Fundamental Rights

41. Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to m

Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice?

Article 19
Article 21
Article 25
Article 29
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2019
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is Article 21.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India has, through various judgments, interpreted the right to life and personal liberty expansively to include a wide range of rights necessary for a person’s dignified existence, including the right to privacy and the right to choose one’s partner or spouse. Landmark cases like *Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and Others* (2018) have unequivocally upheld the right of an adult to marry a person of their choice as an integral part of Article 21.

Subscribe on YouTube

Article 19 guarantees various freedoms, such as freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. While related to personal autonomy, it doesn’t specifically safeguard the right to marry.
Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. It is relevant in cases where religious conversion is involved in a marriage choice, but the fundamental right to choose the partner itself is rooted in personal liberty under Article 21.
Article 29 deals with the protection of interests of minorities. It is not related to the right to marry one’s choice.

The right to marry is considered a crucial aspect of personal autonomy and is protected under the broader umbrella of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and public order.

Join Our Telegram Channel

42. Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life an

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 correctly and appropriately imply the above statement ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution
Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV
Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III
Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court of India, in the K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case (2017), ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution. It held that privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and flows from other fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III correctly and appropriately imply this statement.
The landmark Puttaswamy judgment established Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. The court linked it primarily to Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) but also recognised its connection to other freedoms under Part III.
Article 14 deals with equality before the law. Article 17 deals with the abolition of untouchability. Article 24 deals with the prohibition of child labour. Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are not justiciable fundamental rights. The 42nd and 44th Amendments are significant constitutional amendments but do not directly establish the right to privacy as derived from Article 21; this was a judicial interpretation.

Join Our Telegram Channel

43. Which of the following are envisaged by the Right against Exploitation

Which of the following are envisaged by the Right against Exploitation in the Constitution of India?
1. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
2. Abolition of untouchability
3. Protection of the interests of minorities
4. Prohibition of employment of children in factories and mines
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

Subscribe on YouTube
1, 2 and 4 only
2, 3 and 4 only
1 and 4 only
1, 2, 3 and 4
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C (1 and 4 only).
The Right against Exploitation is enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India.
1. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour: This is explicitly covered under Article 23.
2. Abolition of untouchability: This is covered under Article 17, which falls under the Right to Equality (Articles 14-18), not the Right against Exploitation.
3. Protection of the interests of minorities: This is covered under Articles 29 and 30, which fall under Cultural and Educational Rights, not the Right against Exploitation.
4. Prohibition of employment of children in factories and mines: This is explicitly covered under Article 24, which prohibits the employment of children below 14 years of age in factories, mines, or any other hazardous employment.
Therefore, only statements 1 and 4 are envisaged by the Right against Exploitation.
The Right against Exploitation aims to prevent the exploitation of the weaker sections of society. Article 23 prohibits practices like bonded labour, slavery, and forced labour. Article 24 protects children from dangerous forms of employment.

Join Our Telegram Channel

44. Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Rights are claims of the State against the citizens.
Rights are privileges which are incorporated in the Constitution of a State.
Rights are claims of the citizens against the State.
Rights are privileges of a few citizens against the many.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is C) Rights are claims of the citizens against the State.
– In a modern democratic state, rights are generally understood as legitimate claims or entitlements that individuals hold against the state. These rights impose limitations on the power of the state and create corresponding duties for the state to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights.
– Option A describes duties or obligations of citizens towards the state, not rights.
– Option B is partially true in that fundamental rights are incorporated in the Constitution, but defining rights solely as “privileges” can be misleading and incomplete, as rights are fundamental entitlements, not mere favors, and can exist beyond the constitution (e.g., natural rights).
– Option D is incorrect. Rights are generally universal or apply to specific categories in a non-discriminatory way, not privileges of a few *against* the many. This description aligns more with an aristocratic or unequal system.
– Therefore, the most accurate description of rights among the given options, particularly in the context of constitutional rights, is that they are claims of the citizens against the State.
Constitutional rights, like fundamental rights in India, are legally enforceable claims of citizens against the state. They are intended to protect individual liberty and ensure a just and equitable society by limiting governmental power and obligating the state to uphold certain standards.

Subscribe on YouTube

45. Which of the following statements is/are correct ? 1. Some Rights co

Which of the following statements is/are correct ?

  • 1. Some Rights contained in Part-III of the Constitution of India are enforceable against the State only
  • 2. Some Rights contained in Part-III of the Constitution of India are enforceable in favor of citizens only
  • 3. Some Rights contained in Part-III of the Constitution of India are enforceable against both, the state and individuals

Select the answer using the code given below :

Subscribe on YouTube
1 and 2 only
2 only
1 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is correct: Some rights like those under Articles 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are primarily enforceable against the actions of the State.
Statement 2 is correct: Some rights, such as those under Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30, are available only to citizens and thus enforceable in their favor.
Statement 3 is correct: Some rights, like those against untouchability (Article 17), prohibition of forced labour (Article 23), and prohibition of child labour (Article 24), as well as Article 15(2) regarding access to public places, are enforceable against both the State and private individuals.
Since all three statements are correct, option D is the correct answer.
Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution have varying scopes of enforceability regarding the entities against whom they can be enforced (State, individuals) and the beneficiaries (citizens, persons).
The definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 is broad and includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and the Legislature of each of the States, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Judicial decisions have further expanded this definition.

Join Our Telegram Channel

46. Which among the following deals with Habeas Corpus ?

Which among the following deals with Habeas Corpus ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Ors. (1975)
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976)
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The case *Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla* (1976), popularly known as the “Habeas Corpus case,” dealt directly with the right to file a writ petition for Habeas Corpus during the Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution. In this controversial judgment, a majority of the Supreme Court held that during the Emergency, a person’s right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22, including the right to Habeas Corpus challenging unlawful detention, stood suspended.
The ADM Jabalpur case is the most significant and contentious judgment concerning the writ of Habeas Corpus, specifically its availability during a state of emergency and the suspension of fundamental rights.
The other cases listed deal with different constitutional rights: State of U.P. v. Raj Narain related to election law and the subsequent declaration of Emergency; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the scope of Article 21 and due process; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani related to the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)).

Subscribe on YouTube

47. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberti

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties* v. Union of India 2004 is related to which of the following ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Right to Shelter
Right against Custodial violence
Right to Information
Right to Speedy trial
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2023
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting.
The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.
Other options are related to different important Supreme Court judgments: Right to Shelter (e.g., Olga Tellis v. BMC), Right against Custodial Violence (e.g., D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal), and Right to Speedy Trial (e.g., Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar).

Join Our Telegram Channel

48. Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.

Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case, 1978 is not correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments.
It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19.
A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial.
The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14.
B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14.
C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment.
D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die.
Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer.
– Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21.
– It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
– Procedure under Article 21 must be ‘fair, just, and reasonable’.
– A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.
The Maneka Gandhi case overruled the earlier A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case (1950), which had interpreted Article 21 narrowly, holding that ‘procedure established by law’ meant only the procedure laid down by a statute, without requiring it to be just or reasonable. The Maneka Gandhi case imported the concept of ‘due process of law’ into the Indian Constitution by interpreting ‘procedure established by law’ to mean a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Join Our Telegram Channel

49. Which one of the following fundamental rights has **not** been provide

Which one of the following fundamental rights has **not** been provided to a person?

Subscribe on YouTube
Protection against prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once
To refuse to give his/her sample of handwriting as evidence to support a prosecution against him/her
To act as a witness against himself/herself
Right not to be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment. Article 20(1) deals with ex post facto laws (Option D). Article 20(2) deals with double jeopardy (Option A). Article 20(3) deals with self-incrimination, stating that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This grants the right *not* to be compelled to give incriminating testimony. The Supreme Court has held that providing physical evidence like handwriting samples or fingerprints does not fall under the category of being “compelled to be a witness against himself” because it is not testimonial compulsion. Therefore, a person does not have a fundamental right under Article 20(3) to refuse to give a handwriting sample as evidence.
Option C, “To act as a witness against himself/herself,” describes an action that is not a fundamental right; rather, the right is *not to be compelled* into this action. However, option B is a specific type of refusal, which courts have explicitly ruled is *not* a fundamental right protected by Article 20(3). Hence, the right *to refuse* a handwriting sample is not provided as a fundamental right.
– Article 20 provides protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.
– The right against self-incrimination (Art 20(3)) protects against *testimonial* compulsion.
– Providing handwriting samples is generally considered non-testimonial evidence by courts.
The interpretation of Article 20(3) regarding physical evidence has evolved through case law. The phrase “to be a witness” has been interpreted narrowly to mean giving oral or documentary evidence of a testimonial character. The right to a fair trial (Option C, in a different interpretation) is considered an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, but the phrasing in C is confusing. The right to die is not included in Article 21, as held by the Supreme Court in cases like Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab.

Join Our Telegram Channel

50. Which one of the following statements about ‘personal liberty’ is not

Which one of the following statements about ‘personal liberty’ is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel
State does not have the authority to deprive any person within the territory of India of his/her personal liberty without any rational basis.
Basis of depriving a person of his/her personal liberty must be in accordance with procedures established by law.
Personal liberty can be secured by the judicial writ of Habeas Corpus.
The majority view of the Supreme Court in A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case invented 'due process of law'.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2021
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is D) The majority view of the Supreme Court in A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case invented ‘due process of law’.
This statement is incorrect. In the A. K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case (1950), the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “procedure established by law” in Article 21 narrowly. It held that this phrase meant procedure *enacted* by law, regardless of whether that procedure was fair or just. This interpretation specifically rejected the ‘due process of law’ concept prevalent in the American constitution, which includes elements of both procedural and substantive fairness. The concept of ‘due process’ in the Indian context, particularly its substantive aspect, was later introduced through subsequent landmark judgments, most notably the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978), which held that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Statements A, B, and C are correct regarding personal liberty under Article 21. State power to deprive liberty is limited by law and rational basis (post-Maneka Gandhi). Deprivation must follow procedure established by law (explicit in Article 21). The writ of Habeas Corpus is a crucial tool for safeguarding personal liberty against unlawful detention.

Subscribe on YouTube
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5