all law-making purported waiver is unenforceable if it
to the Fundamental Rights filter. undermines a public obligation.
Doctrine of Ultra Vires Case Laws
• Definition: “Ultra vires” literally means • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: Severed only
“beyond the powers” conferred. Any statute the repugnant section of the Preventive
or delegated legislation that exceeds the Detention Act, upholding the remainder
scope of its parent Act or constitutional • Olga Tellis v. BMC: Pavement dwellers’
competence is void for error apparent on the undertaking held void; no private estoppel can
face of the record. bar enforcement of Article 21

1
2.2 Article 14-18 – Right to Equality cooperatives vs. non-cooperatives; undivided families
vs. other families;

Article 14: (a) Equality before the law.

(b) Equal protection of the laws. 4. Key Case Laws
• The State shall not deny to any person equality • P. Santa v. Union of India (1985)
before the law or the equal protection of the laws – Reiterated “equal pay for equal work” where
within the territory of India.” duties and considerations are identical.
• rule of law, prohibiting both class legislation and
arbitrary state action, while permitting • K. Veeresh Babu v. Union of India (1994)
reasonable classification. – Upheld helmet exemption for Sikh riders as
(a) Equality before the Law a reasonable classification.
Origin: English common law.
No special privileges or disabilities— “like should be
treated alike” Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination
(b) Equal Protection of the Laws
on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
Origin: U.S. Constitution.
Positive guarantee of equal treatment in similar
sex or place of birth
circumstances 1. Art. 15(1) – Prohibition of Discrimination
o Bars State action- discriminating only on
1. Test for Violation the five prohibited grounds.
Effect-Test: effect of the statute on equality; a o Illustrations:
laudable object cannot justify unequal impact. ▪ Separate electorates by religion
“Unequals” may be treated unequally; perfect struck down (Nain Sukh Das v.
uniformity is not required. U.P., 1953).
2. Art. 15(2) – Equal Access to Public Places
2. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification o No citizen face disability, restriction
Necessity: Practical realities ▪ Shops, public restaurants, hotels,
Two-Fold Test (Budhan v. State of Bihar, 1955): places of public entertainment
• Intelligible Differentia – a clear criterion ▪ Wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads,
distinguishes the class from others. public resorts (state-maintained
• Rational Nexus – that criterion must bear a logical or dedicated)
relation to the statute’s objective. o Limit: Does not cover private property;
• Three-Fold Test (State v. V.C. Shukla, 1980): adds owner may restrict access on private
3rd Nexus – a direct link between the premises.
classification and the law’s purpose. 3. Art. 15(3) – Special Provisions for Women &
• Scope of Classification: May be based on Children
geography, occupation, status, etc.; need not be “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from
mathematically precise. making any special provision for women and children.”
Implications:
3. Illustrations of Classification -Maternity benefits, free‐education schemes and
• Upheld as Reasonable protective labour laws
Rulers vs. others; negotiable-instrument suits vs. -Reservation of up to 50 % of posts for women
ordinary suits; vexatious litigants; public servants vs. upheld (Raiesh Kumar Gupta case)
private persons; juveniles; employers vs. employees;
landlords vs. tenants; citizens vs. non-citizens. 4. Art. 15(4) & (5) – Advancement of Backward
• Struck Down as Arbitary Classes
“Persons of rank” vs. others; habitual criminals with o Art. 15(4) (added 1951): Allows special
vs. without “bad reputation”; rich vs. poor; provisions for socially & educationally

