Right to Freedom Questions and Answers

Q: The case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) is primarily associated with which of the following rights ?

The case is primarily associated with the right to emergency medical care.In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) the Supreme Court held that every doctor, in a government or private hospital, has a professional obligation to give immediate medical aid to an injured person to preserve life, without waiting for police formalities in medico-legal cases.The Court grounded this in Article 21, which is why 'Right to life and personal liberty' is a tempting option, but that is the general right; the specific right the case established is emergency medical treatment. The right to a clean environment and the right to a speedy trial come from other lines of cases, such as the M.C. Mehta and Hussainara Khatoon decisions.

Q: Assertion (A) : The right to privacy has been judicially recognised as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Reason (R) : Privacy is expressly enumerated as a separate Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution of India.In the context of the Constitution of India and the decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which one of the following is correct ?

(A) is true, but (R) is false.In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms in Part III, overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they held otherwise. So the Assertion is true.The Reason is false. Privacy is not expressly enumerated anywhere in Part III; the Court had to derive it from Article 21 and the other freedoms precisely because it is not written into the text. A false Reason cannot explain anything, so both 'both true' options fail.

Q: Which of the following is not correctly matched ?

The wrongly matched pair is Article 22.2 - Parliament may by law prescribe the circumstances under which a person may be detained for a period longer than three months.That power belongs to Article 22(7). Article 22(2) is the rule that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours.The other three pairs are correct. Article 22(1) gives an arrested person both the right to be told the grounds of arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, so the first two options are right. Article 22(4) says no preventive detention law shall authorise detention for longer than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause.

Q: Which of the following statements regarding Article 22 of the constitution are correct ?(1) The right conferred by the Article protects persons against arrest and detention.(2) The right is guaranteed both to citizens and non-citizens.(3) The rights guaranteed under this Provision are applicable to those arrested under laws providing for preventive detention.(4) The rights guaranteed under this provision are not applicable to enemy aliens.Choose the correct answer from the codes given below :

Statements (1), (2) and (4) are correct, so the answer is (1), (2) and (4).Article 22 gives protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (1). Because it speaks of 'any person', it extends to citizens and non-citizens alike (2). But Article 22(3) withholds the protection of clauses (1) and (2) from any person who is for the time being an enemy alien (4).Statement (3) is wrong. Article 22(3)(b) also excludes persons arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention from the rights in clauses (1) and (2); such detenus have only the separate safeguards of clauses (4) to (7), such as an advisory board and communication of the grounds. So any code including (3) is incorrect.

Q: Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and with the help of codes given below, point out correct explanation.Assertion (A) : The rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the state under Articles 19(2) to 19(6).Reason (R) : The rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute.Codes :

The key is both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).(A) is true: the six freedoms in Article 19(1) are each subject to the reasonable restrictions that clauses (2) to (6) allow the State to impose, in the interests of such matters as the sovereignty of India, public order, decency or morality, and the general public.(R) is also true: the Article 19(1) freedoms are not absolute. That is precisely why the Constitution makes them subject to restrictions: individual liberty has to be balanced against social interest. Since (R) gives the reason for (A), the codes calling either statement false, or denying that (R) explains (A), are wrong.

Q: The term 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is borrowed from :

The phrase was borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan (1947) provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Constituent Assembly, on the advice of B.N. Rau after his discussions with Justice Frankfurter, chose this wording over the American 'due process of law' in drafting Article 21, to avoid wide judicial review of legislation.The French, Canadian and Weimar constitutions were sources for other features, such as republican ideals, the federal structure with a strong centre, and the suspension of fundamental rights during emergency, not for this phrase.

Q: First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 brought additional 3 new grounds of restriction upon the freedom of speech in India.

The three grounds are friendly relations with foreign States, public order and incitement to an offence.The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, after decisions such as Romesh Thappar, rewrote Article 19(2) to add friendly relations with foreign States, public order and incitement to an offence as grounds for reasonable restrictions on free speech. It also made the restrictions 'reasonable'.Decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and the security of the State were already in the original Article 19(2), so every other option includes at least one original ground.

Q: Which one of the following cases is not directly related to Article 21 and provision of right to life in the Indian Constitution?

The case not directly related to Article 21 is Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India.Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1958) concerned the Working Journalists Act and the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a), together with the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).The other three are landmark Article 21 cases. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) gave 'procedure established by law' a narrow reading. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) held that the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Pavement Dwellers case, held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.

The case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) is primarily associated with which of the following rights ?

A.Right to emergency medical care
B.Right to clean and healthy environment
C.Right to speedy trial
D.Right to life and personal liberty

Exam Year(s)

AIBE - 2026,

Answer: A

The case is primarily associated with the right to emergency medical care.

In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) the Supreme Court held that every doctor, in a government or private hospital, has a professional obligation to give immediate medical aid to an injured person to preserve life, without waiting for police formalities in medico-legal cases.

The Court grounded this in Article 21, which is why 'Right to life and personal liberty' is a tempting option, but that is the general right; the specific right the case established is emergency medical treatment. The right to a clean environment and the right to a speedy trial come from other lines of cases, such as the M.C. Mehta and Hussainara Khatoon decisions.

Discuss in Forum

Direction for [ Question No: 2 To 2 ] :

Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).

Assertion (A) : The right to privacy has been judicially recognised as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Reason (R) : Privacy is expressly enumerated as a separate Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution of India.

In the context of the Constitution of India and the decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which one of the following is correct ?

A.(A) is false, but (R) is true.
B.Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
C.(A) is true, but (R) is false.
D.Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

Exam Year(s)

AIBE - 2026,

Answer: C

(A) is true, but (R) is false.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms in Part III, overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they held otherwise. So the Assertion is true.

The Reason is false. Privacy is not expressly enumerated anywhere in Part III; the Court had to derive it from Article 21 and the other freedoms precisely because it is not written into the text. A false Reason cannot explain anything, so both 'both true' options fail.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following is not correctly matched ?

A.Article 22.1 - No person who is arrested shall be in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the ground for such arrest.
B.Article 22.1 - Right to be defended by a legal practitioner of her or his choice.
C.Article 22.4 - No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention for a period longer than three months.
D.Article 22.2 - Parliament may by law prescribe the circumstances under which a person may be detained for a period longer than three months.

Exam Year(s)

JPSC Civil Services - 2021,

Answer: D

The wrongly matched pair is Article 22.2 - Parliament may by law prescribe the circumstances under which a person may be detained for a period longer than three months.

That power belongs to Article 22(7). Article 22(2) is the rule that an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours.

The other three pairs are correct. Article 22(1) gives an arrested person both the right to be told the grounds of arrest and the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, so the first two options are right. Article 22(4) says no preventive detention law shall authorise detention for longer than three months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause.

Discuss in Forum

Which of the following statements regarding Article 22 of the constitution are correct ?

(1) The right conferred by the Article protects persons against arrest and detention.
(2) The right is guaranteed both to citizens and non-citizens.
(3) The rights guaranteed under this Provision are applicable to those arrested under laws providing for preventive detention.
(4) The rights guaranteed under this provision are not applicable to enemy aliens.

Choose the correct answer from the codes given below :

A.(1), (2) and (3)
B.(1) and (4)
C.(1), (2) and (4)
D.(1) and (3)

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: C

Statements (1), (2) and (4) are correct, so the answer is (1), (2) and (4).

Article 22 gives protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (1). Because it speaks of 'any person', it extends to citizens and non-citizens alike (2). But Article 22(3) withholds the protection of clauses (1) and (2) from any person who is for the time being an enemy alien (4).

Statement (3) is wrong. Article 22(3)(b) also excludes persons arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention from the rights in clauses (1) and (2); such detenus have only the separate safeguards of clauses (4) to (7), such as an advisory board and communication of the grounds. So any code including (3) is incorrect.

Discuss in Forum

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and with the help of codes given below, point out correct explanation.

Assertion (A) : The rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the state under Articles 19(2) to 19(6).
Reason (R) : The rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute.

Codes :

A.(A) is correct, (R) is false
B.(A) is false, (R) is true
C.Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)
D.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: D

The key is both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

(A) is true: the six freedoms in Article 19(1) are each subject to the reasonable restrictions that clauses (2) to (6) allow the State to impose, in the interests of such matters as the sovereignty of India, public order, decency or morality, and the general public.

