UPSC Combined Section Officer

Right to freedom of conscience and free profession is guaranteed to a Hindu that includes which of the following?
1. Buddhist
2. Jaina
3. Sikh
Select the correct answer using the code given below.

[amp_mcq option1=”1 and 2 only” option2=”2 and 3 only” option3=”1 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option4″]

The reference to a Hindu in Article 25 includes Buddhist, Jaina, and Sikh religions.

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Explanation II to Article 25 states: “In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”
Clause 25(2)(b) allows the State to make laws for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
While this explanation is specific to the context of 25(2)(b), it constitutionally defines the term ‘Hindu’ to include Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists for this purpose. The question asks about the right guaranteed to a Hindu *that includes which of the following*. Given the context of Article 25 and this explicit explanation within the article, it is clear that for certain constitutional purposes related to religious practice and social reform, the term Hindu encompasses these three religions.
Therefore, a Hindu, for the purpose of the constitutional framework including Article 25, is understood in this specific context to include persons professing the Buddhist, Jaina, and Sikh religions.

This constitutional definition in Article 25 Explanation II is primarily for the purpose of allowing the state to enact social reform laws and to ensure access to public religious institutions, treating these religions similarly for these specific purposes related to state regulation of religious affairs for social welfare. It does not mean that followers of these religions do not have their distinct religious identities or that their fundamental rights are merged into a single ‘Hindu’ identity in all respects.

Consider the following statements :

• 1. Conferment of Padma Awards does not amount to conferring title under Article 18 of the Constitution of India.
• 2. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
• 3. A person not being a citizen of India can be appointed by the Government of India to any office of profit and he/she can accept any title from any foreign State.

Which of the above statements is/are not correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option3″]

The statement that is NOT correct is statement 3.

– Statement 1: Conferment of Padma Awards does not amount to conferring title under Article 18 of the Constitution of India. This statement is correct. The Supreme Court in the Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India case (1996) held that the National Awards like Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri are not ‘titles’ within the meaning of Article 18(1) and therefore their conferment does not violate the prohibition on titles. However, the Court recommended that the awardees should not use them as prefixes or suffixes to their names.
– Statement 2: No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. This statement is correct. Article 18(2) explicitly prohibits a citizen of India from accepting any title from any foreign state.
– Statement 3: A person not being a citizen of India can be appointed by the Government of India to any office of profit and he/she can accept any title from any foreign State. This statement is incorrect. Article 18(3) states that no person who is not a citizen of India and while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any title from any foreign State. Thus, a non-citizen holding an office of profit under the government cannot accept a foreign title without the President’s consent; they cannot accept it freely.

Article 18 is part of the Fundamental Right to Equality and aims to abolish artificial titles that create distinctions based on status, inherited or conferred. It promotes the principle of equal status. The restrictions on accepting foreign titles apply differently to citizens and non-citizens holding office under the state.

Which one of the following Fundamental Rights cannot be restricted on the ground of morality?

[amp_mcq option1=”Right of freedom under Article 19(1)(a)” option2=”Right under Article 25″ option3=”Right of freedom under Article 19(1)(d)” option4=”Right under Article 26″ correct=”option3″]

The Fundamental Right that cannot be restricted on the ground of morality is the Right of freedom under Article 19(1)(d).

Fundamental Rights are subject to certain reasonable restrictions mentioned in the clauses following the rights. We need to check the grounds for restriction for each given Article.
– A) Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression. Restrictions under Article 19(2) can be imposed on grounds including public order, decency or *morality*.
– B) Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. This right is guaranteed under Article 25(1) subject to public order, *morality*, and health, and other provisions of Part III.
– C) Article 19(1)(d): Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India. Restrictions under Article 19(5) can be imposed in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. *Morality* is not listed as a ground for restriction under Article 19(5).
– D) Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs. This right is guaranteed subject to public order, *morality*, and health.
Therefore, Article 19(1)(d) is the right whose restriction clause (Article 19(5)) does not include ‘morality’ as a ground.

The grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions vary for different freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 and different rights in Part III. It is important to refer to the specific restriction clauses associated with each right (e.g., 19(2) for 19(1)(a), 19(3) for 19(1)(b), 19(4) for 19(1)(c), 19(5) for 19(1)(d), (e), (f), and 19(6) for 19(1)(g)). For religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26, public order, morality, and health are common grounds for restriction.

If any person other than the one covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India establishes a college, which Fundamental Right can be claimed by him/her for managing that institution?

[amp_mcq option1=”Right to equality under Article 14″ option2=”Right to one of the freedoms under Article 19(1)” option3=”Right under Article 29″ option4=”Right under Article 41″ correct=”option2″]

If a person other than one covered under Article 30 establishes a college, the Fundamental Right that can be claimed for managing that institution is the right under Article 19(1)(g).

– Article 30 grants minorities (religious or linguistic) the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is specifically for minorities.
– The question concerns a person *other than* one covered under Article 30, meaning a person belonging to the majority community or a non-minority group.
– A) Article 14 (Right to equality) is relevant for non-discrimination but does not grant the specific right to establish and manage an institution.
– B) Article 19(1)(g) guarantees all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Supreme Court has held that establishing and managing an educational institution is a fundamental right available to all citizens under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). This is the basis for the right of non-minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
– C) Article 29 (Protection of interests of minorities) protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities. It is not applicable to non-minorities establishing institutions.
– D) Article 41 is a Directive Principle of State Policy related to the right to work, education, etc., not a Fundamental Right that an individual can claim to manage an institution.

The right of non-minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, which can include regulations aimed at maintaining educational standards, ensuring proper management, etc. This right is distinct from the special rights granted to minorities under Article 30.

Under which Article of the Constitution of India can reservations for physically challenged persons be justified?

[amp_mcq option1=”Article 14 and/or Article 16(1)” option2=”Article 15(4)” option3=”Article 16(4)” option4=”Article 16(6)” correct=”option1″]

Reservations for physically challenged persons can be justified under Article 14 and/or Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

– Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This principle allows for reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, enabling the state to make special provisions for disadvantaged groups to achieve substantive equality. Physically challenged persons form such a group.
– Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. This right is interpreted to allow for affirmative action measures, like reservations, to address historical disadvantages and ensure that marginalized groups, including persons with disabilities, have a fair chance in public employment.
– Articles 15(4) and 16(4) specifically deal with reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. They are based on social and educational backwardness, not physical disability.
– Article 16(6) deals with reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
Therefore, the constitutional justification for reservations for persons with disabilities stems from the broader principles of equality and equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1), allowing the state to take affirmative steps for their inclusion and advancement.

While Articles 15(4) and 16(4) provide specific constitutional backing for reservations for certain groups, affirmative action for other disadvantaged groups, including persons with disabilities, women, etc., is typically rooted in the general principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16(1). Specific laws, like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandate these reservations, drawing their constitutional validity from these general equality provisions.