2
 backward classes and SC/ST (post • Enabled by the Public Employment
Champakam Dorairajan). (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957
▪ Total reservation exceeding 50 %
void (M.R. Balaji v. Mysore, 1963). Art. 16(4) – Reservation for Backward Classes in
o Art. 15(5) (93rd Amend. 2005): Extends Appointments
educational reservation to all institutions • State may reserve posts for backward classes
(state-aided or private) except minority- not adequately represented in its services
run. • Exception to general equality; consult PSC
5. Citizenship Requirement under Art. 320 but reservation permitted
o only to Indian citizens; non-citizens cannot
invoke it Art. 16(5) – Reservation in Promotions for SC/ST
6. Sexual Harassment as Discrimination • State may reserve promotions (with seniority)
o Workplace sexual harassment recognized for SC/ST groups under-represented in
as discrimination under Arts. 14, 15 & 23; services
Vishaka guidelines frame preventive &
remedial measures (Vishaka v. Rajasthan, Art. 16(6) – Carry-Forward of Unfilled Reserved
1997). Vacancies
• Unfilled vacancies reserved under clauses (4)
& (5) in any year may be carried over as a
Article 16 Equality of opportunity in separate class

matters of public employment

Art. 16(7) – Religious/Denominational Institution
Art. 16(1) – Equality of Opportunity in Public
Posts
Employment
• Offices connected with
• Right to be considered for any State office or
religious/denominational bodies may be
employment by open competition
reserved for adherents of that
• No “spoils system”; recruitment based on
religion/denomination
merit (English model)
• Protects freedom of religion and
• Does not guarantee a job, only equal
denominational management
opportunity to compete
• Subhash Chand JaM v. Delhi Electric Supply
• Permissible: selective tests, qualification
Undertaking – qualification as rational
criteria (mental, physical, moral, discipline)
differentia, not violative of Art. 16
• Key Authority: Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India – Art. 16(1) is facet of Art. 14’s equality

Art. 16(2) – Non-Discrimination in Employment

Note On EWS
• Bars discrimination only on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth or residence
• Covers all offices under the State, temporary
or permanent
• Janikiraman v. Andhra Pradesh – removal for
non-native birth held invalid
• Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India – place of
birth protected, residence requirement valid

Art. 16(3) – Residence Requirements

• Parliament may prescribe residence
conditions for particular classes of
employment in States/UTs
3
Art. 17 – Abolition of Untouchability Art. 18 – Abolition of Titles
“Untouchability is abolished, and its practice in any • State Conferment Banned
form is forbidden; the enforcement of any disability o No titles (except military or academic
arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence distinctions) may be conferred by the
punishable in accordance with law.” State.
• Foreign Titles Prohibited
Scope of “Untouchability” o Citizens may not accept titles from
• Not defined in Constitution; meant to cover any foreign State without the
varied regional practices President’s consent.
• Equated with slavery—denial of human • Restrictions on Officeholders
equality o Any person holding an office of profit
or trust under the State may not
Dual Prohibitions accept any present, emolument or
1. Abolition & Prohibition: practice of office of any kind from or under a
untouchability banned in any form foreign State without Presidential
2. Offence: enforcing any disability (social, approval.
economic, religious) because of untouchability • Awards vs. Titles
= criminal o “Titles” ≠ “awards.”
o Civil honours like Padma Shri, Bharat
Legislative Enforcement Ratna, etc., are not barred by Art. 18.
• Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 → • No Penal Sanction
renamed Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 o Unlike Art. 17 or Art. 23, breach of
• Broad penal measures but uneven Art. 18 does not itself constitute a
enforcement punishable offence under the
Constitution.
Offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act • Rationale
(i) Blocking entry to places of public worship open to o Titles create artificial hierarchies and
others conflict with the Constitution’s
(ii) Preventing worship or bathing in sacred tanks, commitment to social, economic and
wells, springs political equality.
(iii) Denying access to shops, public restaurants, • Jennings’ Observation
hotels, entertainment venues o Art. 18 operates as a restriction on
(iv) Enforcing disabilities in practicing a profession, executive/legislative power, not as a
trade or business personal right vested in individuals.
(v) Refusing use of public transport or public
resthouses (dharmashalas, musafirkhanas)
(vi) Refusing admission to public hospitals,
dispensaries, educational institutions

