Passage Based Questions for Constitutional Law - 1 | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions:

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing the right to privacy, as established in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Privacy includes control over personal data, bodily autonomy, and decisional freedom. Restrictions on privacy must be imposed by a law that is just, fair, and reasonable, passing the proportionality test: a legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity, and balance between rights and state interests. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), regulates data processing but allows government exemptions for security, raising concerns in 2024–2025 about unchecked surveillance. In Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that privacy violations, like unauthorized data collection, must be challenged under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts). Recent 2024 cases highlighted breaches in Aadhaar data, prompting calls for stricter safeguards. Laws lacking transparency or necessity may be struck down as unconstitutional. The state must justify data collection with clear protocols to prevent overreach, especially when private entities are involved. Citizens’ right to privacy remains paramount unless public interest demonstrably outweighs it.

Scenario: A state law mandates telecom companies to store citizens’ call records and share them with a government database for “national security” without user consent or judicial oversight. Anil, a citizen, challenges the law, arguing it violates his right to privacy under Article 21.

Q1: Anil discovers that a state-owned telecom company shares his call records with a government agency under a new law citing “public safety” without his consent or a court order. He files a petition claiming a violation of his fundamental rights. Which fundamental right is Anil most likely invoking in this case?

(A) Right to Equality under Article 14
(B) Right to Property under Article 300A
(C) Right to Freedom of Expression under Article 19
​(D) Right to Privacy under Article 21

View Answer  

Answer: (D) Right to Privacy under Article 21
Explanation: The passage establishes that privacy, including control over personal data, is protected under Article 21 (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case). Unauthorized data sharing violates this right.

• (A) Equality is unrelated to data privacy.

• (C) Expression is not directly implicated.

• (B) Property rights are irrelevant here.

Q2: A state government passes a law requiring private companies to collect citizens’ location data for environmental monitoring to meet India’s Paris Agreement commitments. Priya challenges this law, arguing it infringes her rights under Article 21. Under which constitutional provision can Priya file her petition to challenge this law?
(A) Article 14 for violation of equality
(B) Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights
(C) Article 19 for violation of freedom of movement
(D) Article 226 for violation of state policy

View Answer  

Answer: (B) Article 32
Explanation: The passage (Kaushal Kishor case) states that privacy violations can be challenged under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts). Since this is a fundamental right issue (Article 21), Article 32 is appropriate for direct Supreme Court access.

• (A) Equality is not the primary issue.

• (C) Movement is not directly affected.

• (D) Article 226 is secondary to Article 32 for fundamental rights.

Q3: A new state law mandates that industries share air quality data from their premises with a government database to comply with environmental obligations under Article 48-A. A company challenges this law, claiming it violates privacy by exposing trade secrets. What is the most likely ground for the company’s challenge?
(A) The law lacks a just, fair, and reasonable procedure
(B) The law fulfills the state’s duty under Article 48-A
(C) The law restricts the company’s freedom to conduct business
(D) The law violates the company’s right to equality

View Answer  

Answer: (A) The law lacks a just, fair, and reasonable procedure
Explanation: The passage emphasizes that restrictions on privacy (Article 21) must pass the proportionality test (Puttaswamy). Without clear protocols or necessity, the law may be unconstitutional.

• (B) Article 48-A supports the state, not the challenge.

• (C) Business freedom (Article 19(1)(g)) is secondary.

• (D) Equality is not the primary issue.

Q4: Suppose the government amends the law from Question 3 to include judicial oversight for data collection and limits it to non-sensitive environmental data. Would the company’s challenge still succeed?
(A) Yes, as any data collection violates Article 21
(B) Yes, unless the company explicitly consents to data sharing
(C) No, if the amended law meets the proportionality test
(D) No, as environmental obligations override privacy rights

View Answer  

Answer: (C) No, if the amended law meets the proportionality test
Explanation: The passage notes that a law with judicial oversight and necessity (proportionality) can justify restrictions on privacy (Puttaswamy). If the amended law is proportionate, the challenge may fail.

• (A) Data collection isn’t inherently unconstitutional.

• (B) Consent isn’t mandatory for public interest.

• (D) Environmental obligations don’t automatically override rights.

Q5: An environmental activist, Ria, challenges a state policy that collects citizens’ travel data to monitor carbon footprints without security safeguards, claiming it violates both privacy and environmental duties. Which of the following would most strengthen Ria’s challenge?
(A) Evidence that the policy fails to secure the collected data
(B) Proof that the policy aligns with India’s Paris Agreement goals
(C) Data showing the policy effectively reduces carbon emissions
(D) Compliance with the DPDP Act’s government exemptions

View Answer  

Answer: (A) Evidence that the policy fails to secure the collected data
Explanation: The passage highlights that insecure data storage indicates a lack of proportionality, violating Article 21. This strengthens Ria’s privacy claim. Additionally, the environmental passage emphasizes duties under Article 48-A and 51-A(g), but insecure data collection undermines these goals.

• (B) and (C) support the policy’s legitimacy.

• (D) DPDP compliance weakens Ria’s case.