Study this in the app →

English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

The Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22)

मराठीत स्पष्टीकरण

Fundamental Rights · Part 2 / 4 · Fact-checked on · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

The six freedoms of Article 19 and their limits, protection in criminal cases (Article 20), the right to life and personal liberty and how courts expanded it (Article 21), the right to education (Article 21A), and safeguards on arrest and preventive detention (Article 22).

Each idea is explained first in Marathi (मराठी), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Marathi and revise it in English.

अनुच्छेद 19 ते 22 मिळून 'स्वातंत्र्याचा हक्क' बनतो. 19 मध्ये प्रत्येक नागरिक ला सहा स्वातंत्र्ये आहेत. 20 गुन्ह्याचा आरोप असलेल्यांचे रक्षण करतो. 21 जीवन आणि व्यक्तिस्वातंत्र्य यांचे रक्षण करतो — न्यायालयांनी यातून अनेक नवे हक्क ओळखले. 21A मुलांना शिक्षणाचा हक्क देतो, 22 अटकेच्या वेळी संरक्षण देतो. सोप्या भाषेत: तुम्ही काय बोलू शकता, कुठे जाऊ शकता, तुम्हाला कधी डांबून ठेवता येईल — हे सर्व हे चार अनुच्छेदच ठरवतात. (→ English: personal liberty · हिन्दी: दैहिक स्वतंत्रता)

In exam EnglishArticles 19 to 22 together form the Right to Freedom, the core of what the Constitution means by liberty. Article 19 lists six freedoms that every citizen enjoys. Article 20 protects people accused of crimes. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and over the years courts have read many other rights into it. Article 21A gives children the right to education, and Article 22 sets out safeguards when someone is arrested or detained. Read these articles as a set: together they decide how far the State can control what a person says, where a person goes, and whether a person can be locked up.

अनुच्छेद 19(1) नागरिकांना सहा स्वातंत्र्ये देतो: (a) बोलणे आणि विचार व्यक्त करणे; (b) शस्त्राशिवाय शांततेने एकत्र येणे; (c) संघटना, संघ, सहकारी संस्था स्थापन करणे; (d) देशभर मुक्त संचार; (e) भारतात कुठेही स्थायिक होणे; (g) कोणताही व्यवसाय, धंदा करणे. सुरुवातीला सात होती; मालमत्ता मिळवण्याचे स्वातंत्र्य (f) 44 व्या घटनादुरुस्तीने (1978) काढले — म्हणूनच यादी (e) वरून थेट (g) वर जाते. (→ English: Amendment · हिन्दी: संशोधन)

In exam EnglishArticle 19(1) guarantees six freedoms to citizens: (a) freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of India; and (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The original Constitution had seven freedoms. Clause (f), the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property, was removed by the 44th Amendment (1978), which is why the list jumps from (e) to (g). These freedoms are for citizens only and protect them against action by the State.

भाषण आणि अभिव्यक्ती स्वातंत्र्य हे सहापैकी सर्वात व्यापक आहे. राज्यघटनेत 'वृत्तपत्र स्वातंत्र्य' असे वेगळे लिहिलेले नाही, पण तेही यातच येते असे न्यायालयांनी सांगितले; माहिती मिळवण्याचा हक्कही. वृत्तपत्र, चित्रपट, सोशल मीडियावरील पोस्ट — कोणत्याही माध्यमाला हे लागू होते. 2015 च्या श्रेया सिंघल प्रकरणात, 'अत्यंत आक्षेपार्ह' किंवा 'त्रासदायक' ऑनलाइन पोस्टसाठी शिक्षा देणारे आयटी कायद्याचे कलम 66A सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने रद्द केले — इतक्या अस्पष्ट शब्दांनी साध्या बोलण्यालाही शिक्षा होऊ शकते; निर्बंध 19(2) मधील कारणांतच असले पाहिजेत. (→ English: freedom of speech and expression · हिन्दी: वाक्-स्वातंत्र्य और अभिव्यक्ति-स्वातंत्र्य)

In exam EnglishThe freedom of speech and expression is the widest of the six. Courts have held that it includes the freedom of the press, though the press is not mentioned separately, and the right to receive information. It covers speech in any medium, from newspapers and films to posts on the internet. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which punished online messages that were 'grossly offensive' or caused 'annoyance'. The Court held that such vague words could punish lawful speech, and that a restriction is valid only if it falls within the grounds listed in Article 19(2).