4
2.3- Article 19 – Six Fundamental • Use of loudspeakers: permit requirement
valid restriction (Rajni Kant v. State; Indulal v.
Freedoms and Reasonable State).
Restrictions. • Right not to hear citizens may insist on
freedom from noise.
enjoyed by all citizens, are not absolute, as they are
Freedom of the Press
qualified and Limited
• Included within Art. 19(1)(a) (Romesh
Thappar v. Madras).
Freedom of speech and expression [Art. • Page‐limit on price struck down as stifling
19(1)(a) & (2)] circulation (Bennett Coleman).
Art. 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech & Expression • Right to reply/criticism: State‐funded forum
Guarantee: right of all citizens to express ideas, must be equally open to critics (Manubhai D.
opinions, writing, printing, etc. Shah v. LIC).
Not absolute: subject to “reasonable restrictions” • Ad‐space restrictions → press‐freedom
under Art. 19(2). violation (Sakai Papers v. UOI).
Other Media & Modes
Art. 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions • Film exhibition by video parlours: not a
• Grounds for restriction (must satisfy one): fundamental right (Sitar Video v. U.P.).
o Sovereignty & integrity of India • Bandhs: coercive shutdowns not protected;
o Security of State right to work/study prevails (CPI v. Bharat
o Friendly relations with foreign States Kumar).
o Public order • National Anthem: cannot force recitation over
o Decency & morality religious belief (Bijoe Emmamel v. Kerala).
o Contempt of court, defamation,
incitement to offence 2. Freedom of Assembly [Art. 19(1)(b) &
• Tests:
o Restriction must be reasonable
(3))
Art. 19(1)(b) – Right to Assemble
(judicially determined)
• Guarantee: Citizens may assemble peaceably
o Must directly relate to one of the nine
and without arms, including meetings and
grounds
processions.
Judicial Oversight
• Landmark: Gopal Charan v Daitary Nandy
• “Sentinel on the qui vive” role: Courts alone
(1961): procession is a fundamental right, not
decide what counts as reasonable (State of
a mere custom.
Madras v. Row).
2. Art. 19(3) – Reasonable Restrictions
• Scope of review: can test reasonableness of
• May be imposed only in the interests of:
restriction, not the wisdom of the legislation
o (i) public order
itself (Chintamanrao v. M.P.).
o (ii) sovereignty of India
• “Restriction” includes prohibition (Narendra
o (iii) integrity of India
Kumar v. UOI).
3. Illustrations of Valid Restrictions
Key Illustrations & Case Snippets
• Rameshwar v State (1957): ban on meetings
• Election speech vs. candidacy conditions:
on polling‐day (RPA 1951 § 126) held valid as
Representation of the People Act conditions
public‐order measure.
on candidacy don’t breach free speech
• State v Mangala (1957): prohibition of opium‐
(Jamuna Prasad v. Lachhi Ram).
smoking assemblies (UP Opium Smoking Act §
• Commercial advertising: right to advertise
14) upheld.
goods/services not protected (Hamdard
• Bihar Govt. Rules barring civil servants from
Dawakhana v. UOI).
strikes/demonstrations struck down as ultra
vires.
4. Unlawful Assembly
5
 • Old IPC § 141 , BNS 189: five or more persons o movement across internal boundaries
with common criminal‐force object → (State ↔ State; district ↔ district)
unlawful. o does not cover general locomotion
3. Freedom to form associations [Art. rights outside “Indian territory”
• Test-case: Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) –
19(1Xc) & 19(4)1
right tied to internal mobility, not to external
Art. 19(1)(c) – Freedom to Form Associations
travel or vehicular use
• Right: all citizens may form associations or
unions (includes meetings, collective bodies)
Art. 19(5) – Reasonable Restrictions on Movement
• Subject to Art. 19(4) reasonable restrictions in
• Permissible Grounds:
interests of:
o general public interest (e.g. public
o sovereignty & integrity of India
health, epidemic control, quarantine)
o public order
o protection of Scheduled Tribes (e.g.
o morality
creation of “protected areas” to guard
Key Case Laws
cultural/land rights)
• Ramkrishnaiah v. Nellore (1952 Mad.)
• Illustrations:
o Govt. order barring teachers from
o Official Secrets Act –
joining any union except approved
prohibited/protected places off-limits
ones → struck down as violative of
for security
Art. 19(1)(c)
o Health laws – restriction on
• State of Madras v. Row (1952 SC)
movement of persons with contagious
o Notification declaring “People’s
diseases
Education Society” unlawful →
• Externment & Internment:
subjective govt. satisfaction + no
o State may order externment (bar from
notice = unreasonable restriction
a locality) or internment (compel
• Sitharamachary v. Sr. Dy. Inspector (1958
residence)
A.P.)
o Reasonableness test: duration must
o Rules compulsorily making all
be finite and proportionate
elementary‐school teachers union
▪ Dr. Khare v. State (1950) –
members → void
indefinite externment prima
Incidental Rights & Limits
facie unreasonable;
• Right not to join: implied freedom not to be
permissible if statute itself is
compelled into any association
time-bound
(Sitharamachary)
• Right to strike: no fundamental right to strike
(All India Bank Employees Assn. v. NIT, 1962 5. Freedom to reside and settle in any
SC; Radhey Shyam v. PMG, 1965 SC) part of India (Art 19(1)(e) & (5)]
Comparative Note
• U.S.: no express constitutional guarantee, yet Art. 19(1)(e) – Freedom to Reside & Settle
judicially recognised as implied right • Right: every citizen may reside and settle
anywhere in India.
4. Freedom to move freely throughout • Corollary: inseparable from Art. 19(1)(d) (free
India [Art. 19(1)(d) & (5)] movement).

