Books
Fundamental Rights and DPSP in news have been shaped by recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These rulings focus on issues like personality rights, euthanasia, digital access, and justice. They also cover critical topics such as preventive detention, essential religious practices, sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes, and custodial deaths, influencing India's legal landscape.
Supreme Court judgments and current events play a pivotal role in shaping the interpretation and application of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in India. These rulings reflect the evolving nature of our Constitution, adapting it to address contemporary issues such as digital rights, euthanasia, and social justice.
Understanding these interpretations is essential for grasping how the Constitution governs civil liberties, safeguards justice, and influences governance in a rapidly changing society. The dynamic relationship between judicial decisions and constitutional principles continues to impact the legal landscape and the protection of individual rights.
The Delhi High Court recently emphasized the need to protect the personality and publicity rights of individuals.
Personality Rights refer to an individual’s right to control the commercial and non-commercial use of their attributes such as name, image, voice, likeness, expressions, signature, and distinctive style. These rights ensure control over personal traits used by others for gain without consent.
The foundational basis for personality rights lies in the Right to Autonomy and Right to Dignity, both integral parts of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This line is very important.
Right to Privacy protects an individual’s information from being publicly disclosed without consent. The K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017) recognized privacy as part of Article 21. Creating deepfakes is considered a breach of the Right to Privacy, invoking Article 21.
Right to Publicity refers to an individual’s right to control the commercial use of their identity, especially for public figures.
Protection for personality rights is found in the Copyrights Act, 1957, and the Trademark Act, 1999. Section 27 of the Trademark Act includes a “passing off” provision, preventing misleading use of another’s identity for commercial exploitation.
The Supreme Court of India has recognized the Right to Die with Dignity under Article 21, allowing for passive euthanasia in specific circumstances.
Euthanasia is a process where an individual, enduring severe and incurable suffering with no scope of recovery, seeks to end their life to escape prolonged pain.
Check below for the euthanasia details about both active and passive:
| Feature | Active Euthanasia | Passive Euthanasia
|
| Method | Direct intervention (e.g., lethal injection) to end life. | Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment or support. |
| Legality in India | Not permitted. | Permitted for terminally ill patients in specific cases. |
Passive euthanasia is permitted only for terminally ill patients whose recovery is impossible and whose life-sustaining treatment would only prolong suffering.
This five-judge bench formally allowed passive euthanasia and endorsed “Living Wills” as part of the Right to Die with Dignity under Article 21. A Living Will outlines an individual’s wish for a dignified death should they reach an irreversible medical condition.
The Supreme Court has emphasized safeguarding constitutional rights of individuals arrested or detained.
Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” Arrest or detention must strictly follow legal procedures; otherwise, it is unconstitutional.
Article 22(1) provides specific rights to an arrested person:
Detention and arrest are distinct legal concepts. Detention refers to holding someone temporarily, often without formal charges, while arrest involves taking someone into custody with the intention of bringing charges. Check below for more details on these legal differences.
| Feature | Detention | Arrest
|
| Purpose | Temporary custody based on suspicion, to prevent further problems. | Formal custody following legal procedure, often indicating a scope for punishment. |
| Basis | Suspicion (e.g., Preventive Detention). | Involvement in a crime or specific legal violation. |
In Amar Jain vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared inclusive digital access to be an integral part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Right to Digital Access means every individual’s right to utilize digital technologies to access information and governmental facilities. This right is rooted in Article 21, as essential services increasingly rely on digital platforms, promoting substantive equality.
This right is essential for digital inclusion, especially for persons with disabilities. In Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that internet access is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Trade and Profession).
The Supreme Court has declared the Right to Safe and Motorable Roads as a part of Article 21.
Safe and motorable roads are essential for protecting human dignity, ensuring safety, and facilitating mobility, linking to Article 21. The state has an obligation to maintain road infrastructure, which also supports Article 19(1)(d) (Freedom of Movement). The case of Umripur Pratapgarh Tollway Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. affirmed this.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the Right to Access Justice, while fundamental, is not absolute.
