SET P-III:21(2392025) :COI(RIGHT TO LIFE )Rev.1: CIVIL SERVICES (PRELIMS), 2026
NOTES ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (for G S
Papers) {Prepared on 23 .9.2025 }
For Study purpose only
NB: For any doubts clarification, please refer to the recommended text books
TOPIC : RIGHT TO LIFE [with questions
already asked in previous
UPSC(CSE)(Prelims) Exams.]
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS ON CONSTITUTION OF iNDIA
TOPIC : RIGHT TO LIFE
ARTICLE : 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—”No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law “
Note: 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India in
1978:- Amendment of article 359.-In article 359 of the
Constitution,-
(a) in clauses (1) and (1A), for the words and figures "the rights conferred by Part III", the words, figures and brackets "the rights conferred by Part III (except articles
20 and 21)" shall be substituted;
(b) after clause (1A), the following clause shall be inserted,
namely:- "(1B) Nothing in clause (1A) shall apply-
(a) to any law which does not contain a recital to the effect that such law is in relation to the Proclamation of Emergency in operation when it is made; or
(b) to any executive action taken otherwise than under a law containing such a recital.".
Explanation: Even during emergency, Article 20 and 21 cannot be suspended, from its scope
================================ = Synopsis : -
What are the ingredients of Article 21 ?
Article 21 of the Constitution came up for interpretation a number of times before our Apex Court , and the Supreme
Court dealt with each aspect of Article 21 exhaustively and from a reading of those decisions the following ingredients emerged :
1)Person :It includes all persons not only citizens but every person regardless of nationality or the circumstances in which a person is placed. This implies that the protection guaranteed under Article 21 extends even to persons who are undergoing imprisonment in jails.
2)Deprived :
The second ingredient of Article 21 is that the comes into picture only when there is deprivation of life or personal liberty of a person. The term ‘deprived came for consideration in the famous case of A.K.Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27)
3)Life : The next important ingredient of Article 21 is the expression ‘Life’.
Right to life under Article 21 is some thing more than mere survival or animal existence. It is something more than mere breathing. The Supreme Court has held in Francis Vs. Union Territory (AIR 1981 SC 746) that right to life would include the right to live with human dignity.
With this interpretation given to Article 21, the door was made open for various kinds of rights which will have to be read into the Right to life with human dignity.
Thus the right to minimum subsisting during suspension (Chandrabhan’s case AIR1983 SC 803), right of a person not to be subjected to bonded labour or to unfair labour conditions. (People’s Union Vs. Union of India) (AIR 1982 SC 1473), right to livelihood by means which are not illegal, immoral or opposed to public property (DTC vs.Mazdoor (AIR 1991) ASC 102) immediate medical aid to every patient regardless of the question whether he is innocent or a guilty person (Paramanand Vs.Union of India, AIR 19898 SC 2029) all come under the fold of Article 21 as these rights are in one way or the other connected right to live with human dignity.
Personal liberty :
This expression is of the widest amplitude and it includes various kinds of rights like
i)Right to locomotion
ii)Right to travel abroad
iii)Right of a prisoner to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, 1979 SC 1360)
iv)Right of an employee in a disciplinary proceedings
(Board of Trustees Vs. Nadkarni , AIR 1983 SC 109)
v)Right to defence before an Advisory Board to take legal aid where the employer is represented by a lawyer (A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710)
Procedure established by Law :
A reading of Article 21 would go to show that a person may be deprived of his life or personal liberty only in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Therefore, the expression ‘procedure established by law’ means prescribed by law of the state:-
i)A.K.Gopalan case
ii)Makhan Singh case, 1964
iii)A.R.Antulay Vs.Naik , AIR 1988
iv)Hussainara Vs. State of Bihar 1979
v)Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India ,(AIR 1978 SC 597): It opened up a new dimension and now a limitation is imposed upon the law making itself.