19(1) मधील प्रत्येक स्वातंत्र्याला मर्यादा आहेत, पण 19(2) ते 19(6) मध्ये सांगितलेल्या कारणांसाठीच, कायद्यानेच वाजवी निर्बंध घालता येतात. भाषण स्वातंत्र्यासाठी आठ कारणे: देशाचे सार्वभौमत्व-अखंडता, राज्याची सुरक्षा, परदेशांशी मैत्रीचे संबंध, सार्वजनिक सुव्यवस्था, सभ्यता-नैतिकता, न्यायालयाचा अवमान, बदनामी, गुन्ह्याला चिथावणी. उदाहरणार्थ, कोणत्याही पक्षावर टीका करण्याचा हक्क आहे, पण दंगल भडकवणाऱ्या भाषणाचा नाही. ही यादी वाढली: 1951 ची पहिली आणि 1963 ची सोळावी दुरुस्ती यांनी नवी कारणे जोडली. निर्बंध 'वाजवी' आहे का, हे न्यायालयेच ठरवतात. (→ English: reasonable restrictions · हिन्दी: युक्तियुक्त निर्बंधन)

In exam EnglishEvery freedom in Article 19(1) can be limited, but only by a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the grounds listed in clauses (2) to (6). For speech, Article 19(2) lists eight grounds: the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. The list grew over time. In Romesh Thappar (1950) the Supreme Court struck down a ban on a journal because 'public order' was not then a ground; the First Amendment (1951) added public order, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence. The 16th Amendment (1963) added the sovereignty and integrity of India. Whether a restriction is 'reasonable' is for the courts to decide: it must be connected to the ground and not go further than necessary.

एकत्र येण्याच्या आणि संघटना स्थापण्याच्या स्वातंत्र्यालाही मर्यादा आहेत. नागरिक फक्त शांततेने, शस्त्राशिवाय एकत्र येऊ शकतात; देशाची अखंडता किंवा सार्वजनिक सुव्यवस्थेसाठी सरकार सभा रोखू शकते — हिंसक होऊ शकणारी गर्दी पोलीस रोखू शकतात ते यामुळेच. 2011 च्या 97 व्या दुरुस्तीने 19(1)(c) मध्ये सहकारी संस्था जोडल्या. संघटना स्थापण्याचा हक्क आहे म्हणून संपाचा मूलभूत हक्क मिळत नाही — सरकारी कर्मचाऱ्यांना असा मूलभूत हक्क नाही असे 2003 मध्ये सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले. हे सर्व वाजवी निर्बंध आहेत. (→ English: reasonable restrictions · हिन्दी: युक्तियुक्त निर्बंधन)

In exam EnglishThe freedoms of assembly and association have their own limits. Citizens may assemble only peaceably and without arms, and the State may restrict assemblies in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order; this is why the authorities can stop a gathering likely to turn violent. The freedom to form associations or unions was widened by the 97th Amendment (2011), which added co-operative societies to Article 19(1)(c). It can be restricted on grounds of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or morality. The freedom to form a union does not carry a fundamental right to strike: in T.K. Rangarajan (2003) the Supreme Court held that government employees have no fundamental right to go on strike.