Art. 19(1)(d) – Freedom to Move Freely Throughout Art. 19(5) – Reasonable Restrictions
India • Permissible grounds:
• Right: every citizen may move and reside in o General public interest (e.g. health,
any part of the territory of India security, public peace)
• Scope:

6
 o Protection of Scheduled Tribes (e.g. o Lakshmindra’s Case (1954): narrowed
“protected areas” regimes) “property” to exclude incorporeal
• Restriction test: must be reasonable, interests
proportionate, subject to judicial review. • Interaction with Art. 31 (pre-Amendment):
o Art. 31(1): no deprivation of property
Case Illustrations except by law
• Dr. Khare v. State (1950) o Art. 31(2): compulsory acquisition
o Statute empowering externment on only for public purpose with
authority’s final satisfaction → upheld compensation
as reasonable (duration finite if Act o Gopalan’s Case: Art. 19(1)(f) right
temporary). inapplicable when property taken
• Gurbachan Singh v. Bombay (1952) under Art. 31; no judicial review of
o Bombay Police Act §27(1) externment acquisition reasonableness
order valid in public interest.
• State of M.P. v. Baldev Prasad (1961) Abolition by the Forty-Fourth Amendment (1978)
o Central Provinces & Berar Goondas • Art. 19(1)(f) & Art. 31 Deleted: right to
Act, 1946 struck down: no property ceased to be a Fundamental Right
determination that person was a • Legal Status: downgraded to a legal right
“goonda,” no opportunity to be heard under Art. 300A (“No person shall be deprived
→ procedural safeguard lacking. of his property save by authority of law.”)
• State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya (1964)
o Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Post-Amendment Position & Updates
Women & Girls Act §20 (now • Art. 300A – sole constitutional safeguard for
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, property rights; subject to statutory
1956 §20): deportation of prostitutes restrictions
from area → reasonable restriction. • Judicial Trends: courts now examine only
“authority of law” and adequacy of
6. Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose compensation, not “reasonableness” of
acquisition
of property [Art. 19(1)(f) & (5)]
(pre-44th Amendment)
• Scope: right to own, possess, use & freely
7. Freedom to practise any profession
transfer property [Art. 19(1Xg) & 6]
• Reasonable Restrictions (Art. 19(5)): valid in • Guarantee: citizen may choose and carry on
public interest or for Scheduled Tribe any profession, trade, business or occupation.
protection • Includes: right to open and to close a business
• Key Cases:
at will; and right not to engage in any calling.
o Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. UOI (1951):
• No Monopoly: does not confer exclusive right
includes “enjoyment” of all
on any individual or group to any profession
proprietary benefits (possession, use,
profit) or trade.
o Ganpatsinghji v. Ajmer (AIR Ajm. • Permissible Qualifications: State may
1951): right to hold a fair on one’s prescribe mental, physical, technical, moral,
land protected; only Art. 19(5) disciplinary standards (e.g. Bar Council
restrictions allowed enrollment).
o Bhav Ram v. Brij Nath (1962): pre- • Competition: no fundamental right to be free
emption by vicinage declared void— from competition (Nagar Rice Mills v. NTC
unreasonable interference with Bros., 1971).
disposal right
• State Trade-Monopoly Exception:

7
 o 1st Amendment (1951): “State o Petition-writer had no right to
may carry on trade… to exclusion practise in Collectorate compound.
of private citizens” without having Emergency Suspension
to show reasonableness. • Art. 358: while National Emergency is in
Art. 19(6) – Reasonable Restrictions on (1)(g) force, all Art. 19 rights (including (1)(g) &
State may by law: (6)) are suspended, reviving upon expiry
• (a) impose reasonable restrictions in of the Proclamation.
public-welfare interest (e.g. lock-outs,
public-utility controls).
• (b) prescribe professional/technical
qualifications for any trade or profession.
• (c) carry on any trade, business, industry
or service itself (or via State-controlled
corporation), wholly or partly, excluding
private citizens.
Illustrative Cases
• Chintamanrao v. State of M.P. (1960):
total ban on bidi manufacture during
harvest unreasonable → violates Art.
19(1)(g).
• Bombay Hawkers Union v. BMC (1985):
licensing/hawker-removal powers on
public streets = reasonable public-order
restriction.
• State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony (1994):
ban on mechanized trawlers to protect
small fishermen = reasonable.
• R.M.D. Chamabhaghwalla v. State of
Bombay (1956): gambling ≠ “business” →
no Art. 19(1)(g) protection.
• Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
(1958):
o Total cow slaughter ban =
reasonable (Art. 48 DP);
o Total ban on spent buffaloes =
valid;
o Total ban on buffaloes/bulls after
economic use = unreasonable.
• Others:
o Prostitution, smuggling,
adulterated-food trade = not
“profession”/“business” under Art.
19(1)(g).
o Studying in university ≠
“occupation.”
8
2.4- Fundamental Rights under (Magbool Hasan v. Bombay, 1953; S.A.
Venkataraman v. UOI, 1954)
Articles 20 and 22. • Distinct Offences: Separate trials allowed
if offences are legally distinct (hurt vs
Protection In Respect of Conviction For affray) even if arising from same facts
Offences (Art. 20) (Sardul Singh v. Maharashtra, 1984)

Art. 20(1) – Protection Against Ex Post Facto Art. 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination
• Scope: Accused cannot be compelled to
Laws
• Scope: No conviction or heavier penalty
testify against self; privilege may be
than law in force when offence committed waived
• Compulsion: Physical or mental coercion;
• Key Points:
o Bars retrospective creation of
voluntary statements/confessions
offences or enhanced punishments admissible if free of inducement/threat
• “Witness” Defined (Kathi Kalu Oghad v.
o Applies equally to pre- and post-
Constitution statutes Bombay, 1961):
o Does not cover purely disciplinary
1. Mere custodial questioning ≠
proceedings (Pandurang Swamy v. compulsion
A.P., 1971 AP) 2. “Witness” = oral/ written
o “Penalty” must be penalty for an
testimony of personal knowledge
offence—not e.g. water charges 3. Finger/thumb-prints, bodily
(Jawla Ram v. Pepsu, 1962 SC) identification ≠ “witness”
• Illustrations:
4. Accused status at time of
o Rao Shiva Bahadur Singh v. U.P.
statement is prerequisite
• Non-applicability:
(1953): ex post facto laws are
o Production of documents to non-
“inequitable and unjust”
o Kedar Nath v. W.B. (1953):
judicial bodies (e.g. Company Act
enhanced punishment under inspections) (Narayanlal Bansilal,
amended Act inapplicable to 1947 1961)
o Statements during non-criminal
offence
o Kanaiyalal v. Indumati (1958): rent-
inquiries if no formal accusation
act penalty must attach to moment exists at that time (Balkrishna
Act in force, else ex post facto Devidayal, 1980)
o Passive seizure under valid search

Art. 20(2) – Protection Against Double Jeopardy warrant (V.S. Kuttan Pillai v.
• Scope: No person may be prosecuted and
Ramkrishnan)
punished more than once for the same
offence
• Essentials (Thomas Das v. Punjab, 1959):
Previous prosecution, resulting in
punishment, for the same offence
• “Prosecution” & “Punishment”: Must be
judicial; administrative sanctions (e.g.
customs confiscation) don’t qualify

9
Protection Against Arrest And Detention 3. Art. 22(5)–(6): Communication &
In Certain Cases (Art. 22) Representation
o Must communicate grounds of

A. Ordinary Arrests [Art. 22(1)–(3)] detention promptly.

o Must give earliest opportunity to
1. Art. 22(1): Right on Arrest
o Must be informed, as soon as may
make representation against
be, of grounds for arrest. order.
o Authority may withhold “facts” it
o Entitled to consult & be defended
by a lawyer of choice (no State- deems against public interest.
o Key Case: Saleh Mohammed v. UOI
supplied counsel guarantee).
o Key Case: Janardhan v. Hyderabad
– unreasonable delay in processing
– right to opportunity to engage representation (³ weeks) →
counsel, not State-provided lawyer. release.
o Grounds vs. Facts: grounds =
2. Art. 22(2): Production & Judicial Control
o Must be produced before nearest
conclusions; facts = evidence.
Magistrate within 24 hours of 4. Art. 22(7): Legislative Prescriptions
o Parliament may enact law fixing:
arrest (excluding travel time).
▪ (a) maximum detention
o No further detention without
Magistrate’s authority. period (≤ 3 months unless
o Key Case: Ganpati v. Nafisul
Board report).
▪ (b) Advisory Board inquiry
Hussain – non-production within
24 h under assembly-speaker procedure.
warrant → release order. 5. Judicial Oversight & Remedies
o Review law’s validity: within
o Scope: protects against
warrantless arrests (Punjab v. Alat legislature’s competence; not a
Singh; Madhu Limaye). “guise” for non-preventive purpose
3. Art. 22(3): Exceptions (Laxminarayan).
o Examine grounds: must be
o Enemy aliens.
o Persons detained under preventive
relevant, non-vague, rationally
detention laws (covered connected to statute’s objective
separately). (Gopalan; Prem Nath).
o Assess sufficiency: can detenue

B. Preventive Detention [Art. 22(4)–(7)] make effective representation?

Detention without trial to prevent likely threat to (Atmaram Vaidya).
o Cannot probe truth of underlying
security/public order, not to punish past acts.
1. Art. 22(4): Maximum 3-Month Limit facts or merits of detention order
o Any detention beyond 3 months
(Bhim Sen).
o Watchdog Role: Frances Mullin v.
requires Advisory Board report of
“sufficient cause.” Khambra – courts must maintain
o Board must report before expiry of
“eternal vigilance.”
o Judicial Warning: Talwandi –
3 months.
2. Advisory Board Composition “preventive detention… a
o Chair: serving High Court Judge.
necessary evil,” must obey strict
o Members: ≥2 serving/retired High
constitutional terms.
Court Judges.
10
2.5- Article 21 and 21A – Right to Life o Right to livelihood integral to right
to life; eviction of pavement
and Personal Liberty & Right to dwellers unconstitutional.
Education. 5. Unnikrishnan v. A.P. (1993):
o Art. 21’s “personal liberty”
“No person shall be deprived of his life or embraces unenumerated rights:
personal liberty except according to procedure education, health, environment,
established by law.” shelter, travel abroad, legal aid,
dignity.
A. Scope & Object
• Restrains Executive: no arbitrary E. Enumerated & Unenumerated Rights under
deprivation of life/liberty without legal Art. 21
authority. • Right to Livelihood (Olga Tellis)
• Distinct from Art. 19: Art. 19 restricts • Right to Speedy Trial (Hussainara
freedoms; Art. 21 protects life/liberty Khatoon)
itself. • Right to Privacy & Dignity (Kharak Singh;
Puttaswamy, 2017)
B. “Life” & “Personal Liberty” • Right to Legal Aid (Hussainara)
• Life: not only biological existence but • Right to Live with Dignity (Unnikrishnan)
quality of living with dignity. • Right to Healthy Environment (Subhash
• Personal Liberty: freedom from physical Kumar v. Bihar, 1991)
restraint except under lawful process. • Right to Health & Medical Care
• Right to Shelter & Housing
C. “Procedure Established by Law” • Right to Education
• Gopalan v. Madras (1950): “law” = any • Right to Travel Abroad
State-made law; no guarantee of fairness
or natural law. F. Latest Developments
• Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978): overruled • Right to Privacy: Puttaswamy v. UOI
Gopalan; procedure must be just, fair & (2017) affirmed as fundamental under Art.
reasonable; subject to Arts. 14 & 19 21.
(“golden triangle”). • Environmental Rights: Pollution control,
clean water rights recognized under Art.
D. Landmark Judgments 21.
1. Kharak Singh v. U.P. (1963): nocturnal • Healthcare Rights: emergent
domiciliary visits by police violate right to jurisprudence during public-health crises
privacy/dignity. (e.g., COVID-19 lockdowns).
2. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar (1966):
prisoner’s right to publish & circulate
books upheld.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar (1979):
o Unconstitutional to keep under-
trials indefinitely → right to speedy
trial is part of Art. 21 procedure.
4. Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985):

11
Art. 21A – Right to Education • Unni Krishnan v. A.P. (1993): “free
1. Constitutional Basis education” directive under Art. 45
• 86th Amendment (2002): inserted Art. justiciable post-21A insertion
21A • Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI (2008):
• Pre-Amendment: free & compulsory upheld 93rd Amendment reservations
education for 0–14 yrs under Directive under Art. 15(5) and affirmed Art. 21A
Principle (Art. 45) justiciability
“The State shall provide free and compulsory • Society for Unaided Private Schools v.
education to all children of the age of six to UOI (2012): struck down RTE fees cap in
fourteen years in such manner as the State may, private unaided schools beyond 25%
by law, determine.” quota

2. Key Features 5. Justiciability & Enforcement

• Free & Compulsory: no fees or charges; • Fundamental Right: enforceable under
schooling must be provided at State Art. 32/226 writ jurisdiction
expense • State Laws: must conform to RTE Act &
• Age Group: 6 – 14 years (match with Supreme Court directives
primary & upper primary levels) • Grievance Redressal: School Management
• State’s Discretion: “in such manner as the Committees; State Commissions for
State may, by law, determine” → enables Protection of Child Rights
detailed legislation
6. Recent Developments
3. Implementation – Right of Children to Free • NEP 2020 Alignment: phasing in universal
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 pre-primary education; extending right to
• Coverage: all children 6 – 14 in 3–18 years (proposed)
government, aided & unaided schools • Judicial Scrutiny: courts ensure
• 25% Reservation: un-aided schools must compliance with norms, e.g., adequate
admit disadvantaged children up to 25% teacher appointments and facility
seating, State-funded standards.
• Norms & Standards:
o Pupil–Teacher Ratio (max 30:1)
o Infrastructure: safe buildings,
drinking water, toilets
o Curriculum: no detention until
class VIII; continuous &
comprehensive evaluation
• Prohibitions: no capitation fees, no
screening at entry; no physical
punishment or mental harassment

4. Judicial Recognition & Case Law

• Mohini Jain v. Karnataka (1992): read
right to education into Art. 21 (pre-21A)
on “life” right

12