The consequences of new dimension given to the expression ‘procedure established by law’ , is that we now have a new situation where every action of the state is being decided on the test of reasonableness while interpreting Article 21.
vii)Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 465): speedy trial of the accused
viii)Hussainar Khatoon’s case:
viii)Vishaka and others Vs.State of Rajasthan (AI R 1997 SC 3011), the Supreme Court observed that sexual harassment of a working women amounts to violtion of gender equality and violation of right guaranteed under Article 14,15 and 21
Right to Life :
A grand step was taken by the Supreme Court in expanding the scope of Art.21 , when it argued that ‘life’ in Article 21 does not mean merely ‘animal existence’ but living with human dignity’.
Right to Livelihood :
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life w ould be deprived him of means of livelihood tothe point of abrogation.
Right to Education:
Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858
The right to education flows directly from the right to life. And the right to education being concomitant to the fundamental right. The state is under a constitutional mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of the citizens.
Sexual Harassment :
Visakha Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra AIR 1999 SC 625: The ruling of Visakha has been reiterated by the SC
Right to Health :
Vincent Vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 990
Healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. Equal Pay for Equal Work :
State of MP Vs.Pramod Batiya AIR 1993
Right to medical care :
Paramanand Katara Vs. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 2039
Health of Labour :
CERC Vs. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 922
The court held that right to human dignity includes right to health , medical aid to protect the health and vigor of a worker while in service or post retirement is fundamental right under Article 21 read with the
directive principles in Article 39(1),41,43,48A
Care Homes:
Vikram Deo Singh Tomar Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1988
Right to Shelter :
Shantisar Builders Vs.Narayan Khimal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630 It would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and reasonable accommodation to life in.
Chameli Singh Vs. State of UP AIR 1996 SC 1050
The Supreme Court has emphasised upon the right to shelter and has expounded its own concept of a shelter.
“Shelter for a human being, therefore , is not a mere protection of his life and limbs. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally , intellectually and spiritually.
Right to shelter, therefore includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings , sufficient light, pure
air and water, electricity , sanitation and other shelter, therefore , does not mean a mere right to roof over once head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live, should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right.
Right to Environment :
Subhash Kumar Vs. Bihar 1991 SC 420 :The Apex Court has held that enjoyment of pollution free environment is included in the right to life under Art. 21.
AP Pollution Control Board Vs. M.V.Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812
SC has made very valuable suggestions for improvement of
adjudicatory machinery under the various environmental laws.
To sum up the discussion on Article 21 , the interpretation given by the Supreme Court with regard to Article 21 over the years, right from A.K.Gopalan’s case would go to show that Supreme Court through several landmark judgements, has in a remarkable and extraordinary manner brought within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution several other rights including directive principles of the Constitution and the people of this country owe a great debt to the Apex Court for commitment to rescue of every person in so far as protection of ‘life and ‘liberty’ is concerned.
============================================================= Article 21 asserts that no person shall be deprived of their life except according to the procedure established by law.
This means that every individual has the right to live, and their life cannot be taken away except in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures.
Article 21 secures two rights:
1) Right to life, and
2) Right to personal liberty
Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty’.
Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution of India . It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12. Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.
It prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.
‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider, including, including the right to live with human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to pollution-free air, etc.
The right to life is fundamental to our very existence, without which we cannot
live as human beings and includes all those aspects of life, which make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only Article in the Constitution that has received the broadest possible interpretation. Thus, the bare necessities,
minimum and basic requirements for a person from the core concept of the right to life.
Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12.
Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of Article 21.
============================================
The right to life encompasses various aspects,
including
a)the right to live with dignity,
b)the right to livelihood, and
c)the right to a healthy environment.
Article 21 also protects the personal liberty of individuals. It states that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Personal liberty includes:-
a)the freedom to move freely,
b)the freedom to choose one's place of residence, and c)he freedom to engage in any lawful occupation or
profession
The interpretation and scope of Article 21 have evolved through various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, expanding its ambit to include protection against torture, custodial violence, and the right to a clean and healthy environment.