देशभर फिरण्याच्या आणि कुठेही स्थायिक होण्याच्या स्वातंत्र्यामुळे नागरिकांसाठी भारत हा एकच प्रदेश आहे — मराठी माणूस चेन्नईत, तमिळ माणूस दिल्लीत स्थायिक होऊ शकतो. जनहितासाठी किंवा अनुसूचित जमातींच्या हितरक्षणासाठी यांवर वाजवी निर्बंध घालता येतात — आदिवासी भागात जमीन आणि संस्कृती जपण्यासाठी बाहेरच्यांचा प्रवेश नियंत्रित केला जातो. कोणताही व्यवसाय करता येतो, पण पात्रता ठरवता येते: पदवी नसलेली व्यक्ती डॉक्टर म्हणून व्यवसाय करू शकत नाही. सरकार स्वतः एखादा व्यापार पूर्णपणे चालवू शकते (राष्ट्रीयीकरण). (→ English: reasonable restrictions · हिन्दी: युक्तियुक्त निर्बंधन)

In exam EnglishThe freedoms to move throughout India and to reside and settle anywhere in it make India a single territory for its citizens. They can be restricted in the interests of the general public or to protect the interests of any Scheduled Tribe; this is how entry and settlement can be regulated in tribal areas to protect tribal land and culture. The freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business can be restricted in the interests of the general public. The State can also prescribe professional or technical qualifications, so only a qualified doctor may practise medicine, and the State may itself carry on a trade or industry to the exclusion of citizens, which allows government monopolies and nationalisation.
Article 19: each freedom and the grounds on which it can be restricted
FreedomClauseGrounds for reasonable restrictions
(a) Speech and expression19(2)Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence
(b) Assembly19(3)Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order
(c) Associations, unions, co-operative societies19(4)Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, morality
(d) Movement and (e) residence19(5)Interests of the general public, protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(g) Profession, trade, business19(6)Interests of the general public; professional or technical qualifications; trade or industry carried on by the State

देशात आणीबाणी लागू झाल्यावर आपोआप स्थगित होणारा हक्क फक्त अनुच्छेद 19 आहे. अनुच्छेद 358 नुसार, युद्ध किंवा परकीय आक्रमणामुळे राष्ट्रीय आणीबाणी जाहीर झाली, तर ती असेपर्यंत सरकार 19 मधील स्वातंत्र्यांची पर्वा न करता कायदे करू शकते. पण 1978 च्या 44 व्या दुरुस्तीनंतर, 'सशस्त्र बंडा'मुळे जाहीर झालेल्या आणीबाणीत हे आपोआप होत नाही. इतर हक्कांबद्दल (अनुच्छेद 359) भाग 4 मध्ये. (→ English: Emergency · हिन्दी: आपात)

In exam EnglishArticle 19 is the one right that switches off by itself in a national Emergency. Under Article 358, when a national emergency is proclaimed on the ground of war or external aggression, the State is freed from the limits of Article 19 for as long as the proclamation lasts: it can make laws and take executive action that would otherwise violate these freedoms. After the 44th Amendment (1978), this automatic suspension does not apply to an emergency proclaimed on the ground of armed rebellion, and only laws that state they relate to the emergency are protected. Article 359, which covers the other rights, is explained in Part 4.

अनुच्छेद 20 गुन्ह्याचा आरोप असलेल्या कोणाचेही — नागरिक असो वा परदेशी — तीन प्रकारे रक्षण करतो. 1) पूर्वलक्षी फौजदारी कायदा नाही: आज केलेले कृत्य उद्या नव्या कायद्याने गुन्हा ठरवून शिक्षा देता येत नाही; त्या वेळच्या कायद्यापेक्षा जास्त शिक्षाही देता येत नाही (हे फक्त फौजदारी कायद्यांना; कर कायद्यांना नाही). 2) एकाच गुन्ह्यासाठी दोनदा न्यायालयीन खटला आणि शिक्षा नाही — पण शिक्षेनंतर खातेनिहाय चौकशी करता येते. 3) आरोपीला स्वतःविरुद्ध साक्ष देण्याची सक्ती करता येत नाही; संमतीशिवाय नार्को, पॉलिग्राफ चाचण्या करू नयेत असे 2010 मध्ये सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले. हे मूलभूत हक्क यांचा भाग आहेत. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishArticle 20 protects anyone accused of a crime, citizen or foreigner, in three ways. First, no ex post facto criminal law: a person can be convicted only for breaking a law in force when the act was done, and cannot be given a heavier penalty than that law allowed. This applies to criminal laws only, not to civil or tax laws. Second, no double jeopardy: no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This covers proceedings before a court; a departmental inquiry after a conviction is not barred. Third, no self-incrimination: no person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against himself. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) the Supreme Court held that narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests done without consent violate this protection.

अनुच्छेद 21: कायद्याने प्रस्थापित प्रक्रिया पाळल्याशिवाय कोणाचेही जीवन किंवा वैयक्तिक स्वातंत्र्य हिरावून घेता येत नाही. अमेरिकेतील 'ड्यू प्रोसेस' पद्धतीत कायदाच न्याय्य आहे का हे न्यायालय पाहते; आपल्या घटनाकारांनी त्याऐवजी हा शब्दप्रयोग निवडला. 1950 च्या गोपालन प्रकरणात, कायद्यात कोणतीही प्रक्रिया लिहिली असली तरी पुरे, असे न्यायालयाने संकुचित वाचन केले. 1978 मध्ये मेनका गांधी पासपोर्ट प्रकरणात दिशा बदलली: प्रक्रिया न्याय्य, योग्य आणि वाजवी हवी, मनमानी नको; 14, 19, 21 एकत्र वाचले पाहिजेत. म्हणजे कायदा 'असणे पुरेसे नाही', तो न्याय्यही हवा. (→ English: procedure established by law · हिन्दी: विधि द्वारा स्थापित प्रक्रिया)

In exam EnglishArticle 21 says: no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The phrase was chosen over the American 'due process of law', which lets courts judge whether a law itself is fair. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) the Supreme Court read Article 21 narrowly: any procedure laid down by a valid law was enough, and Articles 19 and 21 were separate. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), a case about the impounding of a passport, the Court changed course. It held that the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive, and that Articles 14, 19 and 21 must be read together. In effect, this brought the substance of due process into Article 21.
How the reading of Article 21 changed
A.K. Gopalan (1950)Maneka Gandhi (1978)
What 'procedure established by law' needsAny procedure laid down by a valid lawA procedure that is just, fair and reasonable
Articles 14, 19 and 21Separate; each read on its ownRead together; a law must satisfy all three
EffectNarrow protection against the legislatureBrought the substance of due process into Article 21

मेनका गांधी निकालानंतर, 'जीवन' म्हणजे फक्त श्वास घेणे नव्हे, सन्मानाने जगणे, असे सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले; अनुच्छेद 21 मध्येच अनेक हक्क ओळखले: गोपनीयतेचा हक्क (पुट्टस्वामी, 2017 — नऊ न्यायाधीश); उपजीविकेचा हक्क (ओल्गा टेलिस, 1985 — मुंबईतील फुटपाथवासी); जलद खटल्याचा हक्क (हुसैनारा खातून, 1979 — वर्षानुवर्षे तुरुंगात खितपत पडलेले कच्चे कैदी); वकील परवडत नसलेल्यांना मोफत कायदेशीर मदत; निवारा, आरोग्य, स्वच्छ पर्यावरण. 2018 च्या कॉमन कॉज प्रकरणात सन्मानाने मरण्याचा हक्क आणि 'लिव्हिंग विल'ही मान्य झाले. म्हणून प्रदूषणाविरुद्धही अनुच्छेद 21 खाली न्यायालयात जाता येते — हे सर्व व्यक्तिस्वातंत्र्य याचा विस्तार आहे. (→ English: personal liberty · हिन्दी: दैहिक स्वतंत्रता)

In exam EnglishSince Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court has read 'life' to mean a life with dignity, not mere animal existence, and has found many rights inside Article 21. These include the right to privacy, declared a fundamental right by a nine-judge bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017); the right to livelihood, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), a case about pavement dwellers facing eviction; the right to a speedy trial, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which exposed undertrials held in jail for years; free legal aid for those who cannot afford a lawyer; and the rights to shelter, health and a clean environment. In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) the Court recognised the right to die with dignity and allowed passive euthanasia and advance directives (living wills).

अनुच्छेद 21A 2002 च्या 86 व्या दुरुस्तीने जोडला: 6 ते 14 वर्षांच्या सर्व मुलांना मोफत आणि सक्तीचे शिक्षण सरकारने द्यावे. यासाठी संसदेने 2009 मध्ये शिक्षण हक्क कायदा केला. त्याच दुरुस्तीने आणखी दोन गोष्टी केल्या: 6 वर्षांखालील मुलांची काळजी आणि शिक्षण यासाठी अनुच्छेद 45 बदलला; 6–14 वर्षांच्या मुलांना शिक्षणाची संधी देणे हे पालकांचे कर्तव्य आहे असे 51A(k) हे नवे मूलभूत कर्तव्ये यांपैकी एक जोडले. म्हणजे एकेकाळी 'ध्येय' असलेले शिक्षण आता न्यायालयात मागता येणारा हक्क आहे. (→ English: Fundamental Duties · हिन्दी: मूल कर्तव्य)

In exam EnglishArticle 21A, added by the 86th Amendment (2002), says the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen, in the manner the State determines by law. Parliament made that law in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The same amendment did two more things: it changed Article 45, a Directive Principle, to ask the State to provide early childhood care and education for children below six, and it added a new duty, Article 51A(k), asking parents and guardians to provide opportunities for education to their children between six and fourteen. So education for this age group moved from a goal of policy into an enforceable right.

अनुच्छेद 22 मध्ये दोन भाग. साध्या अटकेत: अटक का केली ते लवकरात लवकर सांगावे; आवडीच्या वकिलाचा सल्ला घेण्याचा हक्क आहे; प्रवासाचा वेळ वगळून 24 तासांत जवळच्या दंडाधिकाऱ्यासमोर हजर करावे. हे संरक्षण शत्रुराष्ट्राच्या नागरिकांना आणि प्रतिबंधात्मक स्थानबद्धता कायद्याखाली असलेल्यांना लागू नाही. प्रतिबंधात्मक स्थानबद्धता म्हणजे — अजून न घडलेला गुन्हा रोखण्यासाठी आधीच डांबून ठेवणे, शिक्षा नव्हे. तरीही मर्यादा आहेत: उच्च न्यायालयाचे न्यायाधीश होण्याची पात्रता असलेल्यांच्या सल्लागार मंडळाने पुरेसे कारण आहे असे सांगितल्याशिवाय तीन महिन्यांपेक्षा जास्त ठेवता येत नाही; कारणे सांगावी लागतात, आपली बाजू मांडण्याची संधी द्यावी लागते. राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा कायदा (1980) हे उदाहरण. (→ English: preventive detention · हिन्दी: निवारक निरोध)

In exam EnglishArticle 22 deals with arrest and detention in two parts. For an ordinary arrest, the person must be told the grounds of arrest as soon as possible, has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice, and must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time; they cannot be held longer without the magistrate's authority. These safeguards do not apply to an enemy alien or to a person held under a law of preventive detention. Preventive detention means holding someone to stop a possible future offence, not to punish a past one. Even here the Constitution sets limits: no detention beyond three months unless an Advisory Board of persons qualified to be High Court judges reports sufficient cause; the detainee must be told the grounds, except facts the authority considers against the public interest to disclose, and be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Laws such as the National Security Act, 1980 work within these limits.

