19(1)(b): Right of Assembly:

• Right to hold meetings and to take out processions.

• Restrictions:
• Assembly must be unarmed and peaceful.
• Reasonable Restrictions –
• in the interests of public order or the sovereignty and
integrity of India.
 19(1)(c): Right to form Unions,
Associations or Cooperative Societies:
• All citizens shall have the freedom to form associations or
unions.
• Political parties, clubs, societies, trade unions, companies
and indeed every body of persons.
• Reasonable Restrictions:
• Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order and morality.
19(1)(d): Right of Movement:
• Entitles citizens to move freely throughout the territory of
India.
• Purpose is to promote national feeling.
• Restrictions:
• The interests of general public and the protection of
interests of any scheduled tribe.
• 2 dimensions – internal and external.
19(1)(e): Right to Residence:

• The purpose of this clause is to remove internal barriers

within the territory of India so as to enable every citizen to
travel freely and settle down in any part of a State or Union
Territory.
• Reasonable Restrictions:
• In the interests of general public and for the protection of
the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.
Cases:
• P. Arumughan v. State of Madras (restrictions of residence
on habitual offenders have been upheld as imposing
reasonable restrictions)
19(1)(f): Right to Property:
• Repealed.
19(1)(g): Right of Trade and
Occupation:
• All citizens have the right to practise any profession or to
carry on any occupation or trade or business.
• Freedom is not uncontrolled.
Reasonable Restrictions:

i. in the interests of the general public.