It's important to note that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the rights guaranteed under Article 21 in the interests of public order, national security, public health, or morality.
However, such restrictions must be fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. ======================================== =
ANALYSIS : -
(1)About the word ‘No’ :-
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative words, the word ‘No’ has been used in relation to word deprived.
(2)Object : -
The object of fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law.
(3)Against ‘State’ only:-
It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against state only.
(3)Not against ‘private individuals:-
If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal liberty or deprivation of life of other person.
Such violation would not fall under the parameters set for the Article 21. In such cases the remedy for aggrieved person would be either under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law.
But, where an act of private individual supported by the state infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the act
will certainly come under the ambit of Article 21.
Article 21 of the Constitution deals with prevention of encroachment upon personal liberty or deprivation of life of a person.
The state cannot be defined in a restricted sense.
It includes :-
1) Government Departments
2)Legislature
3)Administration
4)Local authorities exercising statutory powers and so on so forth.
5)But it does not include:-
Non-statutory or private bodies having no statutory powers
Through various judgements the Apex Court has also included many of the non-justifiable Directive Principles of State Policy (part IV ) of Constitution of India, embodied under Part IV of the Constitution and some of the examples are as under:
1)Right to pollution free water and air
2)Protection of under-trial
3)Right of every child to a full development
4) Protection of cultural heritage
It was observed in Unni Krishnan’s case that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental Rights and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the education as well as the right to education flows from the right to life.
As a result of expansion of scope of Article 21, the Public Interest Litigations in respect of :-
a)children in jail being entitled to special protection,
b)health hazards due to pollution and harmful drugs,
c) housing for beggars ,
d)immediate medical aid to injured persons,
e)starvation deaths,
f)the right to know,
g)the right to open trial,
h)inhuman conditions in aftercare home have found place under it.
Judicial interpretations have ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widening by several landmark judgements
Some of them are:
1. Right to privacy
2. Right to go abroad
3. Right to shelter
4. Right against solitary confinement
5. Right to social justice and economic empowerment
6. Right against handcuffing
7. Right against custodial death
8. Right against delayed execution
9. Doctors’ assistance
10. Right against public hanging
11. Protection of cultural heritage
12. Right to pollution-free water and air
13. Right of every child to a full development
14. Right to health and medical aid
15. Right to education
16. Protection of under-trials
========================================== =What are the Rules Of Principles of Natural Justice ?
Ans :
1)No person shall be punished without being heard. 2)No person shall be judged by his own case.
3)An authority shall act Bonafide (good faith) without any bias. If the court finds it to be arbitrary or oppressive it will declare the law invalid and extend protection to the individual not against the arbitrary action of the executive but also against the Legislative and Executive.
================================================ Introduction :
Articles 19-22 deal with different aspects of
personal liberty (most important of all FRs)
• Article 21 of the Constitution says that: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
• The right guaranteed in Article 21 is available to ‘citizens’ as well as ‘non-citizens’.
Question: Whether non-citizens can seek Right to Life under Article 21 of Constitution of India ?
Ans : Yes
=============================== What is Golden Triangle?
• GOLDEN TRIANGLE (Constituents) =Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India , are not mutually exclusive and they jointly aim at reasonableness and fairness
• A law or administrative action challenged under Article 21 has to satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and fairness guaranteed by As 19 & 14 also
============================================= = What is ‘due process of law’?
Due process has two aspects. Substantive due process envisages that the substantive provisions of a
law should be reasonable and not arbitrary.
Procedural due process envisages a reasonable procedure, i.e., the person affected should have fair right of hearing which includes four elements;
1) Notice
2)Opportunity to be heard
3)An impartial tribunal
4) An orderly procedure
Briefly:-
Due Process of Law = Procedure Established by Law + The procedure should be fair and just and not arbitrary.
===================================
Our Supreme Court has by judicial interpretation expanded the scope of the fundamental rights, particularly in relation to article 21, and this has included more civil and political rights which were not explicit in Part III.