Exam traps

Recap

Practice questions

Q1. Which one of the following is NOT a ground on which the freedom of speech and expression can be restricted under Article 19(2)?

  1. Contempt of court
  2. Friendly relations with foreign States
  3. Protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
  4. Defamation
Show answer

Answer: C. Protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe

Protecting the interests of Scheduled Tribes is a ground in Article 19(5), for the freedoms of movement and residence. Contempt of court, friendly relations with foreign States and defamation are all grounds in Article 19(2).

Q2. The freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property was removed from Article 19 by which amendment?

  1. First Amendment, 1951
  2. 24th Amendment, 1971
  3. 42nd Amendment, 1976
  4. 44th Amendment, 1978
Show answer

Answer: D. 44th Amendment, 1978

The 44th Amendment (1978) deleted Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, making property a legal right under Article 300A. The 1st Amendment added restrictions and Article 31B, the 24th dealt with amending power, and the 42nd added Fundamental Duties.

Q3. Consider the following statements about Article 20:
1. The protection against ex post facto laws applies to tax laws as well as criminal laws.
2. The bar on double jeopardy prevents a departmental inquiry after a criminal conviction for the same act.
3. A person accused of an offence cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 3 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: A. 3 only

Only statement 3 is correct (Article 20(3)). Statement 1 is wrong: Article 20(1) covers criminal laws only. Statement 2 is wrong: double jeopardy applies to prosecution and punishment by a court, not departmental proceedings.

Q4. What did the Supreme Court hold in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) about Article 21?

  1. Any procedure laid down by a validly enacted law is sufficient
  2. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, and Articles 14, 19 and 21 are to be read together
  3. Article 21 protects citizens only
  4. Article 21 can be suspended during any emergency
Show answer

Answer: B. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, and Articles 14, 19 and 21 are to be read together

Maneka Gandhi required a just, fair and reasonable procedure and linked Articles 14, 19 and 21. Option 1 was the narrow view of A.K. Gopalan (1950). Article 21 protects every person, and after the 44th Amendment it cannot be suspended during an emergency.

Q5. Consider the following pairs of rights and the cases in which the Supreme Court recognised them under Article 21:
1. Right to privacy — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
2. Right to livelihood — Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
3. Right to a speedy trial — A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

  1. 1 only
  2. 1 and 2 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 2 only

Pairs 1 and 2 are correct. Pair 3 is wrong: the right to a speedy trial came from Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979); A.K. Gopalan (1950) took the narrow view of Article 21.

Q6. With reference to the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002), consider the following statements:
1. It inserted Article 21A, making education for children aged 6 to 14 a Fundamental Right.
2. It made education from birth to 14 years a Fundamental Right.
3. It added a Fundamental Duty relating to education.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Statements 1 and 3 are correct: Article 21A covers ages 6 to 14, and Article 51A(k) was added. Statement 2 is wrong: for children below six, the amendment changed Article 45, a Directive Principle, which is not a Fundamental Right.

Q7. The safeguards in Article 22(1) and 22(2), such as being produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, are NOT available to which of the following?

  1. Foreign nationals of friendly countries
  2. Enemy aliens and persons held under a preventive detention law
  3. Persons arrested for non-bailable offences
  4. Members of the armed forces in peacetime
Show answer

Answer: B. Enemy aliens and persons held under a preventive detention law

Article 22(3) excludes enemy aliens and persons arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention. Foreigners of friendly countries and people arrested for serious offences still get these safeguards; Article 22 does not exclude the armed forces as such.

Q8. Consider the following statements about Article 358:
1. It suspends the freedoms of Article 19 automatically when a national emergency is proclaimed on the ground of war or external aggression.
2. It also applies when a national emergency is proclaimed on the ground of armed rebellion.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: since the 44th Amendment (1978), Article 358 applies only to an emergency on the ground of war or external aggression, not armed rebellion.

← Part 1All partsNext: Part 3 →

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources