Fundamental Rights Questions and Answers

Answer: A

Article 300A protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.

Article 300A says no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The executive therefore cannot take property without a law authorising it. But a law made by the legislature can provide for taking property, so the article does not protect against legislative action.

The second option reverses this. The third overstates the protection, which is what the old fundamental right under Article 31 offered before the 44th Amendment of 1978. Since the first option is correct, 'none of the above' fails.

Answer: D

The right not guaranteed is that no person accused of any offence shall be presumed guilty unless it is proved according to the procedure established by law.

The presumption of innocence is a basic principle of criminal law, applied by the courts and in the law of evidence, but it is not written into the Constitution as a fundamental right.

The other three are the protections of Article 20: no ex post facto conviction or heavier penalty (20(1)), no double jeopardy, being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once (20(2)), and no compulsion to be a witness against oneself (20(3)).

Answer: C

Statements ii, iii and v are correct, so the answer is Only (ii, iii and v).

ii is correct: some rights in Part III operate by themselves, while others need a law to give them effect or to punish their breach (Article 35). iii is correct: in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) the Court held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive but form an integrated whole. v is correct: under Article 359, as amended, the enforcement of fundamental rights can be suspended during emergency except for Articles 20 and 21.

i is wrong: fundamental rights cannot be waived in India (Basheshar Nath, 1959), but that is unlike the US position, not 'as like' it. iv is wrong: fundamental rights are not absolute; most are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Answer: C

The correct matching is i-a, ii-c, iii-d, iv-b.

Three pairs are well established and leave only one option. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2018) recognised the rights of elderly persons to dignity, shelter and health care under Article 21 (i-a). State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgir (1966) upheld a detenu's right to publish the book he wrote in prison (ii-c). Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India (2017) allowed the termination of a non-viable pregnancy, recognising the woman's reproductive choice (iv-b).

That leaves the right to be forgotten with Neekunj Todi (iii-d). The other options mismatch at least one of the three settled pairs.

Answer: C

All three statements are incorrect: All three.

Article 20 protects 'any person', so it is available to foreigners and to legal persons such as companies, not only to citizens (1).

It prohibits ex post facto criminal laws: no one can be convicted or given a greater penalty under a law made after the act. Civil laws, and even tax laws, can be made retrospective, so statement 2 states the rule backwards. The protection against self-incrimination applies only in criminal proceedings, to a person accused of an offence, and does not extend to civil proceedings (3).

Answer: D

The judgment is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.

On 24 August 2017 a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, 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. It overruled the contrary observations in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962).

Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) upheld criminal defamation. Lok Prahari concerned electoral and constitutional matters, and the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation case dealt with the rights of persons with disabilities. None decided the privacy question.

Answer: D

The correct matching is a-4, b-3, c-2, d-1.

• Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar (1958), on the bans on cow slaughter, concerned the butchers' right to carry on their occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
• Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) arose from the impounding of a passport and settled that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21, to be curtailed only by fair procedure.
• D.A.V. College, Jullundur v State of Punjab (1971) dealt with the rights of linguistic and religious minorities to their educational institutions under Articles 29 and 30.
• Romesh Thappar v State of Madras (1950) struck down a ban on a journal's entry into Madras as a violation of freedom of speech and expression.

Only the last code pairs all four correctly; the others put Maneka Gandhi against minority rights or Quareshi against free speech.

Answer: B

The keyed answer is pre-constitutional laws.

The doctrine of eclipse was laid down in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955). A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with a fundamental right is not void from the start; under Article 13(1) it is only overshadowed (eclipsed) by the fundamental right and remains in force for transactions before the Constitution. If the fundamental right is later amended to remove the inconsistency, the eclipse is removed and the law revives.

In Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) the Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional law violating a fundamental right is void from its inception under Article 13(2), so it cannot revive, which is why the doctrine is taught as confined to pre-constitutional laws. The doctrine is not limited to criminal laws.

Answer: C

The keyed answer is Article 21.

Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) required that procedure to be fair, just and reasonable, the Supreme Court has read into it a large set of rights, including the rights to livelihood, shelter, health, a clean environment, speedy trial, legal aid and privacy, and has repeatedly described it as the heart of the fundamental rights.

Article 12 only defines 'the State', Article 19 lists particular freedoms, and Article 38 is a Directive Principle, not a fundamental right. (Dr. Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul of the Constitution, but it is not among the options.)

Answer: D

Untouchability is abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution.

Article 17 abolishes untouchability, forbids its practice in any form, and makes the enforcement of any disability arising out of it an offence punishable by law. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (formerly the Untouchability (Offences) Act) gives it effect.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. They are related rights, but untouchability is dealt with in Article 17.