Test: Fundamental Rights - 2 - CLAT PG MCQ

The Supreme Court ruled that government attempts to regulate the number of pages in a newspaper based on its price and other aspects violated the freedom of the press. This decision emphasized that such regulations unconstitutionally restricted free speech and expression.

Article 20(1) allows individuals to benefit from ex post facto laws that reduce their punishment for past offenses. This principle of beneficial construction means that if a new law is enacted that is more lenient than the previous law, the accused can benefit from this change, even if the law was enacted after the offense was committed. This is an important aspect of criminal law that emphasizes reform and rehabilitation over punitive measures. An interesting case illustrating this is Ratan Lal v State of Punjab, where the Probation of Offenders Act was applied to reduce the punishment of a young offender.

One of the key safeguards against the misuse of preventive detention is that if detention is to extend beyond three months, it must be reviewed by an Advisory Board. This requirement is intended to ensure that there is at least a level of oversight and that the reasons for continued detention are evaluated by qualified individuals, although criticism remains regarding the effectiveness of such oversight.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that any law affecting personal liberty must comply with the principles of equality and freedom guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19. This landmark decision expanded the interpretation of personal liberty beyond mere physical freedom to include broader human rights considerations.

Article 20(3) extends the protection against self-incrimination to the accused at all stages of the legal process, including during police investigations. This means that the accused cannot be forced to answer questions or provide evidence that could incriminate them, preserving their right to remain silent. This is crucial in ensuring that confessions or admissions obtained under duress or coercion are not admissible in court. An interesting fact is that this protection is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice system and is recognized in many democratic nations, reflecting a commitment to fair trial standards.

Article 20 ensures that no one can be convicted of an offense unless there was a law in force at the time the alleged crime was committed. This provision protects individuals from ex post facto laws, which would otherwise allow for punishment under laws enacted after the alleged crime occurred, thus upholding the principle of legality in criminal justice.

A significant reform suggested is the establishment of a clear judicial review process for individuals detained under preventive detention laws. This would ensure that detainees have the opportunity to challenge their detention in a court of law, thereby enhancing accountability and protecting fundamental rights, aligning India’s practices with international human rights standards.

Article 20(1) explicitly prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws, meaning it does not allow laws that retroactively declare acts that were innocent at the time of occurrence as crimes. This principle ensures that individuals cannot be punished for actions that were not illegal when they were performed, thus upholding the rule of law and protecting individuals from arbitrary legislation. An interesting fact is that this principle is common in many democratic constitutions around the world, reflecting a universal value of justice.

Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees specific freedoms, including speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, and residence. However, the right to own property is not included in this article; it is addressed separately under Article 300A, which pertains to the protection of property rights.

The right to a free and fair trial underscores the protection against arbitrary actions, ensuring that the accused is treated with fairness and humanity. This principle reflects a commitment to natural justice, where the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby reinforcing the idea that it is preferable to let potentially guilty individuals go free than to convict an innocent person.

The Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India recognized the right to food as a fundamental right under Article 21. The ruling emphasized that the state has an obligation to provide food to those unable to afford it, particularly for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and disabled, thus reinforcing the importance of sustenance as essential to living with dignity.

Judicial interpretation has expanded the concept of 'personal liberty' to encompass a wide range of rights, beyond just the physical aspect. The Supreme Court has ruled that personal liberty includes rights to dignity, education, and privacy, reflecting a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to live freely and with dignity in society.

The case of Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) established the crucial right of the accused to remain silent during interrogation. This ruling reinforced the principle that no one can be coerced into self-incrimination, thereby protecting individual rights against forced confessions and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice process.

The main objective of preventive detention laws is to prevent individuals from committing actions that may be harmful to the state or public order. These laws are designed to act preemptively, allowing authorities to detain individuals based on perceived threats rather than after the commission of a crime, which is a controversial aspect of their implementation.

The Supreme Court in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P affirmed that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21, which includes not just a roof over one's head but also access to basic necessities such as food, water, and a decent environment. This ruling emphasizes that living with dignity requires more than mere physical shelter; it encompasses a standard of living that supports a decent quality of life.

The right to silence is recognized as an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the freedom not to listen and not to be compelled to hear, underscoring that individuals cannot be forced to engage with content they do not wish to.

Article 19(2) specifies grounds for imposing restrictions on freedom of speech, such as national security, public order, and relations with foreign states. However, economic interests of private companies are not listed among these grounds, highlighting the focus on broader societal and national interests.

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution specifically protects individuals accused of offenses from being compelled to testify against themselves. This protection is grounded in the principle that individuals should not be forced to provide evidence that could incriminate them, thereby upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This right is crucial in preventing coercive practices during interrogations, which have historically led to false confessions. An interesting fact is that this protection aligns with international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The principle of res judicata, which translates to "the thing has already been decided," prevents the re-examination of issues that have been conclusively settled in a previous court decision. In the context of Article 20(2), this means that if a defendant has been acquitted or convicted of an offense, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. This principle ensures finality in legal proceedings and protects defendants from the continual threat of litigation over the same matter. An interesting note is that while res judicata applies primarily to civil cases, its concepts can influence criminal law, particularly in the context of issue estoppel.

The Indian legal framework under Article 20(2) includes the principle of "autrefois convict," which protects against retrial after a conviction. However, it does not extend the same protection to individuals who have been acquitted, meaning they can be tried again for the same offense if acquitted in a previous trial. This contrasts with the broader protections offered in other legal systems, such as the United States, where both aspects are typically covered under double jeopardy protections.

Article 19(1)(g) guarantees Indian citizens the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This right is fundamental to economic freedom and allows individuals to engage in various economic activities, subject to reasonable restrictions.

A significant criticism of preventive detention laws in India is that they allow for the detention of individuals without trial. This means that a person can be held for an extended period without being formally charged with a crime, which raises concerns about the potential for abuse and the violation of fundamental rights, such as personal liberty and due process.

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, the Supreme Court interpreted the term "life" in Article 21 to include the right to privacy. The Court ruled that unauthorized police visits to an individual's home constituted a violation of personal liberty, thereby recognizing privacy as a fundamental aspect of a person's life.

Article 20(2) serves to protect individuals from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense, which reflects the legal maxim "nemo debet bis vexari." This protection ensures fairness in the legal process and prevents the state from subjecting individuals to multiple punishments for the same act, thus safeguarding against governmental abuse of power. An additional point of interest is that while this principle is recognized in many legal systems, its application can vary significantly between jurisdictions.

Hate speech that incites violence is considered a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) as it threatens public order and safety. The law aims to balance individual freedoms with the necessity of maintaining societal peace and security, allowing for restrictions where speech poses a clear threat to others.