ii. prescribes professional or technical qualification.
iii. State can carry on any trade or business to the exclusion
of private citizens, wholly or partially.
 Article 20
Protection in respect of conviction for
offences
 20(1)
• No person shall be convicted of any offence except for
violation of the law in force at the time of the
commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of
the commission of the offence.
 Ex Post Facto Laws:
• 20(1) similar to no Ex Post Facto Laws of the US
Constitution.
• An act that was lawful when done cannot be declared or
made unlawful or made an offence by a law made after
the commission of an act.
 20(2)
• No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once.
• Based on the maxim ‘nemo debet bis vexari’ – a man
shall not be brought into danger for one and the same
offence more than once.
Double Jeopardy
 20(3)
• No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
• Similar to US Constitution – 5th Amendment provides
that no person shall be compelled in any case to be a
witness against himself.
 Selvi vs State of Karnataka
(2010)
• Involuntary admission of scientific tests such as
narcoanalysis, polygraph examination violate Article
20(3) and also Right to Privacy.
• 20(3), however, does not bar voluntary administered
tests.
 Article 21
Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Right to Life:
• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY
LAW.
• ‘Life’ is not merely the physical act of breathing.
 Inferred Rights:
• Right to live with human dignity.
• Right to decent environment.
• Right to livelihood.
• Right to shelter.
• Right to privacy.
• Right to health.
• Right to fair and speedy trial.
• Right to travel abroad.
• Right against solitary confinement.
Significance of Article 21
• It makes a distinction between a Constitutional and a Police
State.
• Backbone of Part III and IV.
Procedure Established by Law:
• Firstly, there must be a law justifying interference with the
person’s life or personal liberty.
• Secondly, the law should be a valid law; and
• Thirdly, the procedure laid down by the law should have
been strictly followed.
• If the 3 conditions are satisfied the court will not go behind
the intentions of the legislature and uphold the deprivation
of the life or liberty of an individual – even if the law is
unreasonable and unjust.
• Protection against the executive alone.
Due Process of Law:
• The court will examine a law to ascertain if it is a just law.
• Lawrence v/s Texas (2003).
• Protection against executive as well as legislature.
 From ‘Procedure Established’ to
‘Due Process’:
• A.K Gopalan v/s State of Madras (1950) – no protection
against the Legislature.
• ADM, Jabalpur v/s Shivakant Shukla (1976) – procedure
established by law.
 Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India
(1978):
• Law has to be reasonable – which is an essence of equality
under article 14.
• The procedure must be ‘right, just and fair’.
• Procedure must conform to ‘Principles of Natural Justice’:
• i) no body shall be sentenced without being heard.
• ii) no person shall be the judge of his own case; and,
• iii) the authority shall act bonafide.
• Central Inland Water Transport Corp. Ltd v/s Brojo Nath
Ganguly (1984) – PNJ are found in Article 14 of the
Constitution.
 Article 21- A
The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002
inserted Article 21-A in the Constitution of India to provide
free and compulsory education of all children in the age
group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right in
such a manner as the State may, by law, determine.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(RTE) Act, 2009, which represents the consequential
legislation envisaged under Article 21-A, means that every
child has a right to full time elementary education of
satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which
satisfies certain essential norms and standards.
• Article 21-A and the RTE Act came into effect on 1 April 2010. The title
of the RTE Act incorporates the words ‘free and compulsory’.
• ‘Free education’ means that no child, other than a child who has been
admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by
the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or
charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education.
• ‘Compulsory education’ casts an obligation on the appropriate
Government and local authorities to provide and ensure admission,
attendance and completion of elementary education by all children in
the 6-14 age group.
• With this, India has moved forward to a rights based framework that
casts a legal obligation on the Central and State Governments to
implement this fundamental child right as enshrined in the Article 21A
of the Constitution, in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act.
 Article 21- A
The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002
inserted Article 21-A in the Constitution of India to provide
free and compulsory education of all children in the
age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental
Right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(RTE) Act, 2009, which represents the consequential
legislation envisaged under Article 21-A, means that every
child has a right to full time elementary education of
satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school which
satisfies certain essential norms and standards.
• Article 21-A and the RTE Act came into effect on 1 April 2010. The title
of the RTE Act incorporates the words ‘free and compulsory’.
• ‘Free education’ means that no child, other than a child who has been
admitted by his or her parents to a school which is not supported by
the appropriate Government, shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or
charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and
completing elementary education.
• ‘Compulsory education’ casts an obligation on the appropriate
Government and local authorities to provide and ensure admission,
attendance and completion of elementary education by all children in
the 6-14 age group.
• With this, India has moved forward to a rights based framework that
casts a legal obligation on the Central and State Governments to
implement this fundamental child right as enshrined in the Article 21A
of the Constitution, in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act.
 Article 22
Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
1. No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to
consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice.
2. Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall
be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period
of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained
in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a
magistrate.
Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy
alien; or
b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any
law providing for preventive detention.
No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of
a person for a longer period than three months unless—
an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are
qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before
the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its
opinion sufficient cause for such detention.
When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any
law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order
shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds
on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order.
(Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order
as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority
considers to be against the public interest to disclose)
Right Against
Exploitation
Articles 23 & 24
Prohibition of traffic in
human beings and
forced labour
Article 23
• Traffic in human beings means to deal in men and
women like goods.
• Slavery is not explicitly mentioned, but there is no
doubt that the expression ‘traffic in human beings’
would cover it. (Dubar Goala v/s Union of India)
Rigorous imprisonment and
forced labour:
People’s Union for Democratic Rights
v/s Union of India (1982)
 Exception...
• It permits the State to impose compulsory service for
public purposes, eg military service or social
service, for which it is not bound to pay.
• However, no discrimination on the grounds of ONLY
religion, race, caste or class.
Article 24
THE CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016
• “An Act to prohibit the engagement of children in
all occupations and to prohibit the engagement of
adolescents in hazardous occupations and processes”.
 Provisions...
• No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any
occupation or process.
• Exception: if the Child—
(a) helps his family or family enterprise, which is other than
any hazardous occupations, after his school hours or during
vacations;
(b) works as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry,
including advertisement, films, television serials or any such
other entertainment or sports activities except the circus.
• Provided that no such work under this clause shall affect
the school education of the child.
• No adolescent shall be employed or permitted to work
in any of the hazardous occupations or processes.
 Penalties...
• Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work
in contravention of the provisions of this law shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months but which may extend to
two years, or with fine which shall not be less than
twenty thousand rupees but which may extend to
fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
• IMPORTANT POINT: Provided that the parents or
guardians of such children shall not be punished
unless they permit such child for commercial
purposes in contravention of the law.
• Whoever employs any adolescent or permits any
adolescent to work in contravention of the provisions of
the law shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than six months but which
may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be
less than twenty thousand rupees but which may
extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.
• IMPORTANT POINT: Provided that the parents or
guardians of such adolescent shall not be punished
unless they permit such adolescent to work in
contravention of the law.
ANALYSIS
PROS & CONS
Arguments in Favour
 Concerns
• One, it has slashed the list of hazardous occupations for
children from 83 to include just mining, explosives, and
occupations mentioned in the Factory Act. This means
that work in chemical mixing units, cotton farms,
battery recycling units, and brick kilns, among others,
have been dropped.
• Further, even the ones listed as hazardous can be
removed, according to Section 4 — not by Parliament
but by government authorities at their own discretion.
• Section 3 in Clause 5 allows child labour in “family or
family enterprises” or allows the child to be “an artist in
an audio-visual entertainment industry”. Since most of
India’s child labour is caste-based work, with poor
families trapped in intergenerational debt bondage, this
refers to most of the country’s child labourers.
• The clause is also dangerous as it does not define the
hours of work; it simply states that children may work
after school hours or during vacations.
• If the amendments intended to preserve Indian art and
craft by enabling parents with traditional skills to pass
them on to their children, this should be done through
reform and investment in education. Slashed budgets
should be restored; mid-day meals should re-instituted;
and secure housing should be provided through the
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan boarding schools to homeless
children. Artisans should be hired as teachers to pass
on traditional knowledge and skills to the next
generation.
Right to Freedom of
Religion
Articles 25 to 28
Freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and
propagation of religion
Article 25
 Article 25
• Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion.
Subject to public order, morality and health and
to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
 Exceptions:
• The State can regulate or restrict any economic,
financial, political or other secular activity which may
be associated with religious practice.
• The State is provided with the power for social welfare
and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and
sections of Hindus.
• The High Court of Australia - Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc
vs Commonwealth in 1943: “What is religion to one is
superstition to another.”
• India’s Supreme Court : We will define “essential
religious practices”.
 Shirur Mutt case (1954)
• The court held that the term “religion” will cover all
rituals and practices “integral” to a religion, and took
upon itself the responsibility of determining the
essential and non-essential practices of a religion.
• The essentiality/integrality doctrine has tended to lead
the court into an area that is beyond its competence,
and given judges the power to decide purely religious
questions.
• In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), it was held that the
term “religion” will cover all rituals and practices
“integral” to a religion. The SC took upon itself the
responsibility of determining what is integral. The court
said that the question of religion would be decided by
taking into consideration what the religious
denomination considered essential or crucial. This is
called the “essentiality test”. But this exercise produces
obscure results and tends to lead the court into an area
beyond its competence.
 Criticism of ERP
• Freedom of religion was meant to guarantee freedom to
practice one’s beliefs based on the concept of “inward
association” of man with God. The apex court in Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi vs The State of Bombay and Ors
(March 18, 1954) acknowledged that “every person has
a fundamental right to entertain such religious beliefs as
may be approved by his judgment or conscience”. The
framers of the Constitution wanted to give this
autonomy to each individual. The essentiality test
impinges on this autonomy. The apex court has itself
emphasised autonomy and choice in its Privacy (2017),
377 (2018), and Adultery (2019) judgments.
• In Gramsabha of Village Battis Shirala vs Union of India and Ors
(2014), a particular sect relied on the Shrinath Lilamrut to claim before
the Bombay High Court that capturing and worshipping a live
cobra during the Nagpanchami festival was an essential part of
their religion. The court, however, put reliance on Dr P V Kane’s
Dharmashastracha Ithihas, which referred to the general Hindu
practice, to reject this contention.
• In a case where a Muslim police officer challenged in Kerala High Court
a regulation that did not permit him to grow a beard, the court, rather
than looking at the question of essentiality of beard in Islam,
rejected the petitioner’s plea by simply relying on the fact that certain
Muslim dignitaries do not sport beards, and that the petitioner did not
have a beard in his previous years of service. The court looked at
empirical evidence of the practice, rather than at religious texts.
However, despite empirical evidence to the contrary, courts have
denied protection to the animal sacrifice among Hindus, terming the
practice as barbaric
• In the First Ananda Margi case, the apex court relied on
the doctrine of precedent to hold that tandava dance
was not an essential practice of the Ananda Margi faith.
It also said that the faith had come into existence in
1955, while the tandava dance was adopted only in
1966 — therefore, as the faith had existed without the
practice, the practice could not be accepted as an
essential feature of the faith.
SC Verdict on
Sabarimala
Sep, 2018
 5 Judge Constitution Bench
• Patriarchy cannot trump freedom to practice
religion.
• "One side we pray to goddesses; on the other, women
of a certain age are considered 'impure'. This dualistic
approach is nothing but patriarchy practised in religion.
The ban 'exacts' more purity from women than men''.
 CJI and Justice Khanwilkar
• Chief Justice Misra wrote that relation with the Creator was a
transcending one. Physiological and biological barriers
created by rigid social dogma had no place.
• The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar held that the Sabarimala
prohibition was a prejudice against women, which was zealously
propagated and was not an essential part of religion.
• The majority view declared Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act of 1965, which
mandates the prohibition in Sabarimala temple, as ultra vires
the Constitution.
• The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar held that the Rule violated the
fundamental right of a Hindu woman to offer worship at a place of
her choice. Right to worship is equally available to men and
women.
 Justice Chandrachud
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that to treat women as
the children of a lesser God was to blink at the
Constitution.
• The prohibition was a form of untouchability.
 Justice Indu Malhotra
• Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the Constitution
Bench, dissented from the majority opinion. She held that the
determination of what constituted an essential practice in a
religion should not be decided by judges on the basis of their
personal viewpoints. She held that essentiality of a religious
practice or custom had to be decided within the religion. It was a
matter of personal faith. India was a land of diverse faiths.
Constitutional morality in a pluralistic society gave freedom to
practice even irrational or illogical customs and usages.
• Justice Malhotra observed that the freedom to practice their
beliefs was enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.
Harmonisation of fundamental rights with religion included
providing freedom for diverse sects to practise their customs and
beliefs.
Sabarimala Review
• Denial of entry to Muslim women inside a dargah or a
mosque.
• Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).
• Ban on Parsi woman who marry outside her community
entry into the fire temples and participate in other
religious rituals.
 Sabarimala Review
• No new facts discovered, nor was an error pointed out
in 2018 judgment.
• Compliance with a SC order is not optional, not a
matter of choice.
 (i) Interplay between the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and
26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article
14.
(ii) What is the sweep of expression ‘public order, morality and
health’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
iii) The extent to which the court can enquire into the issue of a
particular practice is an integral part of the religion or religious practice of
a particular religious denomination or should that be left exclusively to be
determined by the head of the section of the religious group.
(iv) What would be the permissible extent of judicial recognition to
PILs in matters calling into question religious practices of a denomination
or a section thereof at the instance of persons who do not belong to such
religious denomination?
Freedom to manage
Religious Affairs
Article 26
Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination shall have the right –
a) To establish and maintain institutions for religious
and charitable purposes;
b) To manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
c) To own and acquire movable and immovable
property;
d) To administer such property in accordance with
the law.
Freedom as to payment of taxes for
promotion of any particular religion
Article 27
• No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the
proceeds of which are specifically appropriated for the
promotion or maintenance of any particular
religion.
Freedom as to attendance at religious
instruction or religious worship in
certain educational institutions -
Article 28
 Types:
• Institutions wholly maintained by the State;
• Institutions recognised by the State;
• Institutions receiving aid from the State;
• Institutions established by the Religious Charitable
Trusts and administered by the State
 Cultural &
Educational Rights
Articles 29 and 30
Protection of interests
of Minorities
Article 29
• Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of
India or any part thereof having a distinct language,
script or culture of its own shall have the right to
conserve the same.
• No citizen shall be denied admission into any
educational institution maintained by the State or
receiving aid out of the State funds on grounds ONLY
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
• Right to conserve the language of the citizens includes
the right to agitate for the protection of the
language.
Right of Minorities to establish
and administer educational
institutions
Article 30
• All minorities, whether based on religion or language,
shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice.
• The State shall not discriminate, in granting aid to
the educational institutions, on the ground that it is
under the management of a minority, whether based on
language or religion.
 AMU Minority Status
Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v
Naresh Agarwal

