Unit-III: Constitutional Law-I-Rights Against Exploitation and Religion

Unit-III: Rights Against Exploitation and Religion

Table of Contents

Q Discuss the protection in respect of conviction for offences under Article 20.

🔍 Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences under Article 20

Rights Against Exploitation

🧾 Introduction

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution is a vital safeguard in the field of criminal jurisprudence. It guarantees protection to individuals in criminal trials and upholds the principles of natural justice, rule of law, and individual liberty. It enshrines three fundamental protections for individuals accused of criminal offences, which cannot be overridden even during emergencies under Article 359.

📜 Text of Article 20

Article 20 reads:

(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 that time.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

These three clauses correspond to:

  1. Protection against ex post facto laws (Clause 1)
  2. Protection against double jeopardy (Clause 2)
  3. Protection against self-incrimination (Clause 3)

🔹 1. Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws [Article 20(1)]

🔍 Meaning:

  • The clause prohibits the enactment of retrospective criminal laws.
  • A person cannot be punished for an act that was not a crime when committed, nor can a harsher punishment be imposed retrospectively.

⚖️ Case Law:

  • Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 404):
    The Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) applies only to criminal laws, not to civil liabilities.
  • Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444):
    The court held that a procedural change (such as appeal rights) can have retrospective application, but not substantive penal provisions.

🧠 Key Principle:

  • Substantive penal laws must always be prospective in nature to protect legal certainty and fairness.

🔹 2. Protection Against Double Jeopardy [Article 20(2)]

🔍 Meaning:

  • A person cannot be tried and punished more than once for the same offence.
  • This is based on the common law principle of “nemo debet bis vexari” — no one shall be punished twice for the same offence.

⚖️ Case Law:

  • Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (AIR 1953 SC 325):
    The court held that if a person is penalized by a customs authority (administrative tribunal), it does not amount to prosecution, so criminal trial is not barred.
  • S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954 AIR 375):
    Held that departmental disciplinary proceedings are not “prosecution” under Article 20(2).
  • V.C. Shukla v. CBI (1980):
    Double jeopardy applies only when the first punishment is imposed by a judicial tribunal.

🧠 Key Clarification:

  • To invoke protection under Article 20(2), two conditions must be met:
  1. The same person was prosecuted earlier.
  2. For the same offence under same facts.

🔹 3. Protection Against Self-Incrimination [Article 20(3)]

🔍 Meaning:

  • This clause grants the accused the right to remain silent.
  • An accused cannot be forced to give testimony that would be self-incriminating.

⚖️ Case Law:

  • M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (AIR 1954 SC 300):
    The Supreme Court ruled that the protection under Article 20(3) is available only to the accused in a criminal proceeding, not to any person under investigation or inquiry.
  • Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025):
    A landmark case that expanded the scope:
  • Held that an accused cannot be compelled to answer questions that could incriminate her.
  • The right extends to the stage of police interrogation as well.
  • Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010 7 SCC 263):
    Court held that narco-analysis, lie detector tests, and brain mapping conducted without consent violate Article 20(3).

🧠 Key Elements:

  • The accused must be compelled.
  • The information must be self-incriminating.
  • It must be a testimonial compulsion, not physical evidence (like fingerprints, blood samples, etc.).

📚 Scope and Importance

🔒 Why is Article 20 Important?

  1. Non-Derogable Right:
  • Article 20 is non-suspendable, even during a state of emergency under Article 359.
  1. Rule of Law:
  • Ensures that the law cannot be arbitrary or retrospective, and that individual rights are protected in criminal trials.
  1. Protection of Personal Liberty:
  • Shields individuals from police torture, arbitrary prosecution, and abuse of state power.

🔎 Limitations of Article 20

  • It does not apply to civil, tax, or preventive detention cases (unless converted to criminal).
  • Protection under Article 20(3) applies only to the accused, not witnesses or suspects.
  • Article 20(2) does not prevent parallel civil or disciplinary action.

📝 Conclusion

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution represents the bedrock of criminal justice and civil liberties. By safeguarding individuals from retroactive penal laws, double punishment, and forced self-incrimination, it embodies the democratic values of due process, fair trial, and human dignity.

As interpreted by Indian courts, these protections strike a delicate balance between state power and individual freedom, ensuring that constitutional morality and procedural fairness are not compromised in the administration of criminal justice.