A new development is that of the principle of „basic structure‟ of the Constitution enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1973 in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
As to what are these basic features, the debate still continues. The Supreme Court has also held that the
scope of certain fundamental rights could be adjudged by reading into them or reading them not only in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy but also international covenants or conventions which were in harmony with the Fundamental Rights.
=================================
Definition of ‘State’ :
Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against ’the State‟. The definition of 'the State' in Article 12 of Constitution of India , being an ’inclusive‟ one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of „the State‟.
Rights against torture and inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment and punishment:-
Torture and inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment and punishment grossly violate human dignity. The Supreme Court has implied a right against torture, etc. by way of
interpretation of article 21 which deals with the right to life and liberty.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the ICCPR prohibit such acts in article 5 and article 7 respectively .
==========================================
Dt: 25.7.2024
Fundamental Right to Shelter:-
The Supreme Court on Wednesday 24.7.2024 urged a balance to be struck between railway infrastructure development at Haldwani, considered to be the doorway to the hills in Uttarakhand, and the fundamental right to shelter of nearly 50,000 people accused of illegally living on railway land. “They are also human beings,” a Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant observed.
The court said while it cannot be ruthless about the fate of these families, its orders cannot also be misinterpreted as a note of encouragement for future encroachments.
The hearing was based on an application filed by the Railways to modify a 2023 top court order staying a Uttarakhand High Court direction to evict these families
within a week. It said a flooding Ghaula river has disrupted railway operations in the region. The railway needed more land urgently to lay new tracks.
It asked the State Chief Secretary to meet with the Railway authorities and the Ministry of Urban Affairs to iron out a “fair and equitable” rehabilitation project for the families.
========================================= Right to Statutory bail or ‘Default bail’ : -
The right to statutory bail, often known as default bail, is available to accused persons in cases when the investigating agency fails to complete its investigation within the stipulated time. Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the maximum time available to investigators is 60 or 90 days, depending on the seriousness of the offence. If the authorities are unable to complete the investigation within this time period, the accused can seek to be released from custody by applying for default bail under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC. Notably, the ‘default’ characteristic of this bail comes from the fact that the application is unrelated to the merits of the case, and is designed to prevent long-term detention of the accused.
The right to default bail has been characterised by the Court in multiple judgments as an indefeasible right, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal
liberty.
Therefore, in cases where the investigating authorities attempted to circumvent this procedure, the Court rightly called out these tactics and refused to extend custodial detention of the accused. In Achpal vs State of Rajasthan (2018), the
Court held that an investigation report, albeit complete, if filed by an unauthorised investigating officer, would not bar the accused from availing default bail. In S. Kasi vs State (2020), the Court further stated that even during the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigating agencies would not be allowed any relaxation towards computing the maximum stipulated period of investigation, which could lead to additional detention of the accused. This interpretation draws from the history of Section 167 of the CrPC, which has its roots in a recommendation of the 41st Report of the Law Commission. Under the older version of the CrPC, accused persons could be detained for a maximum of 15 days. Noting the abuse of this provision by the police, who kept the accused under extended periods of custody by misusing other provisions pertaining to trial, the Law Commission recommended extending the period for which an accused could be detained in custody. This found its way into the CrPC through an amendment in 1978. To counter the powers granted to investigating authorities through extended detention, a provision for statutory bail was also introduced so as to ensure that the accused is not detained in custody for long periods of time.
============================================
Questions:
1)In which Article of Constitution of India ‘Protection of life and personal liberty’ is guaranteed ?
Ans : Article 21
2)Right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under ARticle 21 of the Constitution is only available against the State ? It is not available against whom ?
Ans : against the private individuals
3)The word ‘State’ is mentioned in which article of constitution of India ? Ans : Article 12
4)’State’ (Article 12) includes which of the following ?
a)Government of India and Parliament of India
b)Government of Legislatures of each state
c)All local or any other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India or State Governments or Union Territories d) All the above
Ans : d
5) MC Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath (1997) case supported which aspect under A4ticle
21 ?