1 What are the parameters for granting an educational

institution Minority Status under Article 30 of the
Constitution?

2 Can an educational institution created by a

parliamentary statute enjoy Minority Status under Article
30 of the Constitution?
 Azeez Basha v Union of India (1968)
• In 1965, the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 was amended to
dilute the powers of governance that had been entrusted to the
University Court. The University Court was made an advisory body and
the composition of the Court was also altered so as to increase the
number of persons nominated by the President of India. The
amendment was challenged before a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court of India in Azeez Basha v Union of India.
• The petitioners argued that the amendment violated the rights
guaranteed to them by Article 30. They no longer could exercise the
freedom to administer the university as per their choice as minorities.
• The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, on the grounds that
the AMU was brought into existence by the Central Legislature
and the Government of India. Art. 30(1), the Court held, only
protects educational institutions brought into existence and
administered by a minority.
 T.M.A Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka

• In 2003, an 11 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court decided the scope of right
of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(2) of the Constitution.
• The majority opinion delivered by 6 Judges held that only the State can
determine the status of a religious or linguistic minority and religious
and linguistic minorities, who have been put on a par in Article 30, have to be
considered State-wise.
• However, the right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the
national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations and
any regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all
educational institutions, whether run by the majority or the minority. Such a
limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30.
• Government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the
institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion.
Right to Constitutional
Remedies
Article 32
Habeas Corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Certiorari
Quo Warranto
Power of Parliament
to modify the rights
Article 33
A) members of armed forces; or
B) members of the forces charged with the maintenance
of law and order; or
C) intelligence and counter-intelligence; or
D) persons working in telecommunication systems
Martial Law
Article 34
 Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial
law is in force in any area

• Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of

this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person
in the service of the Union or of a State or any other
person in respect of any act done by him in connection
with the maintenance or restoration of order in any
area within the territory of India where martial law was
in force.
Legislation to give
effect to the FRs
Article 35
Article 32 vs Article 226