Access to justice involves access to judicial proceedings, fair trials, proper legal representation, and the promotion of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), reasoning that access to justice, a part of Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21, is not absolute. (Memory Tip: Think of SLP as the Supreme Court’s “wild card” to hear urgent or significant cases from any court (except military tribunals), even if normal appeal routes aren’t exhausted.)
The Constitution of India ensures access to justice through provisions like Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, Article 32, allowing petitions for Fundamental Rights, and Article 39A, which mandates free legal aid for marginalized individuals.
| Constitutional Provision | Aspect of Justice Promoted | Nature
|
| Preamble | Promotes Socio-economic and Political Justice. | Guiding principle. |
| Article 14 | Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws. | Ensures non-discrimination in the legal system. |
| Article 21 | Right to Life and Personal Liberty (includes Right to Access Justice). | Core fundamental right for dignified existence. |
| Article 32 | Constitutional Remedies (direct access to Supreme Court for FR enforcement). | Allows citizens to directly approach SC for violation of FRs. |
| Article 39A (DPSP) | Free Legal Aid for economically weaker sections. | State responsibility to ensure justice is not denied due to poverty. |
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that a proper footpath, especially for individuals with disabilities, is a fundamental right under Article 21. All states and Union Territories must implement clear guidelines for maintaining proper, accessible, and unobstructed footpaths.
The Supreme Court emphasizes that preventive detention should never replace criminal prosecution. It must be used only in the “rarest of rare cases” and is a violation of Due Process of Law if arbitrary. Preventive detention involves detaining an individual without trial, solely based on suspicion that they might disrupt public order. Article 22(3)(b) permits this only if the individual poses a threat to public order or state security. Detention beyond three months requires review by an Advisory Board composed of High Court Judges or those qualified to be so.
Both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws regarding preventive detention. Parliament has exclusive authority for National Security, Defence, or Foreign Affairs. An example is the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
The Supreme Court ensures that preventive detention is not misused. In cases like Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under NSA, the judiciary reviews the basis for arrest, ensuring it’s not arbitrary or malicious.
The NSA allows detention for up to 12 months based on perceived threats to public order or national security, subject to timely review and judicial oversight.
The Bombay High Court stated that loudspeakers or sound systems are not an essential part of worship for any religion. This concept, originating from the Shirur Mutt Case (1954), distinguishes integral religious activities as essential from non-integral ones as non-essential. The State cannot regulate essential practices but can regulate non-essential ones if they affect public order or others’ fundamental rights.
Courts examine if a practice is mentioned in religious texts, is historically integral, and is preferred by most followers. For example, the Sabarimala Case (2018) ruled against entry restrictions for women, and the Ayodhya Case stated that mosques are not essential for prayer in Islam.
Telangana became the first state to implement sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes (SC), also known as “reservation within reservation.” The rationale is to ensure equitable distribution of benefits, as some SC communities disproportionately gain from reservations.
Based on recommendations from the Justice Shamsher Akhtar Commission, SCs were divided into groups for re-distribution of the total SC reservation. This aims to uplift the most backward within the SC category, similar to the “creamy layer” concept for OBC reservations. Article 341(1) empowers the President of India to specify Scheduled Castes.
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of Urdu, ruling that it is part of the Indian Indo-Aryan language family and not linked to a specific religious identity. This came after a case challenging its use on municipal signages.
Urdu is one of the 22 recognized Scheduled Languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and is recognized as a Second Official Language in several states like Telangana, reflecting India’s linguistic diversity.
Custodial deaths, highlighted by a recent incident in Tamil Nadu, underscore police torture and impunity during detention.
Custodial Torture is physical or psychological pressure to extract information, a gross violation of human rights. Custodial Death is the death of an individual in police or judicial custody due to torture or negligence. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 120, penalizes officials for forcefully extracting confessions, while the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 22, states that coerced confessions in police custody are not admissible as evidence.