Q- Explain the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Refer to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

🛡️ Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

📜 Text of Article 21:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

🧾 1. Introduction to Article 21

Article 21 is one of the most important and dynamic provisions of the Indian Constitution. It guarantees two fundamental rights:

  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty

Originally, this article was interpreted narrowly. However, over time, especially after the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), its scope has been greatly expanded through judicial interpretations to include several derived or implied rights such as the right to privacy, dignity, livelihood, education, and more.

🏛️ 2. Pre-Maneka Gandhi Era: A Narrow Interpretation

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that “procedure established by law” meant any procedure laid down in a law enacted by the legislature — even if it was unjust or arbitrary.

  • The Court refused to read in “due process” of the American Constitution, thereby allowing greater leeway to the state.

This interpretation changed dramatically in 1978.

⚖️ 3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)

✅ Background:

  • Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and politician, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967.
  • Her passport was impounded by the government “in the interest of the general public” under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, without giving her prior hearing.
  • She challenged this action under Article 21, claiming it was arbitrary and violated her fundamental rights.

🔍 Key Issues Before the Court:

  1. Does “procedure established by law” under Article 21 mean any procedure, or must it be just, fair, and reasonable?
  2. Can laws violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 be justified if passed by the legislature?
  3. Does the right to travel abroad fall under personal liberty?

📚 Judgment Highlights:

  • The Supreme Court overruled A.K. Gopalan, stating that fundamental rights are not watertight compartments — they are interconnected.
  • Article 21 must be read in harmony with Articles 14 and 19.
  • The Court held:

“The procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be ‘right, just, and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.”

  • The impounding of the passport without a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

🧠 Important Doctrines Evolved:

✅ Due Process of Law (Indian Version):

  • Although the Constitution uses “procedure established by law,” after Maneka Gandhi, the procedure must be fair and reasonable, i.e., substantive due process.

✅ Golden Triangle Doctrine:

  • Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 (Life & Liberty) form a “golden triangle”.
  • Any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy tests under all three Articles.

🌐 4. Expansion of Article 21 Post-Maneka Gandhi

The Maneka Gandhi case opened the floodgates for expansive judicial interpretation. Article 21 has since been interpreted to include:

Expanded RightCase Law
Right to live with human dignityFrancis Coralie Mullin v. Union of India (1981)
Right to livelihoodOlga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985)
Right to shelterChameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996)
Right to privacyJustice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Right to educationMohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
Right to clean environmentSubhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Right to die with dignityCommon Cause v. Union of India (2018)

🔍 5. What is “Personal Liberty”?

Personal liberty in Article 21 is interpreted broadly. It includes:

  • Freedom from unlawful detention
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to travel (within and outside India)
  • Autonomy over one’s body (e.g., reproductive rights, medical choice)

The Maneka Gandhi case confirmed that personal liberty is not limited to mere freedom from physical restraint, but includes the freedom of movement, expression, and privacy.

🔎 6. Procedure Must Be Fair, Not Arbitrary

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that any law that restricts liberty must follow natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem — the right to be heard.
  • Arbitrary laws or executive action will be struck down under Article 14 as violative of equality and reasonableness.

⚖️ 7. Impact of Maneka Gandhi on Indian Constitutional Law

🌟 Landmark Shifts:

  • It redefined Article 21 as a guarantee of substantive rights, not just procedural.
  • It linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 — making rights interdependent and stronger.
  • Paved the way for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for enforcement of fundamental rights of the disadvantaged.
  • Strengthened judicial review over legislative and executive actions affecting liberty.

📌 8. Conclusion

The decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India revolutionized the understanding of Article 21 by ensuring that personal liberty is not subject to arbitrary laws, and that fairness, justice, and reasonableness are integral to any legal procedure.

It transformed Article 21 into the soul of the Constitution, enabling the judiciary to read into it various human rights crucial for dignified living. This case is a shining example of judicial activism, reinforcing constitutional morality, democratic values, and individual freedoms in the world’s largest democracy.

Q What are the protections against arrest and detention under Article 22? Discuss their significance.

🛡️ Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

Article 22 of the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights to persons who are arrested or detained, ensuring protection from arbitrary arrest and unjust preventive detention.

It provides two types of safeguards:

  1. Procedural safeguards for ordinary arrests (criminal offences) – Clauses (1) and (2)
  2. Safeguards against preventive detention – Clauses (3) to (7)

📜 Full Text of Article 22 (Simplified)

Clauses (1) & (2): Protection for arrested individuals

  • Right to be informed of the reason for arrest.
  • Right to consult a legal practitioner of one’s choice.
  • Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  • No detention beyond 24 hours without judicial approval.

Clauses (3) to (7): Preventive Detention Provisions

  • These safeguards are for those detained without trial to prevent them from committing future offences.
  • Some rights under Clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to preventive detention.
  • But the Constitution provides special safeguards under Clause (4) to (7) for such detentions.

🔍 I. Procedural Safeguards for Ordinary Arrests (Clauses 1 & 2)

These clauses are meant for persons arrested under criminal charges.

✅ Key Rights under Clauses (1) and (2):

  1. Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest:
  • Arrested persons must be told the reasons at the time of arrest.
  • Failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.
  1. Right to consult a legal practitioner:
  • The accused must be allowed to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
  1. Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours:
  • As per Section 57 of CrPC and Article 22(2).
  • Ensures judicial oversight over arrest and detention.
  1. Right against prolonged custody without legal sanction:
  • If the police want to hold the person longer than 24 hours, they must get magistrate’s approval.

🏛️ Important Case Laws:

🔹 DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

  • Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest to prevent custodial violence.
  • Required that arrest memo be prepared, and relative or friend be informed.
  • Arresting officer must wear identification tag.

🔹 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)

  • The Court held that arrest is not mandatory in every case.
  • Police must justify the necessity for arrest.

🔐 II. Safeguards in Preventive Detention (Clauses 3 to 7)

❗ What is Preventive Detention?

  • It means detaining a person without trial to prevent them from committing a future offence.
  • Used in matters concerning national security, public order, foreign affairs, smuggling, etc.
  • It is a controversial but constitutionally permitted restriction on personal liberty.

✅ Key Provisions under Preventive Detention:

🔸 Article 22(3):

  • Preventive detention laws are exceptions to clauses (1) and (2).
  • No right to legal counsel or to be produced before a magistrate immediately.

🔸 Article 22(4):

  • No preventive detention beyond 3 months unless approved by an Advisory Board of High Court judges.

🔸 Article 22(5):

  • The detainee must be informed of the grounds of detention as soon as possible.
  • Must be given opportunity to make a representation against the order.

🔸 Article 22(6):

  • Government can withhold facts if disclosing them is against public interest.

🔸 Article 22(7):

  • Parliament can:
  • Extend detention beyond 3 months without board review (in special cases),
  • Specify circumstances and maximum periods of such detention.
  1. Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (now repealed)
  2. Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) – repealed in 1977
  3. National Security Act (NSA), 1980 – still in force
  4. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974

🏛️ Important Case Laws on Preventive Detention

🔹 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

  • Early interpretation: Detention laws can’t be struck down just because they violate other fundamental rights.

🔹 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  • Broadened the interpretation of “procedure established by law” to mean just, fair, and reasonable.
  • Thus, preventive detention procedures must meet fairness criteria.

🔹 A. K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)

  • Court upheld NSA but emphasized that Article 22(5) is a real protection.
  • Representation must be meaningful, not just a formality.

🔎 III. Significance of Article 22

✅ For Democracy and Rule of Law:

  • Protects citizens from arbitrary arrest and ensures due process.
  • Ensures judicial oversight over police and executive powers.

✅ Maintains Balance:

  • Balances individual liberty with state security.
  • Recognizes need for preventive detention in exceptional circumstances, but provides constitutional safeguards.

✅ Promotes Transparency and Accountability:

  • Rights like legal representation and being informed of charges promote transparency in the criminal justice system.

⚖️ Criticisms of Preventive Detention

  • Goes against the principles of natural justice.
  • Allows detention without trial.
  • Abused for political purposes or during public protests.
  • Lack of timely judicial review in some cases.

📌 Conclusion

Article 22 plays a dual role:

  1. It acts as a shield against unlawful arrest and abuse of state power.
  2. At the same time, it allows the state to exercise preventive detention to maintain security and public order, but only under strict procedural safeguards.

In a constitutional democracy like India, where the liberty of individuals is a foundational value, the protections under Article 22 act as a crucial balancing mechanism between individual rights and collective security.

🇮🇳 Right Against Exploitation – Articles 23 and 24

The Right against Exploitation is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution. It safeguards individuals, particularly the vulnerable and marginalized, against inhuman practices such as forced labor, human trafficking, and child labor.

📜 Article 23 – Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour

🔹 Text of Article 23(1):

“Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited, and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”

🔹 Text of Article 23(2):

“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or class or any of them.”

✅ Key Concepts under Article 23

  1. Traffic in human beings:
  • Includes prostitution, slavery, and physical or sexual exploitation.
  • Covered under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
  1. Begar:
  • Work done without any payment.
  • Historically practiced during colonial times, often by lower castes.
  1. Other forms of forced labor:
  • Includes bonded labor, compulsory labor under coercion, and underpaid labor without freedom of choice.
  1. Exception – Clause (2):
  • The State can impose compulsory service (e.g., military service, disaster relief), provided there is no discrimination.

🏛️ Landmark Case Laws on Article 23

🔹 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) – Asiad Workers Case

  • Supreme Court held that not paying minimum wages amounts to forced labor under Article 23.
  • Expanded the definition of “forced labor” to include economic compulsion.

🔹 Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983)

  • The Court ruled that non-payment of minimum wages to drought relief workers violated Article 23.
  • Even under “public purpose,” minimum wages are compulsory.

🔹 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

  • Addressed bonded labor and inhuman working conditions in stone quarries.
  • Court emphasized State’s duty to eradicate bonded labor as per Article 23 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.

🧭 Legal and Statutory Framework Supporting Article 23

  • Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
  • Minimum Wages Act, 1948
  • Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
  • Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979

👶 Article 24 – Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories, etc.

🔹 Text of Article 24:

“No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”

✅ Key Concepts under Article 24

  1. Prohibits employment of children below 14 years in:
  • Factories
  • Mines
  • Hazardous occupations
  1. Does not prohibit children from working in non-hazardous occupations like family businesses or as artists, provided education and health are not hampered (subject to later statutory restrictions).

🏛️ Landmark Case Laws on Article 24

🔹 M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

  • Court banned employment of children in matchstick factories and directed the State to provide education and compensation.
  • Introduced “child labour rehabilitation fund.”

🔹 Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1983)

  • Court observed that economic hardship cannot justify child labor or poor working conditions.
  • Emphasized strict enforcement of Article 24.

🧭 Legal and Statutory Framework Supporting Article 24

  • Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended in 2016):
  • Prohibits employment of children below 14 years in all occupations.
  • Prohibits adolescents (14–18 years) from working in hazardous occupations.
  • Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act):
  • Mandates free education for children aged 6–14.
  • Reinforces Article 24 by removing the incentive for child labor.
  • Factories Act, 1948:
  • Prohibits employment of children below 14 years in factories.
  • Provides for safety and welfare of young workers.

📊 Comparative View: Article 23 vs Article 24

AspectArticle 23Article 24
Protection fromHuman trafficking, begar, forced laborHazardous employment for children under 14
ApplicabilityTo citizens and non-citizensOnly to children under 14 years
ExceptionCompulsory public service by StateNo exceptions
Offences punishable byLawLaw
Major legislationBonded Labour Act, Minimum Wages Act, etc.Child Labour Act, Factories Act, RTE Act

🧠 Significance of the Right Against Exploitation

  • Promotes Human Dignity:
  • Recognizes that freedom from exploitation is central to human dignity and democracy.
  • Safeguards Vulnerable Groups:
  • Targets exploitation of women, children, Dalits, migrant laborers, and the poor.
  • Guides State Policy:
  • Directs the State to implement social justice laws, employment protections, and labor welfare schemes.
  • Foundation for Labor Rights:
  • Forms the basis of labor jurisprudence and enforcement of minimum wage laws, safe working conditions, and protection from trafficking.

🏁 Conclusion

Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution reflect India’s commitment to human dignity, social justice, and equality. They not only prohibit exploitative practices but also mandate proactive roles for the government through legislative and administrative actions.

While these provisions provide a strong legal foundation, the real challenge lies in their implementation, especially in rural areas and among informal labor sectors. However, through progressive interpretation by the judiciary and policy measures, the spirit of these Articles continues to evolve toward a more just and equitable society.

Q – Explain the right to freedom of religion under Articles 25-28. What are the limitations on this right?

🕌 Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) – Detailed Explanation

The Indian Constitution enshrines the Right to Freedom of Religion in Articles 25 to 28, under Part III (Fundamental Rights). India is a secular state, and this right is available to both individuals and religious groups, ensuring religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and the independence of religious institutions from state interference, subject to reasonable restrictions.

🧭 Article 25 – Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion

🔹 Text of Article 25(1):

“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, practise and propagate religion.”

🔹 Key Elements:

  1. Freedom of Conscience:
  • Every individual has the right to believe or not believe in any religion.
  1. Right to Profess:
  • Declaration of faith openly.
  1. Right to Practice:
  • Observing religious practices and rituals.
  1. Right to Propagate:
  • Persuade others to adopt one’s religion (not to convert forcefully).

🔹 Limitations:

  • Public order: No religious practice that disrupts public peace (e.g., inciting riots).
  • Morality: Practices like untouchability are not protected.
  • Health: Banning superstitious or harmful practices in the name of religion (e.g., animal sacrifices in public places).

🏛 Key Case Laws:

1. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977):

  • The Supreme Court upheld laws prohibiting forcible or induced religious conversions.
  • Propagation ≠ Right to convert.

2. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986):

  • Jehovah’s Witness children were expelled for not singing the national anthem.
  • SC held they had freedom of conscience and did not disrespect the anthem—upheld Article 25.

🧭 Article 26 – Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

“Every religious denomination or any section thereof 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 law.”

🔹 Scope:

  • Religious Denominations (Hindu temples, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, etc.) have autonomy in religious matters.
  • Secular aspects like temple administration, land revenue, or finances can be regulated by the State.

🏛 Key Case Laws:

1. Shirur Mutt Case (1954):

  • SC held that the term “religion” includes rituals, observances, ceremonies, and even doctrines.
  • State can regulate secular activities, but not essential religious practices.

2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958):

  • SC ruled that denying temple entry to Harijans was not essential to Hinduism—allowed regulation.

🧭 Article 27 – Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

“No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”

🔹 Key Points:

  • The State cannot impose or utilize taxes to promote religion.
  • Ensures financial neutrality of the State toward religion.
  • General public welfare spending on religious structures (e.g., maintaining heritage sites) is not violative of Article 27.

🏛 Key Case Law:

1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954):

  • Clarified the separation between religious and secular activities.
  • Taxes for regulating secular activities do not violate Article 27.

🧭 Article 28 – Freedom as to Attendance at Religious Instruction or Worship in Certain Educational Institutions

🔹 Provisions:

  1. Article 28(1):
  • No religious instruction shall be provided in educational institutions wholly funded by State.
  1. Article 28(2):
  • In institutions administered by the State but established under endowment/trust, religious instruction may be allowed.
  1. Article 28(3):
  • Attendance at religious instruction is not compulsory without the consent of the student or guardian (if a minor).

🔹 Key Objective:

  • Prevent state-sponsored religious indoctrination in schools.
  • Protect students’ freedom of conscience.

🔍 Limitations on Freedom of Religion (General Overview)

GroundExplanation
Public OrderReligious freedom cannot disturb peace (e.g., banning processions inciting violence).
MoralitySocially harmful or unethical practices (e.g., Sati) can be banned.
HealthHarmful rituals affecting health or public hygiene (e.g., animal sacrifice bans).
Other Fundamental RightsFreedom of religion is not absolute. It must align with equality, dignity, and liberty.

⚖️ Controversies & Judicial Developments

🔹 Sabarimala Temple Case – Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

  • SC struck down the ban on entry of women (10–50 years) into the temple.
  • Held that the practice violated Articles 14, 15, and 25.
  • Highlighted the non-absolute nature of religious freedom.

🔹 Triple Talaq Case – Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

  • SC declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional.
  • Held it violated Article 14 (equality) and was not an essential Islamic practice.

🧠 Secularism and Religious Freedom

India follows positive secularism, which:

  • Does not separate religion from State but ensures the State treats all religions equally.
  • The State can intervene in religious matters to ensure equality, human dignity, and social reform.

✅ Summary Table – Articles 25 to 28

ArticleProvisionScope
25Freedom of conscience; profession, practice, propagationIndividual religious freedom (with limitations)
26Freedom to manage religious affairsRights of religious denominations
27No taxation for promotion of any religionFinancial neutrality of the State
28Freedom from compulsory religious instructionFreedom in educational institutions

🏁 Conclusion

Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution form a comprehensive framework to protect religious liberty while balancing it with constitutional morality, public order, and social reform. They reflect the pluralistic and inclusive nature of Indian democracy.

However, these freedoms are not absolute and must align with the Constitution’s goals of equality, dignity, and secularism. Over the years, the judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and expanding the scope of these rights while ensuring they do not override other fundamental rights or public interest.

Q- Discuss the scope of Article 21 in protecting personal liberty. How has it evolved through judicial interpretations?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Scope, Evolution & Judicial Interpretation

🧾 Text of Article 21:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Article 21 is one of the most important and widely interpreted fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. It protects life and personal liberty, and over the decades, the judiciary has interpreted it liberally to include various rights necessary for a dignified life.

🧭 I. Historical Background and Early Interpretation

🔹 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

  • One of the earliest cases on Article 21.
  • The Supreme Court gave a narrow interpretation, stating that as long as a law was enacted properly, even if it violated liberty, it was valid.
  • The “procedure established by law” was interpreted literally, without assessing the justness or fairness of the law.

📌 Limitation: No protection from arbitrary laws; only procedural compliance was necessary.

🧭 II. Landmark Shift: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

📚 Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her reasons or an opportunity to be heard.

🔹 Judgment:

  • Overruled Gopalan’s narrow view.
  • Held that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
  • Introduced the due process of law element in Indian jurisprudence.
  • Expanded Article 21 by linking it with Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedoms).

✅ Key Outcome: From this case onward, Article 21 became a source of numerous implied fundamental rights.

🌐 III. Expanded Meaning of “Life” and “Personal Liberty”

Article 21 is no longer limited to mere animal existence. It includes:

🏠 1. Right to Live with Human Dignity

❖ Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)

  • The right to life includes the right to live with dignity and includes necessities like adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading and writing.

🩺 2. Right to Health and Medical Care

❖ Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)

  • SC held that the government is constitutionally obligated to provide basic medical care.
  • Right to health is a part of Article 21.

❖ Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

  • SC ruled that legal aid and speedy trial are part of the right to life and liberty.
  • Long undertrial detention was declared a violation of Article 21.

🛡️ 4. Right to Privacy

❖ Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

  • Recognized right to privacy as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty.
  • It covers personal choices, sexual orientation, bodily autonomy, and more.

🧘 5. Right to Sleep

❖ Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)

  • SC held that sleep is essential to a dignified life; hence, right to sleep is protected under Article 21.

🧍 6. Right Against Custodial Violence and Torture

❖ D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

  • Issued guidelines on arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence.
  • Stated that torture and inhumane treatment violate Article 21.

🏠 7. Right to Shelter

❖ Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996)

  • Shelter is not mere protection from heat and rain, but includes a place to live with dignity, privacy, and facilities.

🧑‍🦯 8. Right to Livelihood

❖ Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

  • Eviction of pavement dwellers without rehabilitation was challenged.
  • SC held that right to livelihood is part of the right to life.

💍 9. Right to Marry a Person of One’s Choice

❖ Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)

  • Reinforced that marriage is a personal decision protected under Article 21.
  • Courts cannot override individual liberty in choosing a life partner.

⚖️ IV. Preventive Detention & Article 21

Article 21 also applies to detentions, but the law must ensure fair procedure.

❖ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – “Habeas Corpus case”

  • During the Emergency (1975–77), the SC had ruled that even the right to life could be suspended.
  • Widely criticized and later overruled by Justice Puttaswamy case (2017).

📜 V. Key Doctrines under Article 21

DoctrineMeaningLandmark Case
Due Process of LawLaw must be fair, just, and not arbitraryManeka Gandhi
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)Public can approach the Court for violation of others’ rightsBandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
Compensatory JurisprudenceVictims of state negligence or custodial violence entitled to compensationRudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)

🏁 Conclusion: Why Article 21 is the Heart of the Constitution

  • Article 21 has become the cornerstone of human rights in India.
  • The Supreme Court’s progressive interpretation has turned it into an umbrella article encompassing multiple rights—privacy, dignity, health, livelihood, and more.
  • It reflects the living nature of the Constitution, adapting to social, moral, and legal progress.

👉 In modern India, Article 21 is not just about freedom from physical restraint, but about the guarantee of a meaningful, dignified life.

Q – What are the safeguards against forced labor under Article 23? Provide examples.

Safeguards Against Forced Labour under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution

📜 Text of Article 23(1):

“Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”

📜 Text of Article 23(2):

“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service, the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”

🔍 I. Meaning and Scope of Article 23

Article 23 is a fundamental right available to both citizens and non-citizens and provides protection against human trafficking, begar, and forced labour.

✅ Key Terms:

  1. Traffic in human beings – Buying and selling human beings like commodities (includes prostitution, bonded labour, child trafficking).
  2. Begar – Unpaid, involuntary labour, often under coercion (historically practiced under feudal systems).
  3. Other similar forms of forced labour – Labour or services extracted without proper payment or consent, under threat or duress.

⚖️ II. Why Article 23 Was Needed

  • Colonial and feudal systems in India involved various exploitative labour practices.
  • Practices like bonded labour, begar, devadasi system, and forced sex work were common.
  • Post-Independence, the Constitution guaranteed human dignity, making it necessary to abolish forced and exploitative labour.

🧭 III. Key Judicial Interpretations & Case Laws

🔹 1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

Also known as the Asiad Workers’ case

Facts: Workers involved in the construction of stadiums for the Asian Games in Delhi were paid wages below the minimum wage and subjected to poor conditions.

Held:

  • Article 23 prohibits not only begar but all forms of forced labour, including situations where a person works involuntarily for less than minimum wages.
  • Even private individuals can be held liable under Article 23.
  • Non-payment of minimum wages amounts to forced labour.

📌 Significance: Expanded the scope of Article 23 beyond “unpaid work” to include underpaid or exploitative labour.

🔹 2. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983)

Facts: Workers employed in drought relief work were paid less than minimum wages.

Held:

  • Payment below the prescribed minimum wage violates Article 23.
  • Drought relief work cannot be used as a justification for exploitative payment.

🔹 3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

Facts: A PIL was filed against bonded labour practices in stone quarries in Haryana.

Held:

  • Court directed the government to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded labourers.
  • Recognised bonded labour as a violation of both Article 21 and Article 23.

📌 The case established that bonded labour—where a person is bound by debt or coercion—is unconstitutional.

🔹 4. Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (1984)

Held:

  • Article 23 imposes a positive obligation on the state to not only identify and release bonded labourers but also rehabilitate them.

📌 IV. Legislative Framework Supporting Article 23

To enforce the safeguards of Article 23, several laws have been enacted:

LawPurpose
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976Abolishes bonded labour and mandates rehabilitation
Minimum Wages Act, 1948Ensures fair wage to avoid exploitative conditions
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986Prohibits employment of children in hazardous occupations
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956Aims to combat trafficking for prostitution

📊 V. Forms of Forced Labour Still Prevalent (Examples)

Despite constitutional and legal protections, various forms of forced labour still exist in India:

❖ Bonded Labour in Agriculture and Brick Kilns

  • Labourers working to repay ancestral or unpayable debts.
  • Often illiterate and unaware of their rights.

❖ Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation

  • Women and children trafficked for prostitution or child pornography.
  • Mostly occurs in marginalized and poor communities.

❖ Child Labour in Domestic Work or Factories

  • Children employed in hotels, factories, or homes.
  • Involuntary work due to poverty, threats, or deception.

❖ Construction Workers under Intermediaries

  • Workers employed via contractors.
  • Paid less than minimum wage or made to work under unsafe conditions.

🧑‍⚖️ VI. Important Judicial Principles Evolved

PrincipleOriginating CaseExplanation
Minimum wage as a test for forced labourPeople’s Union for Democratic RightsNon-payment of minimum wage is forced labour
State’s duty to rehabilitateNeeraja ChaudharyMere release of bonded labour not enough; must be rehabilitated
Fundamental rights enforceable through PILBandhua Mukti MorchaNGOs can approach courts to enforce Article 23 for others

🛡️ VII. Safeguards and Remedies Available

  1. Fundamental Right Enforcement (Article 32):
  • Direct appeal to Supreme Court if Article 23 is violated.
  1. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226:
  • File writ in High Court for relief against forced labour.
  1. NGO & PIL Interventions:
  • NGOs like Bandhua Mukti Morcha and Bachpan Bachao Andolan actively file PILs.
  1. Compensation and Rehabilitation Orders:
  • Courts have awarded compensation and directed rehabilitation programs.

🔚 Conclusion

Article 23 is a powerful constitutional provision aimed at protecting human dignity and liberty by eliminating forced labour and exploitation. Through progressive judicial interpretation, Article 23 is no longer limited to classical forms of begar but now covers modern exploitative labour practices, including underpayment, bonded labour, and trafficking.

It remains a critical safeguard for marginalized groups, and its implementation requires active state intervention, legal enforcement, and judicial oversight.

Q Critically analyze the balance between religious freedom and state regulation under Articles 25-28.

🕊️ Religious Freedom and State Regulation under Articles 25–28: A Critical Analysis

🔍 Introduction

The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28, recognizing India’s pluralistic society with diverse religious practices. However, this freedom is not absolute. It is subject to state regulation in the interest of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. The Constitution maintains a delicate balance between individual rights and social reform.

📜 Constitutional Provisions: An Overview

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion

  • Grants all persons the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
  • Subject to:
  • Public order
  • Morality
  • Health
  • Other provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights)
  • Allows the State to make laws:
  • Regulating secular activities associated with religious practices
  • For social welfare and reform
  • For throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

  • Grants every religious denomination the right:
  • To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes
  • To manage its own affairs in matters of religion
  • To own and acquire property
  • To administer such property in accordance with law

Article 27: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Any Religion

  • No person shall be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28: Freedom as to Attendance at Religious Instruction

  • No religious instruction shall be provided in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds.

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

🧑‍⚖️ 1. The “Essential Practices” Doctrine

Established in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954), also known as the Shirur Mutt Case:

  • The Supreme Court held that every religion has certain essential practices, and the state cannot interfere with them.
  • However, the Court retains the power to determine what constitutes an essential religious practice.

📝 Critique:

  • Critics argue that allowing courts to define “essential” practices leads to judicial overreach into religious doctrines.

🧑‍⚖️ 2. State Interference for Social Reform

Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962)

  • The Dawoodi Bohra community’s excommunication practices were challenged.
  • The Court struck down the Bombay Excommunication Act, 1949, protecting the community’s right under Article 26.

State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952)

  • Upheld laws banning bigamy among Hindus, even if permitted by religion.
  • Set the precedent that personal laws are not “laws” under Article 13 (although this has been debated in later years).

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case

  • The Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional.
  • Held that it was not an essential Islamic practice.
  • Example of judicial activism to balance religious freedom with gender justice.

🏛️ Balancing Tools Used by the Judiciary

✅ 1. Reasonable Restrictions (Articles 25(1) & 25(2))

  • Religious freedom is not absolute and can be curtailed for:
  • Public order
  • Morality
  • Health
  • Social reform (e.g., laws banning untouchability or child marriage)

✅ 2. Distinction Between Religious and Secular Activities

  • In Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961):
  • The Court clarified that religious practices are protected, but secular activities associated with religion (e.g., property management) can be regulated.

🔁 Tension Between Religion and Social Justice

Religious freedom must often yield to the constitutional goal of equality and social reform, particularly in cases involving:

  • Women’s rights (e.g., Sabarimala case, Triple Talaq)
  • Caste-based discrimination (e.g., access to temples, reservation policies)
  • Child rights (e.g., restrictions on religious conversions and schooling)

⚖️ Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala Case

  • SC allowed entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple.
  • Ruled that customs excluding women violated Articles 14, 15, and 25.
  • Huge public backlash revealed deep-rooted religious sentiments versus constitutional morality.

📝 Critique:

  • Opened the debate on who interprets religion—the believers or the Court?
  • Led to political and social polarization.

🔄 Religious Freedom and Education (Article 28)

  • Article 28(1): No religious instruction in schools funded entirely by the State.
  • Article 28(3): Voluntary participation in religious instruction is permitted in institutions recognized by the State but not wholly funded.

This maintains state neutrality in public education while respecting religious education in private or minority institutions.

🧮 State Support Without Promotion (Article 27)

  • Article 27 prevents state promotion of any one religion using tax money.
  • However, the state can fund religious pilgrimages (like Haj subsidy) for secular welfare or equality reasons.

📝 Example:

  • The Haj Subsidy was challenged under Article 27 but upheld temporarily on welfare grounds.
  • Eventually phased out in 2018 following judicial recommendations.

⚖️ Criticism of Current Framework

🟠 1. Judicial Overreach

  • Courts deciding “essential practices” can appear intrusive and inconsistent.
  • Critics argue that such decisions violate the autonomy of religious communities.

🟠 2. Political Manipulation

  • Religious freedoms are sometimes restricted or protected selectively based on political agendas.

🟠 3. Gender & Caste Discrimination

  • Several practices cloaked as religious freedom actually perpetuate inequality.
  • Courts are increasingly moving towards reformist interpretations.
  • Promoting constitutional morality over blind faith.
  • Upholding equality and dignity (Articles 14 & 21) as paramount even over religious customs.
  • Encouraging rational interpretation and public interest litigation (PILs) to challenge discriminatory practices.

📌 Conclusion

The Indian Constitution provides a progressive model of religious freedom that is not absolute, but subject to the interests of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. The interplay of Articles 25 to 28 with Articles 14, 21, and 32 creates a framework where religious liberty coexists with social justice.

The judiciary has played a vital role in interpreting and balancing these rights, though not without criticism. The need of the hour is to strengthen secularism, uphold human dignity, and ensure that religion does not become a tool for oppression or exclusion.

Scroll to Top