Ans : ‘Ecology and public trust’ doctrine was highlighted under Article 21
6)In which case,it was decided ‘Right to Pollution free environment falls under Article 21 ?
Ans : Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420 (1991)
7) Any disturbance of the basic environmental elements namely air, water and soil which are necessary for ‘life’ would be hazardous to ‘life’ within the meaning of Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is decided in which case ? Ans : MC Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath AIR 2000 SC 1997
Note: Article 48 (A) of Directive Principles of State Policy of Constitution of India is given importance.
8)Eve teasing is violative of Right to life with dignity and honour guaranteed under Article 21. It was decided in which case ?
Ans : DIG of Police Vs. Samuthiram AIR 2013, SC 14
9) Many aspects of ‘Fair Procedure’ or reasonable and just procedure came up after which case, in the context of Article 21 ?
Ans : Maneka Gandhi Case AIR 1978
10) “Right to go abroad forms part of Article 21’. Decided in which case ? Ans : Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D.Rama Ratnam AIR 1967 SC 1836
11)’Hand cuffing is permitted only in extraordinary circumstances’. Said in which case? (Under Article 21)
Ans : Sunil Gupta Vs. State of MP (1990)
12)’Right to life includes Right to Health (Under Article 21) decided in which state ?
Ans :
State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla AIR 1997 SC 1225
13) Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India also includes right of patients to be treated with dignity . Decided in which case ?
Ans : Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha (2014) SCC384
14)Right to shelter is a fundamental right . It springs from Right to Residence (Art.19(1)(a) and Right to Life (Article 21), which are connected to it ) .It is decided in which case ?
Ans : Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Gulab Khan (1997) ; and UP Avas Evam Housing Prishad Vs. Friends Co-op Housing Society Ltd. (1995)
15)The word ‘Law’ which figures in Article 21 of Constitution of India should be a validly enacted law meaning thereby just , fair and reasonable. It was decided in which case ?
Ans : Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP AIR 2012 SC 16)Hussaina Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR (1980) relating to
which of the following ?
Ans : Legal aid to the accused
17)Right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life. (Article 21). It was decided in which case ?
Ans : Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (1994)
18) Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a patient in need of such treatment amounts to violation of the Right to Life (Article 21). In which of the following it was decided?
Ans : Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR)(1996); and Pt.Paramand Katara Vs. Union of India AIR 19889 (SC)
19) Medical Confidentiality : In which case, the Supreme Court has held that if a prospective spouse has an apprehension that the other (prospective)spouse is suffering from AIDS the former has a right to seek information about the latter’s disease from the hospital where blood reports of the latter are available? This right is part of the right to life.
Ans : Tokugha Yepthomu (Dr.) Vs. Apollo Hospitals JT 1998 (7) SC
20) In which case it was held that the test results of polygraph and BEAP/Braining fingerprinting test amount to testimonial compulsions and it hence violates right against self-incrimination and personal liberty under Article 21 ?
Ans : Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC
21)In which case it was held that Natural Justice is implicit in Article 21 ? Ans : Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1978
22)In which case it was held that a citizen’s passport cannot be impounded for an indefinite period of time (Under Article 21 ) ?
Ans : Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1978
23)In which case, it was held that if an industry is established without requisite permission and in blatant disregard of law to the detrimental of citizens’ right to life, the SC can interfere to protect right to life ?
Ans : Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Vs. Union of India IR 1996 SC 1446
24) In which case it was held that a person has a right to live with human dignity and so denial of electric supply would be violative of right to life under Article 21 ?
Ans : Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Bihar State Human Rights Commission AIR 2013
25) In which case , it was held that Free Education upto 14 years of Age comes under Article 21 , Right Life ?
Ans: Unnikrishnan J.P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
26) The idea of penumbral rights under Article 21 was first recognised in which case ?
Ans : Supreme Court of India has located ancillary rights of Article 21 in
Govind (recognising the Right to Privacy) . People say it established the idea of locating rights in penumbras or creating ‘satellite ‘ rights.
27)Right to Privacy and Aadhar Card :
In which case, it was unanimously held that the Right to Privacy was a part of one’s Right to Life granted by Article 21 and included the right to keep personal information private ?
Ans : Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (2015)
28)Right to Education was added under Article 21 A through which amendment ?
Ans : 86th Amendment to the Constitution of India 2002, as Fundamental Right
29) Which of following is correct about passive euthanasia in India(as on 2018) ?
(a)Common Cause Vs. Union of India, 2018 Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state .
(b)This decision was made as a part of the verdict in the famous case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been living in a vegetative state for more than 4 decades until her death in 2015
(c ) The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. (d)All the above
Ans : d
30) In the expanded interpretation of the right to life (under Article 21), which of the following also come (Ref: Some rights mentioned in the judgement of Unni Krishnan Vs.State Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178 and Francis Mullin Vs. Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi (1981))?
1. Right to privacy
2. Right to go abroad
3. Right to shelter
4. Right against solitary confinement
5. Right to social justice and economic empowerment
6. Right against handcuffing
7. Right against custodial death
8. Right against delayed execution
9. Doctors’ assistance
10. Right against public hanging
11. Protection of cultural heritage
12. Right to pollution-free water and air ‘
13. Right of every child to a full development
14. Right to health and medical aid
15. Right to education
16. Protection of under-trials
Ans : All the above
31) Consider the following (news on 13.9.2024):
1)Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in his separate opinion allowing bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday, 13.9.2024 upheld the right of an accused to remain silent during interrogation.
2)Justice Bhuyan, who was part of the two-judge Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, observed that an investigating agency cannot presume guilt or make an adverse inference against an accused who chose to remain mum.
3)“An accused has the right to remain silent; he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. No adverse inference can be drawn from the silence of the accused,” Justice Bhuyan stressed.
4)Justice Bhuyan invoked Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which mandated that an accused person must not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The judge observed that the protection against self-incrimination was not restricted to testimonies in court but also during the pre-trial stage, including at the time of interrogation by the police or a law enforcement agency.
5)Justice Bhuyan distinguished between an investigating agency’s power to arrest with the need to arrest, saying deprivation of the personal liberty of an individual by throwing him into jail “scars forever”.
6)“Power to arrest is one thing but the need to arrest is altogether a different thing,” Justice Bhuyan referred to judicial precedents of the top court championing liberty in his separate opinion on Friday.
7)He deprecated the attitude “to arrest first and then proceed with the rest”.
Just because an investigating agency had the power to arrest, it does not necessarily mean that it must arrest a person, Justice Bhuyan observed, questioning the timing and necessity of the CBI’s arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case 22 months after registering the FIR in August 2022.
8)“No arrest can be made just because it is lawful for police officers to do so. The existence of the power of arrest is one thing but justification for the exercise of it is quite another,” Justice Bhuyan underscored.
9)Probe agencies should draw a just balance between a citizen’s right under Articles 19 (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life and due procedure of law) of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate.
Which of the above is correct :
Ans : All the above (as per the news on 13.9.2024)
32)What are the Rights under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ? (A question in UPSC Civils Mains Exam 2012 Paper I)
33) Refugee Women’s rights : (Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects non-citizens also )
The Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed refugees’ inherent right to life under Article 21, encompassing the right to health.
33) ‘Right to Privacy’ is protected under which Article of the Constitution of India ? (UPSC Prelims 2021 GS Paper)
a)Article 15
b)Article 19
c)Article 21
d)Article 25
Ans : c
34)’Right to Privacy’ is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correct and appropriately imply the above statement ? (UPSC Prelims 2018 GS Paper)
(a)Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution (b)Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV ( c ) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of Constitution of India
(d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India
Ans : c
No comments:
Post a Comment