Police custody involves detention by law enforcement for investigation, typically up to 15 days, while judicial custody refers to detention under a court’s order, often in a jail, after the police investigation is complete. Check below for further details.
| Feature | Police Custody | Judicial Custody
|
| Definition | Detention by police for investigation, typically at a police station. | Detention in jail under a magistrate’s order during a court case. |
| Authority | Police have full authority. | Jail authorities under judiciary supervision. |
| Max Duration | Generally, max 15 days (CrPC Section 167), with magistrate’s approval. | Initially, up to 14 days; further extensions depend on the case and trial. |
| Legal Safeguards | Magistrate’s approval essential if detention exceeds 24 hours. Habeas Corpus applies. | Legal detention under judicial oversight, with provisions to protect individual rights. |
The Delhi High Court stated that applications for furlough or parole must be considered regardless of pending Supreme Court cases.
| Feature | Furlough | Parole
|
| Basis | Breaks jail monotony for prisoners serving long sentences; focuses on psychological well-being. | Granted for specific, critical exigencies (e.g., family illness/death, court appearance); focuses on urgent personal needs. |
| Nature | A privilege for eligible prisoners with good behavior. | Not a right, but rejection can be challenged in the High Court due to critical conditions. |
Furlough is authorized by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and requires no specific justification from the prisoner if public interest or security is not threatened.
The Supreme Court recently stated that maternity leaves are part of women’s reproductive rights and an integral part of maternity benefits.
Maternity leave is a paid leave for pregnant employees. Article 42 mandates humane working conditions and provisions for maternity relief.
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (amended 2017) provides the legal framework, applicable to organizations with 10 or more employees. Key provisions include 26 weeks of leave for the first two children and mandatory crèche facilities for establishments with 50 or more employees. These measures provide job protection, financial support, and reinstatement rights, ensuring security and safety for women.
Article 32 provides for Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction for Fundamental Rights violations, and Article 226 for High Courts’ writ jurisdiction, which is broader.
Purpose and Applicability
Habeas Corpus, meaning “To have the body of”, prevents arbitrary detention by public authorities and private entities.
It mandates that an arrested individual be produced before a magistrate as soon as possible, typically within 24 hours. The magistrate then determines the lawfulness of the detention, making it crucial for personal liberty.
Check Out UPSC CSE Books
Visit PW Store
Personality Rights give individuals control over the commercial and non-commercial use of their attributes like name and image. They are rooted in Article 21 and protected by laws like the Copyrights Act and Trademark Act, though no explicit dedicated law exists.
Active euthanasia, involving direct intervention to end life, is not permitted in India. Passive euthanasia, which is the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill patients with no chance of recovery, is permitted under specific conditions, as recognized in the Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) case.
The Supreme Court declared inclusive digital access an integral part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) because access to essential services, governance, and information increasingly relies on digital platforms, promoting substantive equality.
The Supreme Court strongly urges that preventive detention be used only in the "rarest of rare cases," emphasizing that it should not replace criminal prosecution. It warns against its misuse, as it can be a violation of Due Process of Law if arbitrary.
Introduced in the Shirur Mutt Case (1954), this doctrine distinguishes integral (essential) religious practices from non-integral (non-essential) ones. The State cannot regulate essential practices but can regulate non-essential ones if they affect public order or others' fundamental rights.
Connect with our experts to get free counselling & start preparing
Books
Udaan (Prelims Wallah)
Prahaar (Mains Wallah)
Q&A Bank (Prelims & Mains)
Budget & Economic Survey
NCERT Wallah
Marks Booster
हिंदी माध्यम विशेष शृंखला
Current Affairs
Monthly Current Wallah
Subject Wise Current Affairs
Editorial Analysis
Editorial PDFs
News of The Day
Download Our App
Download Our App
<div class="new-fform">
</div>
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