(R) is also true: the Article 19(1) freedoms are not absolute. That is precisely why the Constitution makes them subject to restrictions: individual liberty has to be balanced against social interest. Since (R) gives the reason for (A), the codes calling either statement false, or denying that (R) explains (A), are wrong.

Discuss in Forum

The term 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is borrowed from :

A.French Constitution
B.Canadian Constitution
C.Japanese Constitution
D.Weimer Constitution of Germany

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: C

The phrase was borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.

Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan (1947) provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Constituent Assembly, on the advice of B.N. Rau after his discussions with Justice Frankfurter, chose this wording over the American 'due process of law' in drafting Article 21, to avoid wide judicial review of legislation.

The French, Canadian and Weimar constitutions were sources for other features, such as republican ideals, the federal structure with a strong centre, and the suspension of fundamental rights during emergency, not for this phrase.

Discuss in Forum

First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 brought additional 3 new grounds of restriction upon the freedom of speech in India.

A.Friendly relations with Foreign States, Public order and Incitement to an offence
B.Decency, contempt of court and defamation
C.Morality, defamation and Public order
D.Contempt of court, the security of the state and defamation

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: A

The three grounds are friendly relations with foreign States, public order and incitement to an offence.

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, after decisions such as Romesh Thappar, rewrote Article 19(2) to add friendly relations with foreign States, public order and incitement to an offence as grounds for reasonable restrictions on free speech. It also made the restrictions 'reasonable'.

Decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and the security of the State were already in the original Article 19(2), so every other option includes at least one original ground.

Discuss in Forum

Which one of the following cases is not directly related to Article 21 and provision of right to life in the Indian Constitution?

A.A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras
B.Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
C.Express News papers Vs. Union of India
D.Pavement Dwellers Case

Exam Year(s)

TNPSC Group 1 - 2017, TNPSC - 2017,

Answer: C

The case not directly related to Article 21 is Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India.

Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1958) concerned the Working Journalists Act and the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a), together with the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).

The other three are landmark Article 21 cases. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) gave 'procedure established by law' a narrow reading. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) held that the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Pavement Dwellers case, held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood.

Discuss in Forum

Assertion [A] : Every Citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout the Territory of India or to reside and settle in any part of the country.
Reason [R] : This Right shall be subject to restrictions imposed by the state in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Caste.

A.[A] is true but [R] is false
B.Both [A] and [R] are true and [R] is the correct explanation of [A]
C.[A] is false [R] is true
D.Both [A] and [R] are true, but [R] is not the correct explanation of [A] is correct

Exam Year(s)

TNPSC Group 1 - 2025, TNPSC - 2025,

Answer: A

Assertion [A] is true and reason [R] is false. Article 19(1)(d) and (e) give every citizen the right to move freely and to reside and settle in any part of India.

Article 19(5) allows restrictions in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe, not any Scheduled Caste, so [R] is false. Hence (A).

Article 19(1)(d) and (e) are available only to citizens, and Article 19(5) is the clause that lets the state restrict them for the general public or to protect the interests of a Scheduled Tribe.

Discuss in Forum

10.

Which of the following statements is true about Article 21?

(i) This article reminds us of one of the famous clauses in Magna Carta.
(ii) The constitution does not confer right to die.
(iii) Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by Administrative Law.

A.(i) only
B.(i) and (ii) only
C.(i) and (iii) only
D.(ii) and (iii) only

Exam Year(s)

TNPSC Group 1 - 2025, TNPSC - 2025,

Answer: B

Statements (i) and (ii) are true. Article 21 echoes a famous clause of Magna Carta (no man shall be deprived of life or liberty except by due process of law), and the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not confer a right to die.

Statement (iii) is not accepted: custodial death is spoken of as an offence in a society governed by the rule of law, not by administrative law, and the key does not accept it. So (i) and (ii) only.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Right to Freedom Questions and Answers

Direction for [ Question No: 2 To 2 ] :

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Right to Freedom Questions and Answers

Direction for [ Question No: 2 To 2 ] :

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications